Presidential Candidate Ben Carson Says Earth Could Be ‘Billions of Years Old’

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

During an interview this week with Fox television talk show host Bill O’Reilly, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson outlined that he doesn’t subscribe to young Earth beliefs as it is possible that the planet is billions of years old.

“Are you really a creationist?” O’Reilly asked during Monday night’s “O’Reilly Factor.” “Do you subscribe to Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden, and that’s where we came from?”

“Well, I certainly believe that God is our creator,” Carson replied. “And interestingly enough, if you look at our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, it talks about certain inalienable rights given to us by our Creator.”

O’Reilly, a Roman Catholic, then clarified further to ask if Carson believes that the creation account in Genesis is literal.

“Right, but that can be intelligent design, and intelligent design leads to evolution,” O’Reilly responded. “But there are some people—fundamentalists, religious people—who believe, ‘Look, Adam and Eve were there, and that’s what it says in Genesis.’ Where are you on that?”

Carson, a Seventh Day Adventist, said that there is “no basis” for others to claim that he is a young earth proponent. He said that because God is God, it is possible that the Earth is billions of years old.

“I know a lot of people say that I believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and they have no basis for saying that. I don’t know how old the Earth is,” he stated. “[Genesis] says, ‘In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth,’ and then there’s a period there. You don’t know how much time elapsed.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“The other thing is that people don’t realize [is] He’s God. If He wanted to create an Earth that was billions of years old he could do it,” Carson continued. “They can’t do it. How come they’re always trying to put themselves in the same category as God?”

“Well, they try to diminish your intellect,” O’Reilly replied, referring to those who believe in a literal six-day creation. “That’s what they try to do.”

Carson was likewise asked about his beliefs surrounding evolution in an article featured in this month’s Time Magazine, stating that he doesn’t believe in secular evolution in the sense that it suggests that there is no God, but is a proponent of theistic evolution.

“I believe in micro evolution. I believe in natural selection. But I have a different take on it,” he said. “The evolutionists they say there, that’s proof that the theory of evolution is true. I say that’s proof of an intelligent and caring God who gave His creatures the ability to adapt to their environment so He wouldn’t have to start over every 50 years.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • GibbyD

    This was another Misleading headline for this post. —What Carson said was that he did not know how old the Earth is and that, ” If God wanted to create an Earth that was billions of years old, He could do it, they can’t” . He also did not deny that the Earth was 6000 years old. He said that, “there was no basis for people saying that he did”. He has some private beliefs that have not been revealed so they have no source saying that he believes in a young Earth or older Earth . ———– I am surprised at Christian News Network that they would state Carson’s comments on O’Reilly the way they did.

    • Tyler Mitchell

      Heck, I am about as Biblical Christan as it gets and no where does it say the Earth is no doubt about it 6,000 years.It’s a theory, and could be true, but again it’s a theory.The Bible also says 1 day to God is 1,000’s of years to us.So…when Yeshua returns to Earth to Him it could be a matter of days since He left.Time is an earthly thing.

      • Pererin

        …and the evening and the morning were the first day. How can God make it clearer? How can anyone think He means ‘and the evening and the morning were the first billion years’?
        The problem with discarding Genesis isn’t simply the age of the Earth. If Genesis is allegorical, just a fanciful story to please or ‘simple minded’ relatives living thousands of years ago, what is the point of Jesus?
        We need Jesus because of the fall. Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit according to Genesis. So if Genesis 1-3 never happened. Why do we need Jesus? Do you see the problem in taking man’s word in favour of God’s word? If not for the naturalist belief in millions of years implanted into scientific interpretation, the gap theory would not even exist. It is only because we are trying to fit man’s beliefs into God’s word that we are doubting Genesis 1-3. We are working backwards. We must interpret the world how we see it starting with God’s word, not man’s.
        Do you see how the devil is doing now exactly what he did in Genesis when he question Eve ‘Did God REALLY say that you would surely die?’
        The devil is doing the very same strategy now and we are falling for it. Can’t you see how people are saying, ‘If Genesis never happened, then did any of the Bible really happen? If Genesis didn’t happen, then what is sin? If sin doesn’t exist, then what is the point of Jesus’ sacrifice?’ Do you see the slippery slope in the devil’s deception?

      • Fallenman4Jesus

        Where is the name Yeshua in the bible? His name is Jesus – an no other name has been given by which we must be saved. You can talk Yeshua all day long without objection but name the name of Jesus and you will polarize people. Stop judiazing.

        • Pererin

          Both are correct Jesus and Yeshua. The Hebrews wrote His name as Yeshua, the Greeks then in their language call Him Iesous and that changed to Jesus for English today. I’m from Wales in the UK and in my Welsh language we call Him Iesu. So you see they are all the same. It’s like YHWH over time and peoples changed to Yahweh and further on again to Jehovah.
          Blessings

  • gatekeeper96740

    I think God is veeeeryyy good at antiquing………….

  • FoJC_Forever

    Bill O’Reilly, and others like him, ask questions in certain ways, with certain tonal inflections, and using specific verbiage simply to illicit specific responses to their questions so they can spin things in their favor. He’s slick, even claiming he doesn’t “spin” things. Don’t trust him, or their news network in general. They play, spin, and write the news to make money, plain and simple.

  • Dave_L

    Has there ever been a Christian President? Is it even possible for a Christian to be President? That is, to turn the other cheek and wield the sword at the same time? To both love and kill enemies at the same time? To preach the Sermon on the Mount and call for retaliation at the same time?

    • Patrick Gildea

      Jimmy Carter

      • Dave_L

        I used to think so but when he came out in support of SSM I began to wonder.

    • Josey

      The reason Jesus told Peter to put away the sword was that Jesus knew His time had come and it was the Father’s will that He should hang on the cross for mankind’s sins. No one could touch Jesus before the time and He being God in the flesh had millions of angels at His service and didn’t need Peter doing battle for Him and yes those who fight with the sword will perish by the sword but Jesus didn’t say it was a sin to fight when it is needed as you take this one scripture and apply it to every circumstance in a believers life. That is taking scripture out of context, you continue to focus on certain passages all the while you forget to talk about others, there is an entire Bible from Genesis through Revelation to consider in context.

      • Dave_L

        Please explain how your position on violence fits with the Love of enemies ethic of the Sermon on the Mount. Also, provide examples where Jesus or the Apostles used violence against enemies.

        We know Jesus rebuked Peter for using his sword on an enemy, but beyond this, are there any examples where it is permissible?

    • JohnDoe11

      James Garfield

      • Dave_L

        Interesting. The first thing I question though is how he led “Christians” to kill “Christians” in the Civil War. It seems more like something the Devil would do.

      • JohnDoe11

        No, not Garfield – my error…I somehow misread your post. I can’t think of one who told people how to do this. It probably happened in Europe with rulers.

  • Peter Leh

    Uh oh.. there goes the conservative christian vote. 🙂

    • bowie1

      Maybe, or maybe they are looking at this policies which are more relevant.

      • Peter Leh

        lol maybe. in southern conservative politics AND religion i am not sure if we know where one starts or where one ends. 🙂

    • GibbyD

      A seventh day adventist( Carson) vs someone(Trump)who has said he has never asked God to forgive him of anything even though he is a three time adulterer and an unashamed fornicator before those marriages. I prefer Carson over Trump buy my ideal candidate and wish for President is Mike Huckabee . Only Huckabee supports the Fair Tax strong enough to be able to get it passed and implemented. The Fair Tax is the only hope to save our economy !!

      • Josey

        Christ Jesus is our only salvation! The system is corrupt and all are left are puppets who will tell you anything to get votes, been that way for sometime now, time as we know it is short, best to get your house in order with Christ and be about the Father’s will on the earth.

        • GibbyD

          Yep, I repented toward God and placed my faith and trust toward The LORD Jesus Christ 35 years ago. I was born again by The Spirit of God and by the grace of God have been proclaiming the Gospel ever since. It is a blessing and privilege to be able to hand out Gospel literature, preach on the Street and participate and enjoy the fellowship of other believers when we are gathered together unto and in The Name of The LORD Jesus for breaking of Bread , reading and studying His Word and praying for the lost who know not yet this salvation we enjoy. We do anticipate His appearing for His own soon when we will be caught up together to be with Him. I hope that day is today but until then He has called us to be salt and light to a lost world that needs to hear the Gospel. We proclaim that Good News while at the same time being active in our communities, government and other forums where there are people. As long as that activity does not become an entanglement and or prevent our main purpose and mission , we can do it with the blessing of God , even the activity of finding and supporting good leadership in our local, state and federal government. It is not easy and or often that any are worthy of our support and vote. I am also mindful that God is overall and that He is the One that puts in power whom He will , even the basest of men sometimes ( Dan4:17). To consider then anyone to support and vote for public office , is not something that can be done without much consideration and prayer. To this end and with God’s things in view , I purpose to support and advise others the same , that they consider Mike Huckabee for the nomination for President from the Republican party.

  • afchief

    Who cares if the world is a billion years old or 6000 years old. The bottom line is, God created the heavens and the earth. And God sent His son Jesus to die for all of mankind’s sins.

    It changes nothing!

    • Emmanuel

      They are so busy looking back that they ignore the future.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Amen! ^^^^^^^^^

      • mattgo404

        Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      • basalisk

        that’s what Christian scum are doing.

    • mattgo404

      But it does change a great deal. If you believe the creation story is allegorical and not literal, then what in the bible should be taken as truth?

      • afchief

        It changes nothing! I said God created the heavens and the earth. He also created man and woman around 6000 years ago.

        Hebrews 11:6 (NASB) And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

        • Pererin

          So if Genesis is allegorical, just a fanciful story to please or ‘simple minded’ relatives living thousands of years ago, what is the point of Jesus?
          We need Jesus because of the fall. Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit according to Genesis. So if Genesis 1-3 never happened. Why do we need Jesus? Do you see the problem in taking man’s word in favour of God’s word? If not for the naturalist belief in millions of years implanted into scientific interpretation, the gap theory would not even exist. It is only because we are trying to fit man’s beliefs into God’s word that we are doubting Genesis 1-3. We are working backwards. We must interpret the world how we see it starting with God’s word, not man’s. That is the faith that is shown in Hebrews 11.6. Blessings

          • afchief

            What does this have to do with Jesus? I’m doubting God’s word. Whether the earth is a billions years old or 6000 means nothing!!!! Does it affect your faith in God? God sent his Son to earth to save us (John 3:16).

            Where are you going with this?

          • Pererin

            I explained what it has to do with Jesus. Remove Genesis 1-3 and we remove sin. Remove sin, then you can remove Jesus. That is why society is so easily leaving Jesus out of their lives and turning to humanism. They love being able to live a life not worrying about their sinful lives because without Genesis 1-3 sin does not exist and they don’t see a need to be saved by the blood of Christ. This is why people are turning in their droves to a humanist world-view.
            I am not saying that if you believe that the world is billions of year old that you are not saved. This is plainly not the case, as you say God sent his Son to earth to save us and John 3:16 says that all you need is to genuinely believe that Jesus is your saviour.
            However I have to ask you, God sent us His Son to save us from what?
            To save us from sin. Where does sin come from? Genesis 1-3, the fall, when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. So if we remove Genesis 1-3 from history, then sin and the need of being saved does not exist.
            That is where I am going. The secular world is trying to convince us that Genesis 1-3 is false and sin does not exist, which means Jesus does not exist. Some Christians are happy to ignore all this and still have faith and if that faith is genuine that is fine. I would never say that they are not saved. But if we do not correct this error it is still massively damaging to the credibility of Jesus to people who will ask these questions. If your child asked you, “Daddy, if there was never a literal Garden of Eden, then where does sin come from, and if the fall never happened, then why do I need to repent and ask Jesus to be my Saviour?” How would you reply?
            Blessings

          • afchief

            Who is removing Gen 1-3 and how? What does this have to do with the world being a billion years old or 6000?

            I’m still not following you.

          • Pererin

            Let’s say that the secular belief that the world is billions of years old is true. This means that for billions of years, death, depravity, illness and suffering have all also existed for billions of years from the very beginning of time. They use their dating methods to say that fossils and rocks are billions of years old, even finding fossils showing signs of cancer!
            Genesis 1-3 shows that death and suffering came into the world because of the fall in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit disobeying God. All this happened after the six days of creation, certainly by the time that (according to secular belief) man had evolved into humans as we know them today. So, in saying that the world is billions of years old you are contradicting the report of the fall in Genesis 1-3. As I said earlier, this is dangerous because it means that sin does not exist and the need for a saviour does not exist. Before the fall we and the world were all perfect in God’s eyes, no suffering, no death and not in any need of a saviour, after the fall we are cursed and are born in sin, death and suffering are introduced and we are in desperate need of a saviour. Do you now see my problem with the secular belief of a world billions of years old?
            Blessings.

          • Bezukhov

            In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Gen 1: 1,2)

            3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. (Gen 1:3-5)

            Looks to me as a gap of time between “In the beginning…” and that “…the first day” How long? Who knows. My biggest question is with what matters did God concern Himself with for that eternity before He created anything?

          • Pererin

            So did sin (the fall) happen with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden after the 6 days of creation or sometime before that during the supposed billions of years of death and suffering that God announced as ‘good’?
            Do you see the problem?
            Do you think you would see that gap in Genesis 1:1-3 if the gap theory did not exist because we were not trying to fit man’s beliefs into God word?

          • Kevin Wimberley

            Perein is RIGHT. Many of the new testament writers also viewed Adam as a literal person. Especially when they refer to him in the genealogies.
            Luke 3:38
            Romans 5:14
            1 Corinthians 15:22,45
            1 Timothy 2:13-14
            Jude 14
            Why would they include an allegorical person in a genealogy with literal people? Makes no sense. And if we believe the NT writers wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Pet. 1:21), then obviously the Holy Spirit knows that Adam was literal. Romans 5:14 says that death BEGAN with Adam — NOT BEFORE.

          • afchief

            How do you know the world is not a billion years old and man only 6000? 2 Peter 3:8 (NASB) But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

          • Pererin

            As I said, billions of years has to include death and sin before the fall of Genesis 1-3. The dating process used by secular scientist are interpreted to include animal and plant death for billions of years. A billions of years world theory contradicts the Genesis 1-3, they cannot be used together.
            Genesis clearly says that the fall happened after God’s rest on the seventh day, after everything was created. So how could death and sin exist in fossils that are supposed to have existed before the creation of Adam and Eve.

            So there are two choices. Either you blindly put your faith in the unfounded assumptions and beliefs of secular science and believe that the world is billions of years old and the Genesis account is false. Or Genesis is correct, secular science is misinterpreting the scientific evidence to fit their humanistic beliefs, while Christian scientists who start with the Bible are inpreting the scientific evidence correctly.

            2 Peter 3:8 doesn’t come into the discussion because it doesn’t address the problem supposed existence of death before the fall.
            Of course 2 Peter 3:8 is absolutely true, but it does not mean that it was referring to the creation account of Genesis.
            Further to this, throughout Genesis 1, God repeats, ‘and the evening and the morning were the first day, second day third day’ etc. It would be nonsense suggest that God was saying ‘and the evening and the morning were the first million years’. Do you see what I mean?

            Blessings

          • Michael Todd

            Well said.

    • basalisk

      prove it then. prove that your god i one the who created reality.

      • afchief

        Look at the complex body you live in. Do you really think we evolved from a cell????? It takes more faith to believe in that then to believe that a God created us.

        • basalisk

          it doesn’t take faith, evolution has years of scientific evidence to support it, what do you have?

          • Pererin

            We have the same scientific evidence as you, the interpretation and starting point are different though which is why are end up with different results.
            So you see there is no fight for evidence, it’s simply a clash of world views. You are every bit an evangelist of your faith as a Christian is of theirs.
            Blessings

          • John N

            >’We have the same scientific evidence as you, the interpretation and starting point are different though which is why are end up with different results.’

            Well no. Science and religion start with different starting points. The scientific method starts with evidence and uses them to draw conclusions. No ‘faith’ needed.

            Religion on the other hand, already has the conclusions through faith and revelation, and filters and shoe-horns the available evidence into it.

            Trying to say they are comparable and require the same faith is simply dishonest.

          • Pererin

            Both Christian and Atheist scientists use the scientific method. Christian scientists would start with a biblical worldview, an Atheist scientist would start from a naturalistic worldview.

            A Christian would say that we are clearly designed. Where information is present, where intelligence is present a mind is always behind it, we see this everywhere, every day. We would never assume that a car has over millions of years evolved because we recognise the design and the mind behind it.
            However, where the are unknowns present, we lean on our worldviews to fill in the gaps. You cannot deny that the evolution of nothing to human is littered with holes and assumptions. You cannot possibly say “we have scientific method” you do not. So you fill in the gaps with your worldview.

            When I see the world, I see without any doubt that information, intelligence, order and design is clearly present. We never see random, chaotic, backward creation anywhere. We never see life from death, order from disorder. Where there is order and information, there is life. Where there is disorder, error, mistakes, the is death. Never has nothing brought about something.
            Do you see how naturalism makes no sense? We live in a world of information, logic, order and design. It’s everywhere.

            Do you see how your worldview is exposed before even facing scientific method? No evidence is ever interpreted in an unbiased manner.
            You see, naturalism uses just as much faith as Christianity. Where is your proof for something from nothing?
            You try to claim scientific method as your own. Scientific method is outside of naturalism as long as there are unknowns and there will always be unknowns. We both apply our faith in our worldviews to inpret the results of scientific method. To assume otherwise is either dishonest or ignorance.

            Blessings

          • basalisk

            no you don,t. your side lies and misinterprets the evidence to support yourself.

          • Pererin

            I’m sorry you see it that way but you are misinformed and have lapped up the indoctrination of the naturalism preached in Western society today. Your faith is glaringly obvious. Can you at least support your accusation with any reasons for your inaccurate comment?

          • basalisk

            i’ve already provided a link to evidence and there’s plenty more online but if you seem too stupid to understand that

          • Pererin

            Would you like me to send a links to evidence against evolution or links for evidence of a young earth?
            Very easily done, however in this case links are pointless as this is not a fight for evidence but a fight of worldviews. We share the same scientific information but interpret them depending on our worldview.

            I see how insecure you are in your faith in evolution and worldview to resort to insults.

          • basalisk

            Like I said. you don’t have evidence, your sources won’t be peer reviewed and they won’t follow any legitimate science. evolution is a fact, there ‘s no debate on this. it’s a fact plain and simple.

          • Pererin

            Great, so your reply is that you’re right because you and your own naturalistic peers say so. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.

          • afchief

            There is NO scientific to support evolution. None! It is a lie to keep you from seeing the truth. 2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

            It is satan’s job to keep your mind off of Jesus. He keeps you in the pleasures of sin. But those are only temporary and they come with a price.

            Hebrews 11:6 (NASB) And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

            You have to come to Jesus and believe that He is who He said He is i.e Faith! And accept him as your Lord and savior.

            John 3:3 (NASB) Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born [a]again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

          • John N

            >’There is NO scientific to support evolution. None! It is a lie to keep you from seeing the truth’

            Says who? A text written by a unknown author +-2000 years ago, from a time when people had only basic knowledge of the earth and living things? Show us where it states ‘Evolution is a lie’.

          • afchief

            One of the exciting aspects of the Christian faith is that it is based on solid evidence. While there will always be a step of faith for every belief system (especially atheism!), Christianity is uniquely grounded in evidence. The evidence for the truth of the Bible, which is the foundation of Christianity, includes:

            Manuscript evidence
            Archaeological evidence
            Evidence from prophecy
            Statistical evidence

            In addition, when you check out what the Bible says, then compare it to the real world, you see, that they match. For example, comparing what the Bible says about the human heart, or even what it says about science, you’ll see that the truths of the Bible check out. Further, compared to other religions or philosophies, Christianity is internally consistent.

          • John N

            >’The evidence for the truth of the Bible, which is the foundation of Christianity, includes …’

            Well in that case I expect there is a lot of scientific work going on based on what the bible says, isn’t it?

            So where is it? You mean archeologists have found an ancient city mentionned in the bible? Wow!

            >’In addition, when you check out what the Bible says, then compare it to the real world, you see, that they match.’

            So if there is anything in the bible that doesn’t match with reality, you’re prepared to accept it is wrong?

          • afchief

            One day you will stand before Jesus. Will Jesus say depart from me, I never knew you? Or will He say enter in to the place I have prepared for you?

            The choice is yours!!!!

          • John N

            Oh I see you ran out of arguments and switch to threats now. Your big brother is watching me.

            Well, if I finally would have to stand before Jesus, I would have to ask him a thing or two, just before he sents me away for eternal torture.

            But of course the chance for that is about as great as having to stand before Odin or Zeus. I wonder what these guys would want to tell you?

          • afchief

            Once you leave this earth there is no second chance. Jesus said you have to be born again to get to heaven. The choice is yours.

          • John N

            Afchief, your threats could only impress believers, using them against unbelievers makes you look silly.

            Now would you be so kind to answer my question about the scientific value and innerancy of your bible?

          • afchief

            2 Corinthians 5:7 (NASB) for we walk by faith, not by sight

            Acts 4:12 (NASB) And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

            Romans 1:18-20 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

            Hebrews 11:6 (NASB) And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

            Hebrews 9:27 (NASB) And inasmuch as it is [a]appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

          • John N

            I take this as a ‘No’.

            Thanks for the discussion.

          • basalisk

            there’s mountains of evidence you uneducated prick and quotes your worthless books of lies won’t change that

            http://necsi. edu /projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html

          • afchief

            The truth always offends, does it not?

          • basalisk

            i don’t know, you haven’t pretended any

        • Blaylock

          not at all. just years and years of scientific research

          • Pererin

            We have the same scientific evidence as you, the interpretation and starting point are different though which is why are end up with different results.
            So you see there is no fight for evidence, it’s simply a clash of world views. You are every bit an evangelist of your faith as a Christian is of theirs.

          • John N

            The problem is you don’t use the same scientific evidence as real scientists do. Only evidence in line with your worldview is accepted and shoehorned into your ‘theory’, the rest is dismissed as ‘invalid’ or simply ignored (transitional fossils, anyone?).

            And I’m sorry, no faith involved. That’s a privilege for the religious.

          • Pererin

            I disagree. You seem to be blind to your own methods and failings.

            In the same way that you say Christians dismiss evidence that does not fit into the Biblical worldview, you dismiss evidence that doesn’t fit into the naturistic worldview. For example, all of observable science shows us without doubt that information, organisation, order and design comes from a greater intelligence, a mind a designer. But because of your naturalistic beliefs (your faith) you cannot possibly question your naturalistic theories. You have to shoehorn a series of unobservable theories such as macro evolution and concoct a system of dating methods littered full of unobserved assumptions and guesses in order to get a result that fits your naturalistic worldview.

            Do now see how religious you are about your own naturalist faith? You will do anything to in order to explain away the clear evidence of intelligence in our creation because it is contradictory to your worldview.

            I restate my comment, this is not a fight of the evidence, it is a battle of worldviews. Science is knowledge, but where we do not have access to all the knowledge, a worldview is always applied to the knowledge in order to interpret the information. This is the case of creation science.

          • John N

            >’observable science ‘?

            Oh, I see, you got your knowledge from Ken Ham & consorts.

            There exists no such thing as ‘observational science’. All science is based on evidence, and by definition, observations.

            >’ … all of observable science shows us without doubt that information, organisation, order and design comes from a greater intelligence, a mind a designer.’

            So which discipline of science does that? I hope you are not referencing to ID creationism, do you? When did that became ‘science’?

          • Pererin

            So you are seriously telling me that molecules to man evolution comes from observable scientific evidence? The big bang? You are being intellectually dishonest if you expect to believe that. I just is true. These naturalistic theories are crammed full of unknowns. Do you dispute that?

            Electronics, engineering mechanics, biology, physics and chemistry are all evidence of intelligence, design a mind otherwise they would not function. We know how these work, we know how the heart works, we know how the stomach functions, we know how electricity works, how rules of physics which help us to develop and design in engineering.

            Show me how macro evolution has had any benefit to the increase of scientific knowledge. The mechanism dreamed up for molecules to man has never been witnessed. Natural selection is always within species, birds always remain birds, dogs always remain dogs. The is no evidence for molecules to man or the mechanism described in order for it to work. When did pure guess and assumption become science?

            You mock Christians for believing in a God that creates out of nothing. For believing in intelligent design, yet you are happy believing your own imaginary unobserved creations out of nothing.

            Your are once again displaying your naturalistic faith in full view.

          • John N

            >’So you are seriously telling me that molecules to man evolution comes from observable scientific evidence? The big bang? You are being intellectually dishonest if you expect to believe that. I just is true. These naturalistic theories are crammed full of unknowns. Do you dispute that?’

            Oh, there are still a lot of unknowns. Where did I dispute that? But at least I have the honesty to admit that. Scientist don’t default to the easy solution, ‘I don’t know, therefore goddidit’, like religious people seem to do. I wonder how we ever left the dark ages ….

            >’biology, physics and chemistry are all evidence of intelligence…’

            You keep on saying that. Now show the evidence!

            >’Show me how macro evolution has had any benefit to the increase of scientific knowledge’

            What do you mean by ‘macro evolution’?

            >’The mechanism dreamed up for molecules to man has never been witnessed’.

            So therefore ‘goddidit’. Again.

            >’Natural selection is always within species, birds always remain birds, dogs always remain dogs…’

            An the mechanism to stop birds evolving into something else is ? And the evidence for special creation is?

            >’You mock Christians for believing in a God that creates out of nothing’

            No. What you believe I couldn’t care less. I mock Christians trying to abuse science to support their religious believe, and trying to get their religion into politics and education.

          • Pererin

            You don’t seem to realise the naturalism is your God of the unknowns. It is where you yourself go when you reach an unknown.

            Macro evolution is molecules to man evolution.. Micro evolution is natural selection, change within a species.

            I gave you evidence of the heart, or in a bigger way the human body. It is a machine. An obviously designed machine. I could add DNA, full of micro machines, and information in code. What more do you need?

            Birds do not change into anything else, so why are you asking me for such a mechanism?
            The evidence for special creation as I stated previously is the presence on an obvious designer an obvious higher intelligence. As I said, you would never look at a car and suggest it was created by naturalistic means.

            You have no problem injecting your faith (naturalism) into science, politics, education and yes even religion with Genesis, so why should you care if I do it with my faith in God.

            Again I say, we are in a battle of worldviews, not of scientific method or evidence. Science belongs to the Christian worldview just as much as yours.

          • John N

            >’Macro evolution is molecules to man evolution. Micro ‘evolution is natural selection, change within a species.’

            I could guess you would use some self-invented definitions. Molecules-to-man evolution is not even part of the theory of evolution. Why don’t you include the Big Bang as well?

            And why couple change within a species to natural selection? Changes occur, with or without natural selection. And local differences in drivers for natural selection will cause speciation.

            Maybe we can stick to the scientific definition of evolution, basically being the change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.

            >’I gave you evidence of the heart, or in a bigger way the human body. It is a machine. An obviously designed machine. ‘

            Evidence? This is an opinion, not evidence.

            The heart is not a machine, it is an organ. It has evolved. We do know the evolution of the heart from its first appearance, some 800 million years ago , to the four-chambered version in reptiles, birds and mammals. There is not a scratch of evidence or need for any design activity in this process.

            >’I could add DNA, full of micro machines…’

            You must be joking. DNA is a molecule. A complex one, but still a molecule, a string of atoms linked together. We know how it is formed, we know at least one predecessor.

            >’Birds do not change into anything else, so why are you asking me for such a mechanism?’

            If you want birds to not change into something else, there must be a mechanism to stop them evolving. Since they already evolved from reptiles, they did change, and your mechanism is clearly non-existent. I

            >’The evidence for special creation as I stated previously is the presence on an obvious designer an obvious higher intelligence’

            Well, if you think your opinion counts as evidence …

            >’As I said, you would never look at a car and suggest it was created by naturalistic means.’

            I know how and why cars are build. I have seen the designs. I have seen a car factory. I know someone who works there and actually builds them. When you open the hood, you can see exactly how they where put together. I have build a model car myself, and it worked.

            So do you have any evidence like this for your designer?

            >’You have no problem injecting your faith (naturalism) …’

            So naturalism is a faith now. How convenient for you. I thought it just meant that science is to be done without reference to supernatural causes. No faith involved, is it?

            >’Science belongs to the Christian worldview just as much as yours’

            Well, some obviously do not know how to use it.

          • Pererin

            “Maybe we can stick to the scientific definition of evolution, basically being the change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.”
            That would be great if you didn’t go beyond what we observe in science. We have never witnessed lizards change to birds. Lizards remain lizards and birds remain birds. Please give me evidence of these lizard bird creature is transition. This is where we differ and this is why evolution is split into micro and macro evolution.

            The is no evidence that the heart evolved. The are many types of heart in the animal kingdom but every one of them was designed.

            Surely you cannot dismiss the code in DNA, this is information, a programme. Nowhere do we see information come from disinformation. There is no evidence at all for information without a mind, without intelligence.

            I am trying to point of to you that we all use opinion or interpretation using our world view to make sense of the evidence provided by science. Then you go ahead and do the same thing by giving me the opinion of the naturalistic worldview through the evidence you provide. Then you tell me I’m wrong for doing the same thing!
            There is no such thing as pure unbiased interpretation of evidence. You can try to deceive all you like you are tainted by your chosen worldview.

            The evidence for the designer is the ‘designed’ machine. The human body, the cell are machines, so much more complex than a car but that’s no reason to believe otherwise unless you so desperately want to hold onto your naturistic faith. Anything you believe to be true without being able to provide observable evidence is faith.

          • John N

            You see what I mean by creationist filtering evidences! Ever visited a natural museum? There you can see what we call fossils, remains of extant organisms. All these fossils (unless they are the last in their line) are evidence of what you are searching, the transition of one species into another. That is why we call them transitional fossils. Some of them, like Archeopteryx, are even transitional between what we call classes of organisms, reptiles and birds. Go and look for yourself!

            >This is where we differ and this is why evolution is split into micro and macro evolution’

            Which is a useless distinction, because you can’t even define it properly as I showed you.

            >’The is no evidence that the heart evolved. The are many types of heart in the animal kingdom but every one of them was designed.’

            Again, your worldview clearly inhibits you from accepting scientific evidence. Go on, believe what you want, but don’t call it science.

            >’The evidence for the designer is the ‘designed’ machine.’

            No, the evidence for the designer would be the designer. Found him already? His plans, his factories?

            >’The human body, the cell are machines, so much more complex than a car …’

            So then they cannot be designed, can they?

            >’Anything you believe to be true without being able to provide observable evidence is faith.’

            Glad you finally admit it. So stop pretending otherwise.

          • Pererin

            Everything that you have posted in your previous post can be simply turned around and pointed at you. As I have said, the evidence is shared, the interpretation is different depending on the worldview. Archeopteryx for example is covered and explained in many websites and museums with Biblical worldviews. The cell is so much more complex than a car and so needs a design so much more powerful and intelligent. I really enjoying going to natural museums, I just need to screen some of the misinformation just as you would if you visited the Creation Museum for example. Your reply would be that these creationist scientists don’t know what they are doing, my priests, sorry, ‘real scientists’ have already taught me how to read this evidence and I blindly accept it as truth.

          • John N

            >’Archeopteryx for example is covered and explained in many websites and museums with Biblical worldviews’

            I’m not prepared to come over to your so-called Creation Museum, thanks, so what is your explanation?

            >’The cell is so much more complex than a car and so needs a design so much more powerful and intelligent’

            Meaning you don’t understand it, therefore goddidit. By the way, current prokaryotic cells are much simpler than our eukaryotic cells, Bacteria are simpler than Archeae, while protocells are expected to be even simpler. When exactly do you think did your designer interact with this evolution?

            >’… my priests, sorry, ‘real scientists’ have already taught me how to read this evidence and I blindly accept it as truth.’

            Guess you read their articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Would you care to show us an example?

          • afchief

            Let me get this straight! Two cells formed at the same time billions of years ago. Eventually they evolved into human beings where one developed into a woman and one a man. They both developed sexual parts for reproduction. Man developed sperm and a woman eggs. Some how they learned to come together to make offspring.

            I could go on and on with this but the belief in evolution makes me laugh!!!!!

          • John N

            Yes, you can go on and on with this, because you clearly lack knowledge on how live evolved.

            As an example: do you realize that the earliest living organisms (a even today) did not use sex to propagate? So no need for ‘Two cells formed at the same time’.

            Please try to understand evolution before trying to refute it.

          • afchief

            The uninformed are sometimes of the opinion that the debate over evolution is about science versus the Bible. This could not be further from the truth. The modern debate is about whether or not science itself supports the theory of evolution. This article is about the scientific problems of Darwinism. In other articles we address the theological aspects of the debate. This 2-part video is an excellent summary of the scientific problems with evolution: Icons of Evolution.

            As evidenced by a wave of recent books on the subject, there is a growing uneasiness in the scientific community about the validity of Darwinian evolution. Many scientists and philosophers are taking a fresh look at evolution, and based on the latest evidence are raising huge questions. Indeed, a hard look at the scientific data accumulated since the time of Darwin in the late nineteenth century, is leading some observers to conclude the following: The evidence for Darwinian evolution is so fragmentary that it would not command any respect at all, if it were not for the fact that the evolutionists have agreed in advance to exclude all thought of intelligent design.

            There are, it seems, two definitions of science. One is to look at the facts, test the hypothesis, and see where it leads you—even if you don’t like it. This, of course, is the traditional definition. But many are now questioning whether evolutionary dogma may have used a second definition—to start with a definition of naturalism, and look only at the pieces of evidence which fit that philosophy.

            The purpose of this essay is to survey several books on the topic, and to present their arguments about the growing problems for evolution. The reader is asked, for the moment, to look at this question as a true scientist would—that is, without a preconceived conclusion. Rather, examine the evidence as a jurist in a court of law.

            Over 700 scientists worldwide have signed a statement of scientific dissent from Darwinism. See this website for the statement and list of signers of the statement: Scientific Dissent Statement.

            This article is primarily an article about science. But we will examine aspects of the philosophy behind this debate. We specifically will not draw from the Bible. Yet we will demonstrate how Darwinists are more closed-minded than Christians.

            (Notes: While the terminology used in this essay may be new to some people, the concepts are not difficult. They are easy enough to be understood by high school students. References used are by their number listed in the Resource List at the end. For example, all references to Johnson’s book Darwin on Trial are referenced in the text as number 5.)

          • John N

            >’The modern debate is about whether or not science itself supports the theory of evolution’

            Oh, I didn’t know there was a modern debate going on about this. Let me check … no, no debate going on.

        • John N

          And still that complex body developped from a single cell in only 9 months time. Or is your name Adam?

          • afchief

            The tension between evolution and creation is philosophical not scientific. Here are some points:

            Creationism and evolutionism begin from two radically different points. Creation: In the beginning there was God. Evolution: In the beginning there was random chance.

            Darwinian doctrine insists that the evolution of life is a random process—that we are here by a series of pure accidents (e.g., mutations, and molecules in motion, gene recombinations and duplications). This is in direct conflict with the biblical doctrine of election—that life is not merely a series of accidents. According to the Bible, each believer is in some sense individually foreknown and chosen by God from before the foundations of the world. (1 Samuel 16:7-12; Psalm 139:16; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 24:31, 25:34; Romans 8:29-30; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Galatians 1:15; Ephesians 1:4-12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:1-2, 2:9)

            The God of the Bible is more than Creator and Savior. He is also Sustainer. With evolution, life is a self-sustaining process ruled by fate, and God plays no role in the universe or in the ongoing lives of men. This contradicts the biblical doctrine of providence—that all things happen under the authority of God, and that God is still at work sustaining (though not re-creating) His creation. (Genesis 45:7-8, Nehemiah 9:6; Esther 4:14; Psalm 104:30, 145:16, 147:9; Proverbs 16:9,33, Isaiah 45:1,7, 46:10; Matthew 6:26, 10:29-31; John 5:17, 14:16-17, 15:26, 16:13-15; Acts 17:26, 18:9-11; Romans 8:9-11; Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3)

            Still another aspect of the God of the Bible is that He is Judge. The Bible makes a major point of an afterlife in heaven or hell. Indeed, Jesus discusses this concept more than any other biblical figure. As part of the process of ultimate judgment by God, a new type of resurrection body will emerge to another life—to either be glorified in heaven or condemned to hell for eternity. Evolution is in great conflict with this view, including the fact that the physical cannot evolve into an afterlife. (Matthew 5:22,29,30, 23:33, 24:31; 1 Corinthians 15:42-53; 2 Peter 2:4-10)

            The Bible says that man was created as a special being—in the image of God, as opposed to the evolutionary view that has man is just another animal in the evolutionary process. (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7)

            The Bible indicates that creation was a completed event in the past, and is not continuing as evolution suggests. (Genesis 2:1-3; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Hebrews 4:3-11) As put by the Concordia Study Bible (annotations page 8), “His creative work was completed—and it was totally effective, absolutely perfect, ‘very good.’ It did not have to be repeated, repaired or revised, and the Creator rested to commemorate it.”

            Given the above, the creation by God of distinct “kinds” as described in Genesis 1 and 1 Corinthians 15:38-39 implies that transmutations between kinds is precluded, or at least superfluous.

            The Bible indicates that there is clear physical evidence of creation. (Psalm 19:1-6; Acts 17:24-29) Evolution denies the evidence for creation. If Darwinism were a reasonable hypothesis, atheists would have a perfectly good excuse, in contradiction to Romans 1:20. On the other hand, creation is a consistent theme throughout the Bible.

            There is no hint of evolution in the Bible. While this is an argument from silence and thus does not necessarily preclude evolution, such an important concept as to origins would surely have been suggested in the Bible due to its theological implications. On the other hand, creation is a consistent theme throughout the Bible. It is mentioned approximately 64 times in 18 books of the Bible.

            Evolution is a philosophy based on naturalism and materialism. Naturalism holds that nature is all there is and that the universe is self-sufficient without a supernatural cause or control of the world. Materialism regards matter as the original cause of all—that matter did its own creating. Materialism denies the existence of the soul. The philosophical assumption of evolution is therefore essentially atheistic or agnostic, thus clearly incompatible with special creation and the other miracles of the Bible. With evolution, if God exists, He is so distant as to be irrelevant.

            The Bible teaches that God created man by fiat, that is, by supernatural power, not by natural processes. (Genesis 2:7; Psalm 33:6,9; Psalm 148:5; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Hebrews 11:3)

            Some 75 passages of Scripture including those by Jesus, refer to the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2, confirming it as actual history. (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6; Luke 3:38, Revelation 2:7) See In the Beginning elsewhere on our site.

            There is an important reason to interpret from the Bible that Adam was a real person. Unless the concept of original sin through Adam is true, Jesus’ coming makes no sense. That is, Christians believe that Christ’s atoning sacrifice for our sins was necessary because of man’s sin nature inherited in some sense from Adam. The Bible teaches that Jesus was the “second Adam.” So if Adam was not real, thus did not bring sin into the world, Christ’s redemptive sacrifice was not necessary. (Genesis 3:15-19; Romans 4:22-25, 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,45-57; 1 Timothy 2:13-14).

            The overarching theme of the Bible is Creation/Fall/Redemption. (God created the universe “very good.” Then man spoiled it by his rebellion—the “Fall”, necessitating God’s redemption of mankind through Christ.) This sequence is crucial to Christian theology. Did God really create things bad, not “very good” as the Bible says (Genesis 1:31)? If things were bad to start with, the Fall becomes a superfluous concept. (The Fall presupposes that there was something good from which to fall.) Thus, a major point of tension exists between the Bible and evolution at the heart of the biblical doctrine of the Fall. Note the following quote from G. R. Bozarth, The American Atheist magazine, September 1978, 30:

            “Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”

            Evolutionism, indeed, denies that man even has a sinful nature or else suggests that we should not be faulted for our human nature because “that is just our nature.” Thus evolution is inconsistent with the Christian belief that man is indeed fallen and in need of a savior.

            The theory of evolution itself has continually changed over time. This is in contrast to the Bible, which has not changed over time.

            Morality in evolutionary thought is a function of natural selection, survival of the fittest, or situation ethics. The Bible teaches transcending moral truth, given by God. (Exodus 20:1-17; Isaiah 5:20-21)

            Evolution is closely associated with the philosophy of secular humanism, which accepts human beings as the ultimate source of meaning and value. The Bible, of course, places God as the ultimate source of meaning and value.

            The Bible teaches that man was created for a special purpose. Evolution denies that man has a divine purpose, or at least implies that man’s purpose in life is whatever one wants to make of it (secular humanism). (Isaiah 43:7; Jeremiah 29:11; Matthew 6:10; Romans 8:28, 14:12; Galatians 1:15; Ephesians 2:10, 3:21; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 4:10)

            Since evolution offers no real purpose for life, it results in an absence of meaning, and therefore an absence of objective moral values. This is clearly in conflict with the Bible. Evolution results in a philosophy of nihilism (the denial of any basis for truth), which ultimately ends in despair. The Bible claims to have the Truth, which gives ultimate hope. (John 14:6; Colossians 1:27)

            The Bible not only fits the evidence of scientific investigation, it provides an answer for why the world was created. Evolution does neither.

          • John N

            >’Evolution: In the beginning there was random chance.’

            If you think that is what the theory of evolution says, you are nowhere. It does not even mention the beginning. And random chance is an important part of the theory (mutations are random), natural selection is not random at all.

            I’m skipping the bible parts as being useless, until you have some evidence the bible is anything more than myths and stories written by man.

            >’Evolutionism, indeed, denies that man even has a sinful nature …’

            Again, the theory of evolution says no such thing. Please read something about it.

            >’The theory of evolution itself has continually changed over time’

            And you make it sound as if this is a bad thing? Scientific theories evolve, when new evidence is found.

            >’This is in contrast to the Bible, which has not changed over time.

            The bible is a human construction put together some 1600 years ago, based on oral tradition and contradicting texts written by unknown authors and manipulated by others for hundreds of years, translated and redirected again by protestants. There are about as many versions of the book as there are christian denominations. Unchanged you say?

            >’Since evolution offers no real purpose for life, it results in an absence of meaning, and therefore an absence of objective moral values.’

            Ok, I can live with that. I’m prepared to give meaning to my own life, don’t need a deity to do that for me. By the way, any evidence that ‘objective moral values’ actually exist? Because I can’t see them in real life. Moral values have clearly changed over the centuries, and we are glad they did. No one would like to live in slavery like in biblical times, would we?

            >’Evolution results in a philosophy of nihilism (the denial of any basis for truth), which ultimately ends in despair’

            So you are actually saying the world today, having globally accepted the theory of evolution, is in utter despair? Well I didn’t notice that.

            >’The Bible not only fits the evidence of scientific investigation, it provides an answer for why the world was created. Evolution does neither.’

            Incorrect, incorrect, correct.

            If you say the bible, and certainly the creation story, has any scientific evidence whatsoever, then it is very well hidden. A Noble Price is waiting for you if you know any.

            If you say it answers the reason why the world is created, you’ll first have to show us it is anything more than a myth. There are a lot of concurrent mythical stories explaining the world. Like a clever guy once said, they can’t all be right, but they certainly can all be wrong.

            And, again, you clearly have no notion on what the theory of evolution actually says. It certainly does not concern the origin of the world.

          • afchief

            Scientific Fact No. 1 – Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

            The body and soul of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was the idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations.

            Darwin’s theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.

            The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the “evolutionary tree” have many flaws.

            One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly.

            Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment.

            Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection.

            According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly.

            We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed.

            Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution: the natural selection.

            Birds aren’t the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example.

            We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let’s examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can’t breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let’s get back to the fish story.

            The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water.

            One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard.

            Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

            Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach.

            One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection.

            Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical logic of an evolutionist.

          • John N

            Just one example of why this is rubbish – the first statement in the first chapter:
            >’One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly.’

            No scientist ever has said wingless birds began to evolve a wing. Wingless birds were once flying birds who lost the ability to fly because they didn’t need it anymore. As a consequence, their wings degenerated.

            I guess I don’t have to continue, do I? This text is clearly written by someone who does not even understand the basics of the theory of evolution. Case dismissed.

          • afchief

            Scientific Fact No. 2 – Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong

            The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof.

            Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human “family tree” is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes.

            Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture.

            This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes, elephants or the Platypus. (…)

            The pictures are simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

            Close to the Missing Link — Oldest Human Ancestor Discovered

            Why do they claim the above discovery is “close to the missing link”? The answer is simple. Look at the picture: It is a monkey.

            A monkey species that has become extinct. Lots of species have become extinct. Millions of species have become extinct.

            It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people.

            A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a “missing link” has been found.

            Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his “Theory of Evolution.” Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species.

            Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

            The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species.

            All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different.

            The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.

          • John N

            Afchief, you are not just looking silly but also lazy and dishonest . Copying from a creationist website in a discussion on science is simply not done.

            Do you actually have any original thoughts on this subject?

          • afchief

            The truth always offends! Does it not?

          • John N

            Now, why would you be offended when I say your are silly, lazy and dishonest to copy from a creationist website pretending it are your ideas?

          • afchief

            The truth always offends! Does it not?

          • John N

            So I did offend you? My apologies. Not.

          • afchief

            Scientific Fact No. 3 – Missing Inferior Evolutionary Branches

            The Theory of Evolution states that minute improvements in an individual within a species increases the likelihood of survival of the offspring. These small steps of improvements continue for countless years until the individuals are changed to such a large extent that a new species has appeared.

            This progression is an uninterrupted branch of the “evolutionary tree.” These lines of progression can be seen in any biology text book for many species, including mankind. They almost look believable…

            The siblings of an individual on the uninterrupted branch may fail to develop the minute improvement and may even suffer from an inferior evolutionary change. Each of these individuals represents a new branch on the tree that is moving away from the uninterrupted branch.

            Let us say we have 100,000 coexisting individuals in a species such as a horse. Only a few of these individuals will begin new branches that will eventually become a new species such as a Zebra. The other 99,999 individuals may each begin a neutral or inferior branch that may continue for millions of years but will eventually stop, because the last individual on the branch fails to produce an offspring.

            The odds that the branch will stop producing offspring is increased when the minute evolutionary changes are inferior. The theory of survival of the fittest or natural selection also works in reverse to produce death to the branch where the changes are inferior. The branch stops. This part of the tree is dead.

            We see in Scientific Fact No. 2 above that the missing intermediary individuals in the branch of the evolutionary tree present a serious problem for the Theory of Evolution. One superior individual of the 100,000 is missing, but now we have an even more serious defect in the theory. Where are the 99,999 inferior branches? How could 99,999 branches go missing?

            Actually, the fossil record shows that everything is missing. No individuals of the species existed. None. Most layers of the earth’s crust are completely devoid of all life, but then a layer will appear that is teaming with an absolute abundance of separate species, each containing millions of individuals.

            This hypothesis of the “missing inferior evolutionary branches” was developed and posted here by the author, Kent R. Rieske, on March 21, 2008. Thousands of biology professors at universities around the world, including Darwin, have completely missed this serious deficiency in the fossil record, because they have only been searching for the superior evolutionary branches, not the inferior branches.

            Where are the fossils of horses with weak bones that fractured early in life and thereby prevented an offspring from continuing the branch? They don’t exist, but they should if the Theory of Evolution was true. In fact, the fossil record should be full of dead branches, which is not. The fossil record simply shows individual species that have become extinct.

          • afchief

            Scientific Fact No. 4 – Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

            Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

            This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.

            The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane. The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard. The minimal cell contains more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.

            The smallest single-cell creature has millions of atoms forming millions of molecules that must each be arranged in an exact pattern to provide the required functions. The cell has an energy-producing system, a protective housing, a security system to let molecules into and out of the housing, a reproductive system, and a central control system. This complexity required an intelligent design. It is much too complex to happen by chance.

            Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton page 263;

            The odds that the correct proteins could somehow come together in a functional configuration to make a living cell are so high that it will never happen. The concept that anything can be accomplished by chance given enough time is false. (…)

          • afchief

            Scientific Fact No. 5 – Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong

            The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The human female like other mammals has XX sex chromosomes, and the male has XY sex chromosomes. The female egg contains the X-chromosome, and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a female or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a male.

            The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent genetic change.

            Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

            The male sperm are created very differently from the female egg. The sperm are created in the testes of a male on a daily basis. This short time period between the creation of the sperm and conception within the female precludes any possibility that the male can be a part of the evolutionary process.

            A harsh winter, or some other environmental condition does not affect the testes in any way that would alter the chromosomes in the sperm. Therefore, the male could not possibly contribute to evolutionary change caused by the environment. This fact applies to humans as well as all other mammals.

            There are no ways possible whereby environmental adaptation could occur through the male part of the chromosome. Neither is there any scientific evidence that environmental experiences change the genetic code within the sperm. Males cannot be a part of the evolutionary process for these reasons. These scientific facts prove evolution of the human species caused by environmental adaptation or any other reason is impossible.

            *** *** ***

            (N/A In my opinion, there is not enough evidence to support the author’s conclusion regarding “Scientific Fact No. 5.” Based on my knowledge, the DNA, which is the software of all living things, can bring improvements to a species, though I agree that it cannot change it into an entirely different one. The DNA is also responsible for our appearance, otherwise we would all look the same.

            The fact that the DNA works as a software, making humans – for example – better adapted to the environment, can be easily proven.

            Those who walk bare foot develop extra layers of skin on their soles, or those who work the land with their hands, develop extra layers of skin on their palms. Increased resistance to cold can be observed in the descendants of the nomadic tribes, such as gypsies, even though they are no longer living in harsh conditions.

            In conclusion, based on my knowledge, improvements are to be expected, but never radical mutations which would result into an entirely different species).

            *** *** ***

          • afchief

            Scientific Fact No. 6 – DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

            The scientific fact that DNA replication, including a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process, proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is, any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.

            Chromosomes, Chromatin, DNA Replication and Repair;

            “Replication also contains built-in error checking. The frequency of errors is about 1 per 100 million bonds (1 x 10-8). Over the entire human genome, that works out to roughly 30 errors every single time the genome replicates. BUT! There are really only around three errors per replication because of DNA repair. If a repair enzyme finds a mistake, it can fix it, and it can tell which strand is wrong because it can tell which strand is the newly synthesized strand by at the extent of cytosine methylation. As DNAs exist in cells, many of the cytosines have a methyl group added to them by enzymes called methylases. A new DNA will have relatively few methylated cytosines because it has not been around long enough to have picked up that many methyl groups.”

            “Without DNA repair there can be some major problems. Xeroderma pigmentosum is a serious ailment caused by mutations in the gene for DNA repair. People with xp develop many skin tumors and other problems because of the number of errors in their DNA.”

            Mutation, Mutagens, and DNA Repair Outline;

            Mutations (DNA replication errors) are the result of DNA that is replicated with damage that passes on to the offspring. Mutations are very rare because of DNA checking and repair. However, one in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule can result in a mutation (error). The mutation changes are random, unpredictable errors that cause crippling diseases, loss of function and the destruction of the host person or animal. Mutations destroy the species. They do not improve the species. Mutations never lead to a new species as falsely claimed by evolutionists.

            Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences;

            Evolutionists believe in the “mutation theory” for the origin of the many species. (…) They believe that the “time god” makes mistake after mistake after mistake until VOILA — we have a hummingbird that can fly backwards.

            They claim that multiple mutation mistakes eventually led to humans with color vision that can focus at different lengths and two eyes that are coordinated by the brain in order to judge distances.

          • afchief

            Scientific Fact No. 7 – Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

            The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics, which has never been proven wrong.

            The universe is slowing down to a lower state, not higher. The genes of plants, insects, animals, and humans are continually becoming defective, not improving. Species are becoming extinct, not evolving. Order will always move naturally towards disorder or chaos.

            Quoting from the book, Evolution and Human Destiny, by Kohler,

            “One of the most fundamental maxims of the physical sciences is the trend toward greater randomness – the fact that, on the average, things will get into disorder rather than into order if left to themselves. This is essentially the statement that is embodied in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

            This scientific law actually refutes and contradicts the Theory of Evolution in its entirety.

          • afchief

            Scientific Fact No. 8 – Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

            There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey.

            Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot be changed. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation.

            Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.

            (For example) a dog has only 22 chromosomes, whereas a monkey has 54 and a cat has 38. Half of the total number of chromosomes are contained in the female reproductive cells and half are contained in the male, so the exact total number is brought together in the offspring.

            Humans have 46 chromosomes. This chromosome count is a steady factor. This determines what is called the “fixity of species” because the chromosome count doesn’t vary. People always give birth to people. Dogs always give birth to dogs, etc. The genes can produce variety within the species but cannot result in a different species. (N/A Exactly my point bellow “Fact No. 5”).

            Genes allow for people to be short, tall, fat, thin, blond, brunette, etc., but they are still all human beings. The chromosomes make crossing of the species an un-crossable barrier. This certainly would hinder any evolution. Dogs cannot breed with cats. This fact stops evolution dead in its tracks.

            Sometimes two species are close enough to crossbreed, but the offspring are usually sterile. This is the case when horses and donkeys crossbreed. A male donkey (jackass) and a female horse (mare) will produce a mule. Farmers often preferred mules as work animals prior to the development of the farm tractor.

            A hinny is the offspring of a female donkey (jenny) and a male horse (stallion). The hinny and mule usually cannot produce offspring. These animals show that evolution is not possible.

          • afchief

            Scientific Fact No. 9 – Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

            Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The “Big Bang Theory” doesn’t solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.

            “We know that matter can be created out of energy, and energy can be created out of matter. This doesn’t resolve the dilemma because we must also know where the original energy came from.” – Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas;

    • Blaylock

      no proof

  • FoJC_Forever

    The universe was drastically changed during the war in between Lucifer’s followers and the Angels of God. God won and renewed the universe, then created life on the earth. The state the earth is in now is not the state God originally laid out during the 6 days recorded in Genesis. God changed it again through the Great Flood. The next big transformation will happen when Salvation is complete and Sin is permanently purged from creation (by the power of God which is very much like what we know as fire). The New Heavens and New Earth produced by the next transformation is what the followers of Jesus (the) Christ are being prepared to inhabit for Eternity.

    The age of the earth and the universe is not relevant, nor is it known by mankind. It cannot be known and to speculate is a waste of time. The presence of Sin is why we now have time. When Sin is gone, time will no longer exist.

    • Dave_L

      Do you have any direct Scriptural support for this? Where does Scripture mention a creation prior to the seven days of Genesis?

      • FoJC_Forever

        You haven’t figured out that I don’t commune with you. You are an enemy of God and Truth.

        You are also a stalker, an online persona invented to make yourself look like you care about the Word of God, Jesus (the) Christ.

        You will pay for your treachery.

        • Dave_L

          I’m interested in what Scriptures you use to support your claims. It seems that is not asking too much. Do we simply take your word for something, because it is you saying it? Or do we inquire about what God says about it? Which any Christian should be glad to share.

    • Pererin

      The age certainly is relevant simply because it confuses people about the existence of sin and the need for a saviour. Secular belief is that the Earth is billions of years old and death and sin has existed for all of that time. The Bible says that death and sin has only existed on Earth for around 6000 years, or at least that there was a ‘fall’ event that happened in the garden of Eden which brought about the curse, sin and the need for a saviour. If we start taking on secular beliefs on the age of the Earth then the fall never happened. Do you see that if we question the fall and the curse, then we question the need for a saviour.
      The devil tempted Eve with “Did God REALLY say that you would surely die?” He is using the exact same strategy now, today it’s “Did God REALLY say that Genesis 1-3 is literal?” The devil knows that Genesis 1-3 is the foundation on which Christianity stands, he knows that without Genesis, the is no need to worry about sin and without sin, there is no need for a saviour from sin, which is why he is attacking it in a big way.

      • FoJC_Forever

        It is a waste of time to speculate the age of the universe. This is Truth.

        • Pererin

          Well at least we can agree that Jesus Christ is LORD. This is Truth 🙂
          Blessings

          • FoJC_Forever

            I’m not disputing Genesis. However, Jesus is the foundation of Christianity, not Genesis 1-3 alone. Genesis 1-3 are important, this is Truth, but not all. There is more to know about God and His creation than has been listed in Scripture. God is Eternal. Before He created the universe, He existed. What was He doing? I don’t know and will not speculate, but I know He existed. To know this is to know that Jesus (the) Christ is also Eternal and existed before time began, since He is the Eternal Word of God manifested in human form. The implications of this Truth are beyond phenomenal.

          • Dave_L

            If you cannot know anything about God other than what is “listed in Scripture”, how do you know about a “creation” existing before the Six Days where God is said to have created “everything”?

          • FoJC_Forever

            You read and read, yet you do not know the Word of God.

            You are ever learning, but never come to knowledge of the Truth.

          • Dave_L

            This is merely your opinion. I’m showing you and everyone else the Scriptures I draw my conclusions from. Yet not one rebuttal using Scripture? Not even an alternative interpretation of the passages I present?

          • Pererin

            All of what you said is correct. However, none of this solves the problem that if the time between Genesis 1v1 and today is the expanse of billions of years of death and sin, then the purpose of Jesus dying for our sins is gone! The billions of years being discussed is within this time frame, not in the eternity before Genesis 1v1.

            Can you explain to me how sin entered the ‘billions of years world’ when
            Sin and death existed billions of years before the evolution of humans?
            If we are to believe in a world where sin and death had entered billions of years before the evolution of two humans, or even a serpent, we must accept that the fall never happened, it totally contradicts God’s word in Genesis, where two fully human people, disobeyed God by eating forbidden fruit, bringing on the fall.

            If there were no secularly interpreted evidence of death before roughly 6,000 years ago, I would say, OK, the world really could be billions of years old, it wouldn’t effect Jesus saving us from our sins from which we suffer as a result of the fall described in Genesis 1-3.

            Jesus, the fall, Calvary. Explain to me the gospel without either of those three things. You can’t, but that is exactly what you ask me to do if I am to accept that sin has existed for billions of years before the existence of Adam and Eve. Take out Jesus and we aren’t even created. Take out the fall, then there is no sin, no problem, no need for saving. Take out Calvery and we are doomed.
            I know you do not reject either of those three things, but you don’t seem to realise that if we are to take on the secular, naturalistic view of creation we must let go of the fall. I will not do this as the Bible is clear from start to finish that it happened and that all of creation continues to groan from it.

            I await your reply as I really appreciate this discussion with you.

            Blessings

          • FoJC_Forever

            Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

            Jesus didn’t die for the sins of the Angels and Lucifer who rebelled against God.

            Jesus took the sins of those who will accept His offer of Salvation and believe in Him as LORD, the Savior promised after Adam and Eve sinned. Everyone isn’t saved from their Sin, but the offer of Salvation is made to everyone.

            Humans didn’t evolve. God created the first humans, the rest have been pro-created through the power God put within mankind.

            You have me confused with someone else. I don’t believe the scientific version of the earth’s history.

            The gracious platitudes make you look suspicious, not kind and genuine.

          • Pererin

            Here we again, absolutely.

            Again I agree.

            Hmm, here I would say that God’s election is more biblically accurate, but this would be going off subject. Agree to disagree.

            Here I agree and I would add that God created the first humans, Adam and Eve roughly 6000 years ago as stated in Genesis.

            This is the statement of yours that I am challenging:

            It is important the we hold on to the literal 6 day account of Genesis because it is vital to the validity of Jesus as our saviour.

            Would we prefer an insult instead? If you do not appreciate the discussion I will pull out. I’m not forcing to converse with me.

          • FoJC_Forever

            You’re wrong. You touch on some things that are Truth, but you only do so to support your argument, just like the others with whom you like to debate. Your responses infers that I don’t support the Scripture, but you’re no different than the others who simply argue to prove their own points.

            The earth was in existence prior to the creation of mankind. This is Truth, and completely supported by Scripture. The Scripture does not tell us how old creation is, anywhere. The age is inferred by people who grab Scriptures to support their doctrines.

        • Blaylock

          why?

        • Dave_L

          Luke’s genealogies go all the way back to Adam. So there is a strong indication we can “ball park” the age of the earth using them, since God created man (Heb. Adam) on the sixth day.

          • FoJC_Forever

            The universe existed before the creation of mankind.

          • Dave_L

            True, but not before the first of the six days of creation.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Wrong, just like your buddy Pererin, or is that another username of yours?

          • Dave_L

            Please post Scripture to support your claim.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Your demeanor reminds me of the Westboro Baptist cult.

          • Dave_L

            In what way?

    • John N

      The age of the earth and of the universe are very well known by mankind, because science has shown us.

      So you are correct, it as a waste if time to speculate about it….

      What science doesn’t show is any evidence of your myths and stories. Speculation?

      • Dave_L

        The wine Jesus made was well fermented too. Most no doubt though it was well aged.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Science has not shown you or anyone else the age of the universe. Science is inaccurate.

        Copying my writing style doesn’t make what you say correct.

        You are a deceiver.

        • John N

          >’Science is inaccurate’
          Correct. So the age of the earth is estimated with an error margin of 1%, that of the universe with a margin of 0.15%.

          Am I the deceiver? Do you have any evidence for that?

          • FoJC_Forever

            “The age of the earth and of the universe are very well known by mankind, because science has shown us.”

            You state it is known, now you state there is a margin of error, which is saying you don’t actually know the age of the universe. The estimates have also been changed over the years as well.

            Science isn’t Truth, it is simply interpretation of data, much like false Christianity is interpretation of Scripture rather than hearing the Holy Spirit and knowing the Truth of Scripture. You trust in your science, but your knowledge is faulty and finite.

            Scientists are like children playing in a sandbox, amazed at how water interacts with sand, then building things which will eventually crumble and pass away.

            Follow Jesus, find Wisdom.

          • John N

            >’You state it is known, now you state there is a margin of error, which is saying you don’t actually know the age of the universe. ‘

            Oh, we do. Did you see how small the error margin has become after all those years of investigation? And what about your estimates?

            >’The estimates have also been changed over the years as well.’

            Correct. That is what scientists do: change their views when new evidence arises. That is what religious people (at least say they) will never do, even when new evidence contradicts their views.

            >’Science isn’t Truth, it is simply interpretation of data’

            Well, it is a method to come to the final truth (no capital needed). And it seems to work, doesn’t it? Certainly compared to faith and prayer …

            >’Scientists are like children playing in a sandbox, amazed at how water interacts with sand, then building things which will eventually crumble and pass away.’

            If Scientists are like children playing in a sandbox, religious people are the bystander looking passively, thinking they already know everything to be discovered.

            At the end, who will be left empty handed?

          • FoJC_Forever

            In the End, those who reject Jesus (the) Christ will be left without a heavens and earth to live in, simply suffering in the darkness and pain of Eternal Damnation.

            Meanwhile, those of us who know the Truth, will be completed and living in the New Heavens and New Earth.

          • John N

            Well, Good Luck To You! Guess You’ll Have To Speak All Capitals There!

            By the way, wasn’t the End somewhere two weeks ago? Must have missed it. Or maybe, all Christians worth saving have actually been raptured!

    • Josey

      Exactly right, speculation is nothing but a waste of time, we can only go by what God has revealed to us at this time. 1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

      • Dave_L

        “1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now (in 55 AD) I know in part; but then (when the perfect comes) [I] shall I know even as also I am known.”

        Since Paul uses the first person “I” in both cases, the perfect must come during his lifetime.

        Many no longer see through a glass darkly, but actually see face to face today in the Scriptures.

  • pilgrim249

    Carson folds at the first sign of pressure on every critical issue—I don’t trust him, not for a minute.

    • dennis

      Not even when he says “the idea of evolution was put into the mind of man by the devil.” How can you not believe this?

  • mattgo404

    Genesis 1:1 does state “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”…however, it goes on to state: “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters”…after that it is pretty clear that everything created on the earth was done over the period of 6 days. So even if Carson thinks it took billions to make the formless earth “before the 6 days”, everything on it still was created in 6 days according to Genesis.

    • Dave_L

      “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” (Exodus 20:11)

      From start to finish. No billion year gaps here.

      • Josey

        Clearly, the statement in the Genesis says the earth was formless and empty meaning nothing was here, it was a dead until God began creation. I am not sure what Carson is referring to by his statement, seems to me he is assuming by his opinion or fantasy that is based on that God can do the impossible which God can but all we have been given is God’s account in Genesis and that is it and I believe God’s account as given to us that He created these things during a six day period and on the seventh day He rested.

        • Dave_L

          The Oldest Genesis manuscript is the Greek Septuagint (LXX). Jesus and the Apostles quote from it many times. This is the rendering of Genesis 1:1-2 from the Septuagint.

          “In the beginning, God made the heaven and the earth. But the land was unseen and unprepared, and darkness was upon the deep. And the spirit of God rushed upon the water. And God said, “Let light come into being.” And light came into being.” (Genesis 1:1–3)

          It is like beginning a project, you ruff it in first and refine it as you go. And the related Scriptures place this unseen and unprepared land at the beginning of the six days of Creation.

    • BarkingDawg

      Genesis is a fable.

      • Pererin

        Macro evolution is a fable, this is fun!

        • BarkingDawg

          Nope. Evolution has been clearly demonstrated in the fossil record.

          Just because you refuse to accept that, does not change reality.

          • Pererin

            Thankfully Galileo and Copernicus never thought like that, bowing to social pressures when they could see how wrong they were. I know the reality, the fossil record doesn’t even demonstrate evolution when interpreted to suit it. So many gaps, so much circular reasoning.

          • BarkingDawg

            And there is no evidence that “goddidit.”

          • Pererin

            Of course there is, His creation declares His glory. The universe is clearly designed, the presence of order, information and logic is evidence of a mind.
            The chaos naturalism suggests just isn’t there at all. You just refuse to believe it because of your dependence on naturalism and atheism.

          • BarkingDawg

            Logic?

            You invoke logic then proceed to make s circular argument. HA!

          • Pererin

            Please explain how evidence of undeniable order, logic, information and intelligence in nature being evidence of a Godly creator is circular reasoning.

          • John N

            Please explain where you see evidence of undeniable order, logic, information and intelligence in nature.

  • Rebecca

    Silly SDA.

  • Bruce Morrow

    Ben Carson is a compromiser. He believes in theistic evolution.

  • BarkingDawg

    4.5 billion, give or take a few eons.

  • BarkingDawg

    Why isn’t the Earth in the center of the universe?

    • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

      Didn’t you hear? EVERYTHING is at the centre of the universe, just to avoid having earth at the centre. Evolution is amazing like that. You can take the whole universe out of context!

  • George Jenkins

    “The other thing is that people don’t realize [is] He’s God. If He wanted to create an Earth that was billions of years old he could do it,” says Carson. Then he just concludes that God might have lied when He said, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” and BTW, He defined an “evening and a morning” as a day and probably did not breath into an ape called Adam.

  • Monique

    I’m a Seventh-day Adventist, (like Dr. Carson) and I’m extremely disappointed in this statement of his. Firstly, as Christians we have nothing to stand on except the Word of God. If we stop believing what the Bible clearly says, then we might as well believe in nothing. Genesis 1 says over and over “the evening and the morning were the first/second/third day” etc. Evenings and Mornings refer to the night portion and day portion of a 24 hour day. This cannot stand for any other time period. A lot of things he has said are against what Adventists believe, but this one is the worst.

    I wish someone would ask Dr. Carson if he doesn’t believe in the literal 7-day week of Creation, then why is he SDA? SDAs keep the Biblical Sabbath mainly because we’re following God’s example of resting on the seventh day of creation as stated in Genesis 2:1-3, Exodus 20:8-12 and in several other scriptural references that identify the weekly Sabbath as a memorial that God is our Creator. Theistic evolution is nowhere in the Bible, and I for one would rather trust what God says than what scientists say any day. I appreciate science but admittedly, scientists only know a drop in the ocean of things they don’t know. On the other hand God knows everything and He has revealed in the simplest terms possible what we need to know about creation and about Himself. How hard is it to believe Him, even if some people call us names?.. Jesus suffered and endured shame for us. We can endure something for Him.. May God bless you all. Study the Bible for yourselves and trust in God. He doesn’t lie.. or stutter. (1 Samuel 15:29)

  • Don Rima

    Even BIBLICALLY the earth has been here for an UNKNOWN AMOUNT OF TIME! It’s only been TERRAFORMED as we know it today in the last 10000 years or so… But we have no clue what happened before that.

    • John N

      Before that was the last ice age, known as the Weichselian glaciation, which lasted from around 115.000 years ago until 11.700 years ago. Glad to be of help.

    • BarkingDawg

      Science – how does that work

      Sheesh

  • Robertt1

    There is no contradiction between the 6 days Creation account and the old age of the Earth. Adam was created as an adult, mature. Not as a cell with age zero, or as a baby.
    So was the Earth.

  • Becky

    Carson stated, “[Genesis] says, ‘In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth,’ and then there’s a period there. You don’t know how much time elapsed.”
    So, why even make that speculation? This is another reason why we are to solely follow what is written in the word of God. Sola scriptura.
    The statement in Genesis 1:1 is the scope of the chapter…verse 2 begins to expound on God’s creation. In seven literal days God created the earth AND man. So, after the heavens and earth were created, man was created straight away. The bible doesn’t teach that the heavens and the earth remained vacant for billions of years, at all…man existed, too. The bible does offer, for example, a lot of geneologies with authenticated names and dates. Let’s not forget about authenticated chronological events and places.

  • archaeologist

    he is person who compromises and doesn’t really believe God