ken ham

Answering Buzzfeed’s 22 Questions for Creationists

 

Following the big creation/evolution debate by Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Buzzfeed published a pictorial that went viral of creationists asking questions of evolutionists.  Some of the questions were thought-worthy, some were cringe-worthy.  Now the same has been replicated with the opposite: evolutionists asking questions of creationists.  See the display here:  http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/messages-for-creationists-from-people-who-believe-in-evoluti.  Again, some were thought-worthy and some were cringe-worthy.  I will not replicate all the pictures out of respect for the photographer and publisher, BUT nevertheless, let’s go through them!

 ___________

 

If my great-great-grandpa rode bareback on a TRex – why can’t I?

After man chose to disobey God in the garden of Eden, the world changed.  Evil and suffering permeated God’s good creation.  Years, decades, centuries past and evil accumulated.   With this came all kinds of things God never intended us to face including carnivory, bloodshed, etc.  So, is it possible that early humans could have ridden dinosaurs?  Yes, but I apologize to inform you that at this time they all seem to have gone extinct.

 

How do you explain the fossil record and the established science of geology?

If a worldwide flood decimated this planet in the times of Noah, we would expect to find (predict) billions of dead things buried in sediment layers laid down by water all over the world.  That is exactly what we find in the fossil record.  Geology is the study of these layers and fossils we now find.  We have no problem with Geology itself, but we do disagree with many of the interpretations they offer of past events outside of observation or repetition.    

 

What’s with all the raping and pillaging, God?

Please provide a citation where God himself raped and/or pillaged.  You see, that’s the difference – God never did.  His creation did.  Sometimes he put in place situational laws that dealt with the rampant sin in the society.  For example he talked about ethical laws for keeping slaves.  Do not confuse this with God okaying keeping slaves.  He is saying – if you are going to keep slaves, then at least follow these guidelines.  Also keep in mind that slaves in Biblical times were more like indentured servants: workers paying off a debt owed.

 

If there is no such thing as evolution, how come snakes have no legs, but evidence of once having legs?

I believe you are referring to vestiges.  These are usually body parts scientists find and assume are left over parts from an earlier ancestor.  Vestiges is a very sketchy science to bank on.  We are constantly learning uses for things we used to consider vestiges.  The belief that snakes used to have legs comes first, THEN you interpret the body part as a vestige.  You interpret through your worldview – not the other way around.  The evidence doesn’t convince you.  You find something you are curious about, and make it fit the worldview. 

 

Does God get bored with the finches of Galapagos every few generations?  Mix it up?

Rapid speciation actually hurts your overall argument.  Most evolutionists blast creationists for believing a few thousands animals could come off the Ark 4000 years ago and adapt out to the millions of species we have today.  Yet the quick changes of the Galapagos finches shows that rapid speciation is possible.  It is simply adaptation to environment – 100% compatible with Biblical creation.

 

How can you ignore evolution as a theory if there are entire disciplines dedicated to it?

Creationists do not ignore evolution.  In fact we agree with almost all of it… up to a certain point.  We believe in natural selection.  We believe in micro-evolution (or adaptation with species).  We even believe in certain types of speciation up to the point where one animal kind would turn into another.  We do not agree with that because there is no evidence for macro-evolution, the idea is actually unscientific.  We’ve never observed or repeated any type of macro-evolution.  It is merely a philosophical idea of what could have happened, but not science.

 

Why do you believe carbon dating is so unreliable?

We don’t.  We love carbon dating.  Carbon dating helps us prove the earth is young.  Carbon’s half-life is 5700 years, yet we find it consistently in rocks and diamonds that are supposedly billions of years old.  How is that? 

You may have meant radiometric dating.  Radiometric dating takes a rock and looks at a particular isotope’s observed decay rates and extrapolates that rate through all of history to declare a starting date for that rock.  There are too many assumptions at play for that date to be accurate.  Take this example:  you walk into a room with an hourglass pouring sand in the middle of its cycle.  You want to determine how long it has been going for.  You measure the rate at which the sand is going through.  You extrapolate that back to determine the sand has been falling for 4.5 billion years.  BUT you don’t really know if all the sand was on the top when it was originally turned over.  You also don’t know if the hourglass was ever interrupted.  You have assumed it has never was interrupted and that it was full when started.  That’s a lot of assumptions!

 

How can you deny microevolution?

We do not.  Natural selection is a selective process, not a creative process.  Animals adapt to their environment and develop different traits.  This is not an addition of new information; this is a switching on or off of preexisting information.

 

Show me the facts! How can you possibly find evidence that an omniscient being created everything?

Sure!  The facts are we have never observed nor repeated life coming from non-life or information arising from non-information.  It is 100% unscientific to believe otherwise.  It would go against all known and recorded evidence to believe the opposite.  Therefore, the world was created by intelligence.

 

I require my textbooks to be newer than 4,000 years old.

The Bible is not a science textbook.  No creationist organization I know of claims this.  The Bible is the word of God though.  Therefore whenever it touches on areas that affect biology or geology or astronomy it would be the authority.  That would then make it the authority by which we should then judge our own opinions about these matters.  I would also challenge you: at what age is something automatically unreliable?

 

Science rules!

Creationists and evolutionists unite – science certainly does rule!  I have four children who absolutely LOVE science from growing up in a creationist home.  I never cared much as a kid myself.  I like Bill Nye’s show, but that was about as far as I went with it.  My kids are little scientists doing experiments daily!  I love it.

 

If you accept religion as truth, why is your religion “more true” than all the others?

The God of the Bible is the only deity attributed with creating time, space, and matter – thus the ultimate God who exists outside these three foundational elements.  Also the 3 major religions all follow backwards to the same common God of the Old Testament.  Also, the Bible’s history is the only reliable standard that stands up to observation of the current world and history.  This is too big of a topic for a quick answer so I would refer you to the over 40 articles I’ve written on Biblical authority: https://gracesalt.wordpress.com/biblical-authority/.

 

Assuming “The Flintstones” was a documentary, what was Jesus’ role in having dinosaurs in the workplace?  They seem like a safety hazard for Mr. Slate.

Dinosaurs, especially herbivores, would have made really great helpers in the workplace.  I’d say dino-power would be more efficient than horse-power.  

 

How did Noah’s Ark stay afloat even with termites on the Ark?

Noah put the termites in a box, and then put that box in another box, and that box in another box.  J  Or perhaps termites adapted to eating wood after they came off the ark?

 

What is your explanation of the human genome that was found dating back 40,000 years?

I am not aware of the dating method that was done to determine that age, but if it is like most dating methods I encounter – they are based on uniformitarian assumptions.  That’s a big fancy way of saying “the present is the key to the past”.  We observe constant rates today and **assume** they’ve remained that way for all of the unseen past.  We are not sure how rates and processes may have worked during a 6-day rapid creation, or in the pre-curse world, or in the time during the flood or immediately following catastrophic world.  There are many Biblical reasons to reject uniformitarianism.

 

Explain rock layers and plate tectonics? 

The rock layers are exactly what creationists would expect give a worldwide flood of sediment being moved all over the world and settling.  There is a wealth of published information about flood geology and how it works.  I would suggest starting here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/geology.  PhD geologists have recreated several instances that confirm our suspicion that the rock layers were laid down during the flood and after as the waters receded.

The creationist explanation of plate tectonics is basically the same as secularists.  We believe all the continents were together at some point in the past, and were violently ripped apart.  We just disagree to the timeframe.  Secularists measure the rate they are moving today and then using uniformitarian assumptions about the past declare a deep time for how long they’ve been moving.  We believe that when the Bible talks about the “fountains of the great deep bursting forth” that is the onset of plate tectonics. 

 

How do you explain fossils that are millions of years old?

Fossils do not come out of the ground with a nifty name-tag like you see in museums today telling you it is 65 million years old.  That is the interpretation applied by scientists who believe that their radiometric dating methods are reliable ways to achieve ages of rocks that the fossils are embedded in.  See the above answer about carbon dating for more on how these dating methods are fallible – not to mention the hundreds of dating methods that disagree with traditional dates!

 

Do you really believe in a talking snake?

Do you really believe in talking apes?  Evolutionists believe humans are nothing more than evolved hominids.  The questioner seems to be implying that he has a problem believing the spiritual realm can impact the physical world, i.e. miracles.  Miracles are a historically and modernly documented activity.

 

Keep religion out of my science class.

From my research I have not found one creationist organization pushing for creationism in the public school classroom.  I believe the questioner may have been confusing the fact that we want children to hear the creation message with some agenda to put creationism in the science classroom.  That is not the case.  In fact when I personally decided to testify in front of the Indiana State Board of Education, I contacted Answers in Genesis for guidance and they attempted to talk me out of it.  I only went ahead for the public forum to point out the difference between observational and historical science.

I want to challenge the question-asker here though.  If macro-evolution must be accepted on faith (since it is outside of observation and repeatability), doesn’t that qualify it as more religious than scientific?  My message to the state board was that evolution and creation are BOTH belief systems.  If they are going to censor one, they need to censor both.

 

Creationists and Pastafarians – we’ve got to stick together!!  Won’t you support our religious right to have our Pastafarian story in science classrooms as well??

See above answer.  No belief systems should be in public science classrooms.  Perhaps philosophy, religion, or history classes.

 

Read more than 1 book.

I have a master’s degree.  I have read more books than I want to.  But no matter how much I read in the world, I must always compare worldly knowledge to an authority on all matters – or else I could fall for anything!

 

Jesus riding a dinosaur??  ‘Nuff said.

I guess it’s possible, but we have no record of it.  From my understanding reports of men hunting and killing large lizard-like reptiles (that they often referred to as “dragons”) extends well into the 11^th century AD.  The King James translation of the Bible refers to dragons many, many times.  There always seems to be truth buried in most legends, especially legends as well referenced from so many societies as dragons.  If they were fire-breathing monsters, I don’t know – but what I do know is some men saw large reptilian creatures that no longer exist today.  ‘Nuff said.

__________

Please also see our Top 20 FAQ for more questions & answers, also our recent post about how Ken Ham won the debate whether you agree with his positions or not, and finally our post fact-checking Bill Nye‘s original creationism video.

 

Why Ken Ham won the debate whether you agree with his position or not

Tuesday, February 4th, 2014 was a truly historic day in the world of origins.  Over 3 million people watched the first official debate between creation and evolution in many years.  On the side of creation – Ken Ham, creator of the Creation Museum, and for evolution – Bill Nye The Science Guy!  They participated in a formal debate inside the Creation Museum moderated by a CNN anchor that lasted close to three hours.  Over 70 news outlets were on hand to report on the historic event, it was broadcast online for free, and tickets to attend in person sold out in 2 minutes!  But you know all that… how about my reactions??  Well, here we go!

I believe both presenters did a fabulous job, and this is the consensus I keep hearing.  I was pleasantly surprised that Nye understood more of the creationist position than I expected.  In previous interviews I had heard him misrepresent the position quite a bit, so I was hoping he would do his homework – and for the most part he did.  I was not a big fan of the format – at least the Q&A time.  It was way too fast paced without enough time to accurately answer or for them to address each other’s requests.  That was too bad.  Although I did expect it to be more of a landslide, and it was not, I will call the debate for Ham and will give very specific reasons why.

From my notes Nye offered up an impressive 14 main points (old-earth Christians, fossil layers, CSI forensics, ice cores, fossils under museum, order in fossil record, different human skulls, land bridge to Australia, rapid speciation, boulders in Washington, Noah’s Ark vs. the Wyoming ship, radioactive decay, distant starlight, vegetarian animals w/ sharp teeth, and needing people for future scientific innovation).

Ham answered 7 of the 14 points for a 50% answer ratio.  He answered Bill’s claims about old-earth Christians, ice cores, boulders in Washington, Ark vs. Wyoming ship, radioactive decay, vegetarian animals w/ sharp teeth, and needing scientists for innovation.

From my notes Ham offered up 8 main points (creationists can be scientists, where would constant laws come from in an evolutionary worldview, what technological innovation has required evolution, creation orchard vs. tree of life, one human race, literal Genesis basis of all Christian doctrine, morality based on naturalism vs. Bible, assumptions of radiometric dating).

Nye answered 2 of the 8 points for a 25% answer ratio.  He answered Ken’s claims about one human race, and literal Genesis vs. poetic.

Based simply on that point Ham took better advantage of his time and answered 50% of Nye’s claims while in the same time Nye only answered 25% of Ham’s.  This makes Ham the better debater – but it does not mean he wins the debate completely.  Let’s look at Bill and Ken’s main points they kept harping on to see if the other adequetly addressed them or not.

Nye’s main point was that creationism hinders scientist’s ability to make new technological innovations.  Ham thouroughly answered this critisim in his opening presentation where he presented videos of several current and past scientists doing significant work in the field while believing in Biblical creation and a young-earth.  Nye never acknowledged this.

Ham’s main point was that there is a difference between observational (modern) science and historical science (dealing with unreatable historical events).  Nye barely touched on this.  The closest he got was his CSI analogy.  On CSI forensic scientists recreate past events to help law enforcement create convictions.  You know the part he didn’t mention?  There have been many examples of eye-witnesses coming forward and forcing a reinterpretation of the evidence, and convictions are overturned.  That is what Ham is inferring.  The Bible is that eye-witness account that reinterprets the physical evidence.

Based on the answer ratio above (Ham 50%, Nye 25%), and the failure of Nye to answer Ham’s main point while Ham throughly answered his with multiple examples – Ken Ham is the winner of this debate whether you agree with his positions or not.

Science Awards – no mention of evolution

Late last month, Silicon Valley honored six recipients with over $21 million in prizes in the categories of scientific advancement at the Breakthrough Awards.  Many scientists, including Bill Nye (set to debate creationist Ken Ham at the Creation Museum next week), argue that the teaching of evolution is necessary for scientific advancement.  He goes as far as to say about our children: “we need them!”  The interesting connection to these awards for scientific advancement is that NONE of them are in the area of evolution and NONE of them required a belief in evolution to achieve what they did.

Read up on the various winners and their achievements at this link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/oscars-of-science-breakthrough-awards-hands-out-21m-to-transform-physicists-into-rockstars-9003541.html

Evolutionists like to reframe the argument to be all about evolution, yet very little in science actually deals with it.  Medical doctors sure don’t operate as if they believe in ‘survival of the fittest’.  I once had an email conversation with Glenn Branch from the National Center for Science Education asking him why his organization was named that.  I suggested it be renamed to the National Center for Evolution Education.  In reality, science is about much more than evolution.  Skeptics and many mainstream media outlets would have us believe that a belief in evolution is required to be a scientist, but these awards seem to contradict that mantra.  Sorry Bill.

EDIT:  I shared this post with Ken Ham and received this reply –