This post contains a collection of links to specific articles on http://www.answersingenesis.org/ that give an alternative view to some of the scientific "evidences" for evolution that Bill Nye brought up during the recent debate. (you can watch the debate for a limited time at http://debatelive.org/ )
These articles just scratch the surface of Creation science research. But hopefully they will cause skeptics to look deeper, and find more technical papers that Creation scientists have written. Evolutionists may believe that Creationists use the Bible as a science textbook in and of itself and ignore the evidence in the natural world, but on the contrary, Creationists USE the science of the natural created world to validate their faith in the historical record of the Bible.
These articles are mainly written in layman's terms. But the fact that many prominent PhD's have been the ones that conducted this research should show you that Ken Ham doesn't "make this stuff up" like Bill Nye may have led you to believe.
Who am I to try to defend Young Earth Creationism? No one. Simply a Christian. Simply a concerned mom who does not want my son to grow up blindly swallowing everything he is taught about evolution. But the "smarter-than-me" people Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum have done great work in Biblical Apologetics, and I hope that they receive more visitors to their website and facilities as a result of the publicity through this high-profile debate. I hope that more people learn to think for themselves and embrace logic and reason (which I believe is found in Creationism) rather than a force-fed religion (evolution).
Thanks for checking these out. While you are on the website, please check out some of the other articles about answers to common questions.
- Concerning fossil strata:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n1/fossil
http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
[TJ article by John Woodmorappe, published on creationist True Origins site, refuting claims by the renegade former young-earth creationist (now theistic evolutionist), Glenn Morton]
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n1/fossils
If you are interested in the topic of fossils, check out more AIG articles here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/fossils
- Concerning limestone strata (rock in KY took millions of years to form):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n1/rapid-rock-formation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n3/limestone
http://icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2603
[ICR Impact article]
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v20/n2/bell-ieve-it
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v19/n3/clock-in-the-rock
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n1/pliers
If you are interested in the topic of geology, check out more AIG articles here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/geology
- Concerning ice core sampling:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/fit/ice-cores-thousands-years
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n3/greenland
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355
[Semi-Technical—ICR Impact 226 1992]
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v18/n2/icecore
If you are interested in the topic of the Ice Age, check out more AIG articles here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/ice-age
- Concerning ancient trees:
[ICR Impact]
- Concerning tree survival during the Flood:
[ICR Impact]
- Concerning Grand Canyon rock strata:
[Semi-Technical, ICR Impact]
If you are interested in the topic of flood geology, check out more AIG articles here:
- Concerning skulls in human evolutionary chain:
If you are interested in the topic of apemen and missing links, check out more AIG articles here:
- Concerning missing kangaroo fossils on the journey from the Middle East to Australia:
- Concerning the development of modern species:
If you are interested in the topics of speciation and baraminology, check out more AIG articles here:
- Concerning the Lake Missoula floods and giant boulders:
- Concerning the feasibility of the building of the ark and Noah's skills:
If you are interested in the topics of Noah's ark and pre-flood human intelligence, check out more AIG articles here:
- Concerning the feasibility of caring for the animals on the ark:
(side note: when Bill Nye pointed out the picture of the National Zoo from space, he implied that all scientific advances are the result of evolutionary thinking. He gave the example of an understanding of gravity. Another example of evolutionists hijacking the work of Creation scientists. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v12/n3/sir-isaac-newton)
- Concerning the missing link Tiktallik:
- Concerning the capability of the Creation model to make predictions:
- Concerning the fact that natural laws we observe today must have always acted in this way:
- Concerning cosmic background radiation:
If you are interested in the topics of COBE or CBR, search AIG's website for more articles:
- Concerning rubidium and strontium dating:
If you are interested in the topic of radiometric dating, check out more AIG articles here:
- Concerning stellar distance:
If you are interested in the topic of astronomy, check out more AIG articles here:
Note: All of the above "evidences" were taken from Bill Nye's opening 30 minute argument, and not from his later remarks. Please re-watch the debate and search for the Creationist "answer" to the rest of his arguments.
I will say this, though... later in the debate Bill Nye admitted that he is not a theologian, and this is evident in his fallible beliefs about the textual transmission of the Bible. But even most CHRISTIANS don't correctly understand Bibliology and hermeneutics, so I feel I need to link to at least one more set of articles for further study on English Biblical translation and "normal" literal interpretation. Though I'm sure he has a good grasp on these topics, I don't feel that in this debate Ken Ham quite adequately presented the true Biblicist view on how we read and interpret the Bible. So here are the pages on AIG's website to search out these topics:
I will say this, though... later in the debate Bill Nye admitted that he is not a theologian, and this is evident in his fallible beliefs about the textual transmission of the Bible. But even most CHRISTIANS don't correctly understand Bibliology and hermeneutics, so I feel I need to link to at least one more set of articles for further study on English Biblical translation and "normal" literal interpretation. Though I'm sure he has a good grasp on these topics, I don't feel that in this debate Ken Ham quite adequately presented the true Biblicist view on how we read and interpret the Bible. So here are the pages on AIG's website to search out these topics:
Ok, this post is already very long, so I will summarize now.
Obviously I don't expect everyone who actually reads any of these articles to automatically take them as truth. (I would hope you wouldn't!) But I hope this opens minds to consider accepting that Creation Science is AT LEAST as reasonable as the theories of the Big Bang and evolution.
Hypothetical situation: If a Christian came along and told the world that the universe began with an explosion of nothing, would the world readily accept that theory and try to find evidence to prove it, no matter how extraordinary it sounds? (Um, probably, yes. Because, with the exception of the person's religious beliefs, that IS what happened in the early 1900s.)
My point is... the Big Bang theory is a BELIEF. Evolutionists such as Bill Nye admit that they DON'T understand how it happened. Creationism is a BELIEF. Christians admit that they DON'T understand how God works (though we CAN understand His character through His Word... and unlike the Big Bang theory, we have an historical document telling us how it happened.)
So, I challenge you to look at the scientific evidence from both perspectives before you decide what you will accept. Next time you read an interpretive sign at a museum or national park; next time you flip through a science textbook; next time you watch NOVA on PBS or listen to a segment on NPR; think critically about what is being presented as fact.
When I remarked earlier that evolution is a "force-fed religion", I was alluding to the fact that any dispute of these almost universally accepted and taught beliefs is usually met with censorship and opposition in our country's schools and other public venues today.
When I remarked earlier that evolution is a "force-fed religion", I was alluding to the fact that any dispute of these almost universally accepted and taught beliefs is usually met with censorship and opposition in our country's schools and other public venues today.
This post is not meant to be evangelistic. I realize that in the grand scheme of things, what matters is not what you believe about the age of the earth but what you do with Christ. But your decision for salvation is not up to me; that's the conviction of the Holy Spirit. It is just my job to proclaim the message. And establishing the truth of God's Word provides the foundation to that mission so that is all I hoped to accomplish in this post.
Thanks again for reading.
