‘It Forces Us to Rethink All These Models’: Discovery Shatters Secular Scientists’ Expectations

Comet-compressedThe unexpected discovery of oxygen around a distant comet has shocked secular astronomers and challenges the current evolutionary models for the universe’s origins.

In 2004, the European Space Agency (ESA) launched the “Rosetta” spacecraft to rendezvous with a comet. “Rosetta” arrived at Comet 67P last year and has since been orbiting the comet and relaying observations back to Earth.

On October 28, ESA announced that “Rosetta” had detected traces of oxygen (O2) emanating from Comet 67P. In an ESA news release, astronomers described the discovery as “quite a surprise.”

“ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft has made the first in situ detection of oxygen molecules outgassing from a comet, a surprising observation that suggests they were incorporated into the comet during its formation,” the statement announced.

Where did the oxygen come from? According to the evolutionary models, it shouldn’t even be there.

“We weren’t really expecting to detect O2 at the comet—and in such high abundance—because it is so chemically reactive, so it was quite a surprise,” Kathrin Altwegg, who helped analyze the spacecraft’s findings, said in the ESA release.

“It’s also unanticipated because there aren’t very many examples of the detection of interstellar O2,” she continued. “And thus, even though it must have been incorporated into the comet during its formation, this is not so easily explained by current Solar System formation models.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Secular astronomers believe that Comet 67P is several billion years old. However, according to the secular model of the solar system’s formation, the oxygen should have paired off with hydrogen long ago.

“We think this result is of interest beyond the cometary community because it forces us to rethink all of these models,” said Mike A’Hearn, an astronomer at the University of Maryland, according to a report from “Nature.”

Brian Thomas, science writer for the Institute for Creation Research, said the existence of the abundant oxygen around Comet 67P is entirely inexplicable in the secular models.

“In secular thinking, comets are supposed to be pristine samples of the early solar system,” Thomas said. “But the early solar system was supposedly encased in hydrogen, which reacts with free oxygen to form water. So, there shouldn’t be any molecular oxygen in comets if the secular model were true.”

The Genesis creation account provides a more plausible explanation for ESA’s recent discovery, says Thomas.

“God created comets on Day 4 of Creation Week, when he said that the nighttime luminaries including stars and planets should be ‘for signs and seasons, and for days and years,’ and set each one in motion,” he stated. “Comets have been decaying or dying ever since the curse.”

Where the secular model falls short, the biblical model makes sense, Thomas proposed.

“If God created Comet 67P about 6,000 years ago, then it could still have unreacted, gaseous oxygen,” he argued. “And it could still have enough water to fuel its intriguing vapor jets.  This is like finding shiny new metal instead of dirty old rust. Perhaps we should think of the universe as less like a rusty junk yard and more like a new car lot.”

The very existence of comets today is problematic for secular astronomers. Comets, which are often described as “dirty snowballs,” lose copious amounts of gas and dust every time they orbit the Sun, so they cannot survive for millions of years. Some scientists suppose that comets originate in a distant “Oort Cloud,” but such a cloud has never been observed.

“Even long-period comets have estimated lifespans not much exceeding 200,000 years, so comets should not exist if they formed 4.5 billion years ago,” Thomas explained. “Astronomers invented and named an Oort Cloud to rescue their story of comet origins, but evidence for this fictional Cloud comes not from telescopes but only from secularists’ need to supply comets within the last several thousand years and without a Creator.”

The biblical model, in contrast, “has the advantage of explaining the presence of comets in our solar system without invoking an ‘Oort Cloud’ for which there is no evidence,” Thomas opined.

“Creation appeals to a Creator for which there is unmistakable evidence,” Thomas said.

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • “God created comets on Day 4 of Creation Week,..”

    I don’t quite agree with the above assessment. With how water reacts in space, I would say comets developed when the fountains of the deep broke open. This is just my humble opinion.

    I believe that the energy of the fountains breaking open and its subsequent contact to a protective canopy and the escape velocity into space would’ve coalesced together to form what we call comets.

    Just a thought.

    • Michael C

      All comets originated from this one planet?

      • I don’t know, not an astronomer.

        How many known comets are there–ones that have been actually found and not assumed? And from that number, what is the liquid mass, and would it be possible to form with the amount of water that could have originated from this one planet through underground fountains and a theorized canopy?

        • What is this “underground fountains and theorized canopy” mumbo-jumbo? I never heard anything about this in my geology classes at college.

          • bowie1

            I recall this past year that they had discovered an underground ocean far below the surface, but I no longer have a link to that source.

          • Brandon Pound

            Chuck – That is a reference to the book of Genesis. The fountains of the deep opened during the biblical flood. And if you read Genesis chapter 1, it is logically deduced that the pre-flood Earth had a canopy of water around it, like an ocean in the sky. It also says in Genesis 7 during the flood that “the floodgates of heaven opened.” I don’t believe that is just referring to basic rain as we understand it. I find this whole idea extremely convincing, given the fact that a canopy of water around the Earth would cause the entire Earth to have a tropical greenhouse like climate, and would explain how lizards grew so big so as to become dinosaurs, and why Genesis records that people lived so long. Secular scientists agree that the dinosaurs lived during a time when the Earth had a tropical climate allegedly “millions” of years ago. I believe it was actually just thousands of years ago. So many dinosaurs fossils we find today were obviously fossilized by some kind of rapid water action. And honestly, how do bones survive for millions of years. It’s just impossible. The biblical flood is the answer to so many mysteries in our world, and it’s also the reason why we can’t trust carbon dating or any other dating systems that are based on the decay rates of any elements.

          • Brandon Pound

            I would also like to add that the geology class I took in college (at a secular university) was full of mumbo-jumbo. And the professor loved to throw in zingers about how the biblical flood would have just been impossible. Her reasoning was always based on her assumption that everything happens in this world through natural causes over long periods of time. This is exactly why we all keep going round and round in this debate. Because your paradigm pre-supposes that all causes for everything in this world are always natural, thus excluding the possibility of the supernatural. On the other side of the debate, us open-minded folks acknowledge that, while many things do in fact have “natural causes,” how could we possibly prove that the supernatural doesn’t exist? On our side of the debate, we don’t pre-suppose anything.

          • “it is logically deduced that the pre-flood Earth had a canopy of water around it, like an ocean in the sky.”

            If I understand you correctly, the Earth was once contained within a hollow sphere of water. Is that your assertion?

          • No literal interpreter has ever explained what a “firmament” is. People once believed that stars and planets were attached to something solid and I’m guessing that the writers of Genesis believed that. So much for literalism.

          • Brandon Pound

            Yes sir, that is essentially what I am saying, a sphere of water. I’m not exactly sure why you’re saying that the word “firmament” is so confusing. Some translations say “heaven,” and some say “sky.” I haven’t done a Hebrew word study but it seems appropriate, based on how those words are used elsewhere in the Bible, to determine that the word really does just mean our sky or upper atmosphere. Not the Heaven where God dwells or even the universe at large.

            Also, Job 26:7 says “the Lord hangs the Earth on nothing.” Job is considered by many scholars to actually have been written before Genesis.

          • Thank you for that explanation. Given that God is capable of doing whatever He wills, there is no way to disprove the idea of a sphere of water enveloping the Earth.

            However, within the realm of Newtonian physics, such a thing would be impossible. If the water were not in orbit, there would be nothing keeping it up there. And if the water were in orbit the system would still collapse because “every smooth vector field on a sphere has a singular point.” (Brouwer, 1912, also known as the “hairy ball” problem). In other words, a sphere cannot orbit another sphere inside it because there must be at least one point where the velocity is zero precluding the possibility of orbit. And as a practical matter, a liquid sphere would have to have a constant orbital velocity throughout in order to maintain its shape which is impossible.

          • Brandon Pound

            Wow 🙂 I still believe what I believe but I don’t really have anything to refute what you are saying, given the fact that I am not a physicist and have very little knowledge of all those things. I will pose some questions though, out of sheer curiosity. So would that problem still exist if the water wasn’t a sphere? What if it was a different shape? Or what if the water in the sky was truly connected to the Earth, like as a part of the Earth? Not existing outside of it. Just curious. I’m sure there is a scientific explanation out there somewhere.

          • If the water was in a donut shape (a torus) it could maintain a stable orbit, but it would flatten out into a thin ring (like Saturn). I don’t know how liquid water could be still attached to the Earth, but again, God is not bound by our understanding. He is the Author of physics, so the universe obeys His laws.

      • The total mass of the asteroid belt is approximately 4% that of the moon. The total mass of all comets is much less. There is no compelling reason that this matter could not have been recently ejected from the Earth. Also, the Earth is a well known source of oxygen – why suppose that it came from space when we don’t see a lot of it out there?

        • Let’s examine your conjecture.

          Periodically, comets appear that have not been observed previously. It is a relatively simple matter to plot the path the comet takes and deduce its orbit. Some recently observed comets have extremely long orbital periods. For example, comet Hyakutake with an orbital period of 70,000 years, or Comet West with an orbital period of about 250,000 years. These are not conjectures. They are based on the solid mathematics of Kepler and Newton, the same mathematics that allow us place satelites into predictable orbits and land men on the Moon.

          So that leaves us with two explanations for these phenomena:

          1. God created the world 6,000 years ago virtually as it is today with celestial bodies already in stable orbits millions of miles away, or

          2. These objects have existed for tens of thousands of years at a minimum based on their orbital periods.

          The first seems rather odd in that it makes God appear capricious enough to create a Universe that looks much older than it is. The second is an admission that there is ample evidence to refute a young-earth model. I vote for number two. William of Occum would probably have done the same.

          Anomalous data always appear that force a re-evaluation of scientific models. This is the very nature of science. The discovery of oxygen on comets does not bring anything new to the debate. It’s a non-starter when there are many more serious flaws in the young-earth model.

          I say all this for one important reason: as Christians we are trying to bring people to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. If I had been forced to accept Young-Earth Creationism in order to be saved I doubt that I would have been. We ought to be more concerned about reaching the lost than in trying to nit-pick science. Or do you care more about having your understanding of Scripture affirmed at the expense of lost souls?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I, too, came into Christianity from atheism as an old earth creationist. I am non-dogmatic on the age of the universe now, however, for the reasons you cited – they are non-essentials that can present a stumbling block to the Gospel.

            BTW, the age-apparent universe theory is not, in and of itself, capricious IF God communicated that to us. (It is a big IF, but COULD be supported by an age-apparent Adam.) Not making an argument either way for YEC or OEC, just pointing out that it would not make God a liar IF He communicated that to us.

            Regardless, the secular version of current cosmology is a creation event, whereby everything – time, space, and matter – came into existence out of nothing material. The question is one of Cause at that point.

          • Good points. Of course the problem with the age-apparent concept is that it places no inherent limits on when creation takes place. God could have created the universe in 6000 BC or he could have created it today with all your memories and the entire scope of history already intact. From a Christian standpoint that makes no sense since Christ must have died in time and space, and it pretty much pushes things back to the young-earth scenario. And I didn’t say it made God a liar, only that it makes God appear (to our human understanding) to be capricious and arbitrary.

            But I enthusiastically agree that the universe as it appears to us was created ex nihilo, both time and space, so to discuss “when” time was created is meaningless. I am a devout Christian and I also have a great interest in cosmology. Personally, the current secular cosmological models speak of a God so overwhelmingly greater than we could ever have imagined that it actually deepens my faith. And cosmology still runs smack up against ontology: why is there “is?” There must be a ground to being. Causation may only be an artifact of our macro viewpoint. We now know that it doesn’t hold at the particle level. So an “uncaused cause” doesn’t describe God per se, it only defines the boundaries of causation as we experience it.

            I would rather stand in awe of a universe full of mystery and at the same time know the presence of Jesus in my life. It gives me chills to think that a God that immense would come as a man to save mankind. Glorious.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I agree wholeheartedly. I recall you saying you were not a big fan of Kalam once, but do you like the Argument from Unconditioned Reality, as explicated in Robert J. Spitzer’s book? It does have a Thomist style history, I guess.

          • Not familiar with it.

          • Just got a taste of it. It is in line with what I said about the “ground of being.” There must be an unconditioned reality and it is apparent that ours is not. The extension of that into a proof of God’s existence (and not by any means the God of the Bible) is supportable and in its full expression offers a sound apologetic for Deism. Unfortunately, cosmology is not rationally discussed on this board because it inevitably falls into proof-texting which effectively shuts down all debate.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, good explanation. I actually began a DISQUS discussion on it once, thinking (naively) that there might be some reasonable atheists who would enjoy the discussion. While the shampoo commercial was funny, you can see how New Atheists, including DISQUS moderators, attempted to clog up the works at the beginning (scroll down to see the 3 atheists who actually engaged in a rational sense):

            https://disqus .com/home/channel/squid/discussion/channel-squid/from_where_i_stand_the_argument_for_the_existence_of_god_from_unconditioned_reality/

            PS. Now, I see that the other theists’ comments, several of which were quite brilliant, have been removed from the page. So, I the OP, was the only theist allowed to keep his comments up. How “convenient.” This is a good indication of just who is in “charge” of DISQUS, I guess. 🙁

            In fact, after the silly stuff was posted and 2-3 serious atheists posted, I wrote this:

            “Yes, you are the second, perhaps third, person to actually desire to engage in a rational and reasonable sense. The first person that did so got deleted by the mod because she actually made a favorable and well-reasoned case for theism. (She was from Russia, BTW.) Expect the same for you and me too, regardless of which side you are on.

            I forgot that I was living in 2015 Amerika where insanity and immaturity rule. I should have posted a topic like “who is the hawtest actor and actress right now, and will you be filming your next abortion as a keepsake?”

            On the plus side, the screen shots I take of this page will surely convert more people to Christian theism than the above proof ever will! 🙂 Thanks for being a cut above, DS.”

          • The period of the Hyakutake comet is now 70k years, but was previously 17k years – and that’s an estimate too. It’s not very periodic – it’s more chaotic (in the mathematical sense). Here’s your anomalous data. Re-evaluate your model now.

          • Here do you get the Previous” 17K number? It is NOT an estimate. In any case, 17>6. And you made my point: anomalies are part of science.

          • And the more important point: does one have to embrace Young-Earth Creationism to be saved? Where is that in the Bible? Isn’t faith in Jesus enough?

          • So it’s not about science? Ok. Answers: in general no (“All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men”), but in some important cases, absolutely yes: “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead”. Young earth creationism is primarily in Genesis chapters 1 to 12. No, faith in Jesus is not enough: faith must show itself as faith and produce fruit: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (I’m being a little pedantic, but it’s nice to answer all the questions.)

          • Wow, you’re going to draw some heavy fire from the “sola fide” crowd if they see that comment. Quoting from James is not popular in this arena. Being Catholic, I completely agree that a saving faith is one that results in producing the “fruits of righteousness.” I could get into a long discussion of how much Jesus tied works to faith in Him, but that’s another topic for another time.

            The scientific issues are only being discussed in the context of Biblical Christianity. I understand that the overall goal of this site is to proclaim the Gospel, so they are keen to run stories about the next “failure” of a scientific model. But my concern is not in attacking Science because it does not square with Genesis, but rather to win hearts to Christ. It is certainly the work of the Holy Spirit to convict men of their sin and bring them to Christ, but I see no useful purpose in putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the path. Non-believers have enough to deal with just coming to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Expecting them to adopt a particular brand of Scriptural exegesis right off the bat seems counter-productive to me.

          • For some the unnecessary stumbling block is the believer who somehow accepts fundamental tenets of atheism. To those whom Jesus calls he will most certainly give life, but that is no reason to set aside jots and tittles of Moses and the prophets, for reasons of productive expedience.

          • We’ll just have to differ on that. Thanks.

    • I have to say that I find your thought confusing. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all creation is geocentric, that is, the entire Universe was formed locally around this planet. Is that correct?

      • No, you didn’t understand. Sorry if my post is confusing, but I’m only talking about a possible theory of how comets with oxygen could have been formed, which is the topic of the article.

  • “Creation Research”? Puh-leeze. If we assume that Life, the Universe, and Everything was spoken into being just 6,000 years ago, as the creationists insist, EVERYTHING we know about astronomy, physics, and higher mathematics falls apart. You believe “Creation Research,” don’t call it “science,” okay?

    • I’m curious, how would higher mathematics–for example–fall apart with a different theory of ages? I seem to remember that the theory of evolution went through some stages of reinterpretation of ultimate time. However, math and the other fields appear to be intact. Or at least give an example of how operational mathematics would fall apart with only 6,000 years.

      Also! Wouldn’t the theory of a 6000 year existence be considered a hypothesis?

      • A 6,000 year existence would be considered a hypotheses if there was anything about observational astronomy, for example, to suggest it. There is not, other than Bishop Ussher’s extrapolations. To learn more about the true age of the Universe, read about Edwin Hubble’s research. To learn more about the true age of the Earth, read about Clair Cameron Patterson.

        • I’m sorry, but you didn’t answer the questions I proposed; you just gave me a reading list. And as I’m already reading four different books on different topics, I’m not going to be picking up every suggested book on the subject.

          If you have specific theories that outshine all the rest, just post them. But from what I’ve read, there are plenty of difficult arguments on both sides of the debate.

          Although I don’t consider myself an expert on the matter, I pretty much have touched on the topics of supposed billions of years and believe there are problems that pop up; the latest is from the article above.

    • bowie1

      Science is based on certain assumptions that everything evolved gradually than through sudden catastrophic events or through rapid deterioration as opposed to gradual deterioration. You are right about testing and observation but conclusions can only be based on CURRENT conditions. What happened in the past cannot be tested or observed since we don’t know what happened.

      • Sure we know what happened. Past events leave plenty of clues behind. Astrophysicists, chemists, paleontologists and biologists are constantly learning more about the history of our world and the Universe. Creationists aren’t learning anything, because for them the Bible is the only historical record needed.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Chuck, Bowie is referring to operational science, what we normally refer to as “science,” whereas you appear to be referring to forensic science, which is valid but subject to non-repeatability. Just wanted you to know that you guys are talking past one another. But, I did want to address one thing you said that I disagree with:

          “Science and religion are indeed absolutely incompatible.”

          I would need some proof for this statement. Your statement would also have come as a great surprise to these great scientists whose theism compelled them to the objective purpose in life of investing their time and talent toward scientific exploration:

          Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galilei, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz (a brilliant theologian-apologist too), Boyle, Faraday (a pretty awesome fundamentalist preacher too, BTW), Mendel, Lister, Pasteur, Babbage,
          Maxwell, Stokes, Riemann, Joule, Linnaeus, Kelvin, Planck, von Braun (a creationist got us to the moon – with God’s help of course! :-)), etc.

          When you wrote the word “religion,” perhaps you really meant “blind faith.” But, as a former atheist, it took far more blind faith for me to believe that the universe (miraculously?) popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything than that a super-intelligent and powerful Being brought time, space, and matter into existence out of nothing – a true creation event – as current secular cosmology concedes happened, age of the universe questions notwithstanding.

          Anyway, I just wanted you to know that many practicing scientists and engineers and mathematicians, etc, do not find science and Christian theism to be incompatible at all. We design bridges, dams, buildings, and spacecraft, and we believe that we are attempting to mimic (in a woefully less brilliant and inadequate manner) the God Who not only created the universe but designed it so beautifully. Cheers.

    • afchief

      Ok, use science or whatever you want and explain to me how we got here? Explain to me how a female and male species “evolved” at the same time to reproduce? For ALL species. Oh I know….asexual!!! Prove it!!! Explain to me how the earth developed air and water and our bodies adapted to use air and water? Explain to me how the earth is within feet of being the right distance from the sun? Etc, etc, etc…………………………………

      You know what Chuck? This is YOUR faith. It takes faith to believe that this all happened because there is NO scientific evidence to prove it. NONE!!!

      Darwinian evolution is a belief system based largely on faith. It is the religion of the age. Professor Louis T. Moore, a vocal evolutionist, said:

      “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone.” (8, pg. 50)

      • If you simply don’t WANT to know anything about evolution, fine. But don’t go insulting people for being scientifically-minded.

        • afchief

          There is NO science behind evolution. Only lies!

          • gizmo23

            All the scientists in the world got together and decided they would all follow the same lies and ideas? LOL

          • Oboehner

            You mean like flat earth and bloodletting? Popular opinion, how quaint.

          • gizmo23

            Science changes as new facts are found that is it’s nature. When has science believed in a flat Earth?

          • Oboehner

            Ever hear of Christopher Columbus? It is also really too bad the aren’t any facts proving evolutionism.

          • gizmo23

            Columbus knew the Earth was round as did most people. It was measured very accurately by the Greeks. Columbus just didn’t have the correct math.
            If you want to talk science at least know basic history and facts

          • Oboehner

            My bad, pre 14th century. And like I said too bad the aren’t any facts proving evolutionism.

          • gizmo23

            There is plenty of evidence

          • Oboehner

            No proof, and no exclusionary evidence.

          • gizmo23

            We are at a standstill. There is no proof of God either

          • Oboehner

            God is not being taught at taxpayer expense as fact.

          • gizmo23

            Churches tax exempt so indirectly we do

          • Oboehner

            A negative, seriously? Like I said, God is not being taught at taxpayer expense as fact.

          • afchief

            Trying to Reconcile Evolution and Creation

            Many Christians feel compelled to try to reconcile evolution and creation through a view called “theistic evolution.” In this article we will examine whether there are legitimate ways to do this. But anyone who attempts to do so are up against an initial problem that evolution is essentially an atheistic philosophy. For the evolutionist, if God exists, He is irrelevant. The following definition of evolution was the 1995 official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers and is consistent with what other major science organizations mean by evolution:

            “The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.”

            The concept of evolution being a godless random chance process is emphasized throughout the writings of scientists. For example, consider the words of famous geneticist Richard Lewontin:

            “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

            Or consider this quote from Richard Dawkins: “Miraculous additions at any one stage of descent…i.e. any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all.”

            It is clear from such quotes, and innumerable others like them, that the evolution establishment excludes God completely from the standard definitions of evolution. But some considerations are in order. Even the most fundamentalist Christians recognize that micro-evolution happened. Microevolution is a horizontal process of change within “kinds.” Micro-evolution is really a misnomer as it is not evolution at all, but variation, or sometimes referred to as “genetic drift.” Micro-evolution does not change the gene pool of a population. See our article Evolution: Science of Creation Story?

            True evolution is macro-evolution, which is the vertical process of organisms acquiring a greater quantity and quality of genetic information by natural processes. This is where the debate lies.

            But the landscape here gets murky. Some Intelligent Design proponents think that macro-evolution did in fact happen, but also that God’s supernatural intervention helped at certain key points. Here is an interesting article that actually puts scientists in four different camps on this question: Paul Nelson on Design and Common Ancestry.

            What about the book of Genesis? Even conservative scholars have different views on how to interpret Genesis. Let’s briefly survey various ways that different Christians interpret the Genesis. Keep in mind that the real debate is not about the age of the earth, but whether the universe and all life could have happened by chance.

            Young Earth Creationistists hold to a literal 6-day creation week. They also believe that the genealogies in Genesis are complete and comprehensive. Together, these limit the age of the earth to less than 10,000 years. Young Earthers also believe that their views are fully compatible with science—that the vast majority of scientific evidences that help date the age of the earth point to a very young earth. They believe that when the Bible says that there was no death before the Fall of man (when Adam sinned), this literally means that there was no physical death of men or even animals before Adam disobeyed God. Thus, even carnivorous animals ate only plant matter until Adam’s Fall. The proponents of this view include Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research.

            Old Earth Creationists believe that an old earth is fully compatible with the Bible. Thus, proponents of Old Earth Creationism believe that the biblical account of creation is compatible with the generally accepted view of scientists about the age of the earth, but generally believe that evolution and the Bible are not compatible otherwise. There are different versions of old earth creationism, however. One version is that the creation days of Genesis were literal 24-hour days, but the genealogies are not comprehensive—but rather are merely representative. Thus, the Genesis account of creation being six literal days is correct, but it happened billions of years ago.

            Or they may hold that there were very long gaps between the days. Or they may hold that the creation days of Genesis were not literal 24-hour days, but rather long indeterminate periods of time. (See Day Age view.)

            Progressive Creationism is an old earth view in which animals were created long before mankind, and further, there may have even been hominids before Adam and Eve.

            Another view of Genesis that allows for an old earth is called the Framework Hypothesis. This model holds that Genesis is not to be understood literally, but rather as a poetic outline to declare that God was the creator of the universe. Still another view of Genesis is the Covenant Creation Hypothesis, which states that the “heaven and earth” of Genesis is not about the literal physical universe at all, but rather about God’s covenants with mankind. Proponents of this latter view are Jeffrey Vaughn and Timothy Martin at Beyond Creation Science.

            Old earth creationists often believe that when the Bible says that there was no death before Adam’s Fall, it means spiritual death only. Thus, it is understood that men as well as animals were made by God “very good,” complete with digestive systems. Indeed, they were given food to eat from the beginning, and thus would have died physically had they not eaten. So the death experienced by Adam was not physical death, but rather spiritual death. What was forfeited by Adam was eternal life after physical death, which was restored by Jesus.

            A leading proponent of an old earth view is Reasons to Believe. Its founder is Hugh Ross.

            There are numerous other implications about how the book of Genesis is interpreted in this regard. This is all interesting to the theologian. While we lean toward an old earth view, we would again emphasize here that the bigger debate is not about the age of the earth. The key point in the debate with evolutionists is whether God created the universe and life, or whether it was a matter of pure chance. If you fail to understand this, you have missed the point of the debate!

            There are four basic categories of theistic evolution, which we will simply call TE-1, TE-2, TE-3. In discussion with proponents of theistic evolution, we have noticed that most have not thought through their position very deeply. They simply hold to some sort of vague idea about all of this. By breaking down these various views we might help the reader to get a better grasp of the possibilities. Our thanks to Stephen Meyer at the Discovery Institute for some of this helpful thinking.

            TE-1 says that God “directed” evolution and further that we can scientifically detect this. This view, along with young-earth creationism and old-earth creationism can be considered part of the Intelligent Design movement. All three groups believe that we can infer from rigorous scientific examination that an intelligent agent must have been involved in the origins of life and its various forms. TE-1 seems to be an extreme version of progressive creation in that God was involved in every tiny mutation and each “natural” selection event. As far as we know, there are yet no visible groups that are proponents of TE-1.

            TE-2 says that God directed evolution, but that this cannot be detected scientifically. This group seems to take their view of origins of man largely on blind faith as they offer no scientific explanation for it. The idea of blind faith is no better than superstition or wishful thinking—and is neither scientific nor biblical. The BioLogos Forum is a proponent of this idea. Like TE-1, God intervened trillions and trillions of times into “random” processes. Here’s an interesting article about this: Olasky on Evolution. Olasky points out that there are serious contradictions with this view and Christianity. Also see our article How the Bible and Evolution Conflict.

            TE-3 says that God did not direct the evolutionary process in any way. Yet they still say that God was involved in the process somehow. Thus, they believe that God guided an un-guided process. This view is obviously logically contradictory and thus is impossible.

            Bottom Line: All of these views of theistic evolution are problematic.

            Some Christians say that “God used evolution to create.” But what they are saying is a logical contradiction. As even evolutionists agree, random chance by definition eliminates God. The First Law of Logic says that two opposite things both cannot be true at the same time and in the same relationship. It is one or the other: random chance OR God’s creative effort. For Christians to think otherwise is purely wishful thinking.

            Deism. There is another view that allows God in the picture. It says that God created the universe and then stepped back and let things run on their own. Evolution by random chance then took over and became the mechanism by which lifeforms came into being. This view is called deism. While it is a possible view, it certainly is not Christian. The Christian God not only created the universe, but specifically created all life. Further, God is not only creator, but sustainer of the world as well. There is a further philosophical problem with deism that has led many theists who have studied philosophy to discard it. The problem is that under deism whatever is, is right. In other words, if God allows all events to happen, how can one say that any event or choice is wrong? Thus ethics has no meaning.

            We might call this view “Deistic Evolution.” And it seems that there are at least a couple of versions of it, which can label DE-1 and DE-2. Here is how they might look:

            DE-1. God’s only role is that of creating the universe.

            DE-2. It seems that a few people say that God created the universe and did not intervene again until raising Jesus Christ from the dead. This seems to be yet another attempt to reconcile Christianity with evolution. But there are numerous problems with this view as well. For example, why would you assume that humankind would even exist at all if God did not ultimately determine it? Is God involved in your life? Can you trust in a God that is not really sovereign in all things?

            So, any form of deism brings the ire of atheists and Christians alike.

            Still more ideas:

            Some Christians trying to harmonize evolution and creation will make the statement, “I believe that God used evolution to create.” This is a naive statement. In fact, it is an internal contradiction. By definition, evolution is purely a random chance process (“undirected material process”) with no part by a Creator God. We believe it is impossible for the rational Christian to say that God used evolution to create.

            A final consideration is that some Christians have attempted to reconcile creation and evolution by compartmentalizing science and religion. Under this view, the two disciplines attempt to find truth in different ways, and the disciplines should respectfully not interfere with each other. But this too is inconsistent with Scripture. This is merely succumbing to society’s effort to marginalize Christianity. The Bible insists that its worldview is all encompassing (Romans 1:19-20; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Philippians 2:10).

            And some Christians attempt to reconcile evolution with the Bible due to an unfounded concern that the Bible will not hold up to scientific scrutiny. This is an unwarranted fear. Concerning science and Scripture, while the Bible was not written as a science textbook, Christians should welcome the Bible being investigated through scientific endeavors such as archeology, geology, paleontology, etc. The Bible consistently holds up under such tests. It is now even recognized that the Bible correctly demonstrates pre-science knowledge throughout the science disciplines. And there are no scientific mistakes in the Bible (Defender’s Study Bible, annotations by Henry Morris, page 1525).

            See our essays at Tough Questions.

            Christianity is not based on blind faith, but faith in evidence. The Bible teaches that we should use our minds (Isaiah 1:18; Matthew 22:37) to “test all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) in light of evidence (Acts 1:3, 2:32; 1 Corinthians 15:6), and to contend for the faith intellectually (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3). The Bible is trustworthy. Christians do not need to discount the Bible or to water down their faith by putting faith in the theory of evolution.

            Conclusion: Creation and evolution are competing worldviews that cannot be successfully reconciled.

            Evolution is poor science. It is a bankrupt philosophy that is harmful to society. It is contrary to Christianity. The evidence is greatly against it. Why are you still clinging to it?

          • gizmo23

            God created the universe science tries to uncover how he did it.

        • Oboehner

          I believe a question was asked, but if you have no answers, don’t go insulting our intelligence claiming your evolutionism religion is somehow science.

      • John N

        >’Explain to me how a female and male species “evolved” at the same time to reproduce? For ALL species. Oh I know….asexual!!! Prove it!!! Explain to me how the earth developed air and water and our bodies adapted to use air and water? Explain to me how the earth is within feet of being the right distance from the sun?’

        Oooh, the Gish Gallop online! Let me dissect this.

        Indeed, the first organisms on earth were asexual . Bacteria and Archaea still are. They are unicellular, so not much sex going on at that time. Prove it? I’m not a lawyer. Science depends on evidence, not proof. But if you doubt they are asexual, please check it out at Wikipedia.

        Second, the earth did not develop air and water. Our atmosphere was outgassed from the rocks in the earth’s core and mantle, which were formed in stars prior to the formation of the earth. Our bodies adapted to them because if they didn’t, we wouldn’t be here. Besides, liquid water is an essential component for life to arise, as far as we know.

        The earth, afchief, is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, with a difference between the perihelion and aphelion of … 5 million kilometers. That makes your ‘within feet’-comment a bit stupid, doesn’t it?
        By the way, life developped on earth because – in our solar system – that is the only planet able to sustain life, not the other way around.

        >’Professor Louis T. Moore, a vocal evolutionist, said:’
        Louis T. Moore was a physicist, not a biologist. And he wrote this in 1925 … 90 years ago. Some fine piece of quotemining you’ve got here.

        >’Because to say there is a God, means you are held accountable for your sins …’
        Sin is a religious construction, typically for christians. It has no scientific meaning. Why use it in a scientific argument?

        • afchief

          Ahhh….the evolution lie with NO scientific evidence!!!Over 700 scientists worldwide have signed a statement of scientific dissent from Darwinism.

          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

            Unbelievable! 700 scientists worldwide! Some of them even biologists! That must be more than … let me see … 0,02 percent of the world’s finest! One out of every 5000 scientists is skeptical of random mutation and natural selection as explanation for the complexity of live!

            Well, they are not completely wrong. There is of course also genetic drift…

            ‘The tension between between evolution an creation is philosophical, …’
            Yes, that must be it, because all the scientific evidence points to the first. There is even not something like a ‘theory of creation’.

            And from there on your arguments get worse. You don’t understand ‘Darwinism’, that was already evident. Otherwise you would not make wrong statements like ‘evolution is a random process’, when it is clearly not. And until you’ve proven your deity exists, your bible is a book written by unknown writers some 2000 years ago. It may have some value as a historical document, but it is worthless in a discussion about science, I’m afraid.

          • afchief

            Consider this quote:

            “If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as the truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing, and I’ve since come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else, will be accountable to Him.”

            These are the words of mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer, on an NBC “Dateline” TV program, November 29, 1994. Before his conversion to Christianity, Dahmer was the perpetrator of one of the most ghastly string of murders in American history. Dahmer killed and cannibalized numerous victims. His actions were incredibly disgusting, but not inconsistent with his worldview.

            As even admitted by evolutionary biologists like George William, Darwinism is a repulsive doctrine. Williams expresses open disgust at the ethical implications of a system that assigns no higher purpose to life than selfish bargains and conspiracies to propagate one’s genes into future generations. (Source: Dinesh D’Souza’s book What’s So Great about Christianity, page 263.)

            There is one question that can never be answered by an evolutionary assessment of ethics: Why should I be moral tomorrow? Moral rules without grounds or justification need not be obeyed. With evolution, no one individual has philosophical worth. If an individual becomes a casualty from the struggle for power or survival, so be it. This is in direct conflict with Christianity, which places infinite worth on every individual.

          • John N

            Switching to morality now, afchief? Your ‘scientific’ arguments don’t hold water, which must mean evolution is true, but you don’t accept it because of the consequences?

            If you really think that secular people are less moral than religious, then please explain why the secular countries in Europe and the most secular states in the US have lower murder rates, divorce rates, domestic violence rates and teen pregnancies than the most religious states in the US?

          • afchief

            While delivering a keynote address at the American Museum Of Natural History, Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum (Natural History), said:

            “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock….For the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing-it ought not to be taught in high school.’ ” (10, pgs. 166-167)

            Evolutionists Gould and Eldridge said in a jointly authored book:

            “The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the modern history of Western cultures: it is not a high-order empirical observation, induced from the objective study of nature.” (emphasis added) (2, pg. 70)

            Evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker said:

            “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

            Julian Huxley, the outspoken preacher of the religion of scientific naturalism said at the 1959 centennial celebration of the publication of the Origin of Species:

            “In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion…Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era.” (emphasis added) (5, pg. 153)

            And what a spectacularly successful religion it has been. In the words of Denton:

            “The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly spectacular idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age.” (2, pg. 358)

            “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”

            —G. Chesterson

            Yes, the inmates are running the asylum!!!!

          • John N

            ‘When all scientific, logical and reasoned arguments fail, switch to quotemining’. Myself, 2015.

          • afchief

            The truth always offends! Does it not?

          • John N

            Thruth? You think thruth can be derived from quotes? Of course, you also think thruth comes from a 2000 year old book that claims it was written by a deity.

            Well, some of these quotes are according to reality. Most are taken out of context, and some are just lies.

            Anything else? Like, scientific evidence for your creation story?

          • Cady555

            Over 700 scientists reject evolution. Wow. And the scientists on that list includes engineers, computer scientists and many many others with no training in biology.

            Compare that to Project Steve by the National Center for Science Science Education. To be on the NCSE list, 1. one must have a Ph.D. in a scientific field and 2. Go by some variant of the name Steve.

            The Project Steve list has 1,380 names who agree to a statement that states:

            “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.”

  • gofwallace

    To God a day is a thousand years…God is not on a timetable. In fact the is outside of time and space. period. He wrote all the laws of science…all of them…that scientists are slowly but surely discovering. Everything scientists truly realize is just another aspect they have gotten closer to God.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      There is a famous quote that goes along with your comment:

      “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

      ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

      • gofwallace

        Truly love it…so true…

    • Including Evolution!

      • gofwallace

        It is just a word for how God has put everything in motion. We just discovered this pattern of God’s ever adapting world.

        • sounds pretty reasonable to me.

        • BeehiveRound

          Are you alright?

    • I agree, time was created for mankind, God is timeless.

  • Nidalap

    This story rocks! In fact, it SPACE ROCKS! (^_^)

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      BTW, Nidalap, comets tend to be made almost exclusively of low density particles and do not usually have rocky cores, although this is possible in some cases. Asteroids are typically much higher density objects for which the term “rocks” is more applicable.

      Consequently, when designing spacecraft shielding for a Mars or outer planetary mission, one would be much more concerned with the consequences of impact by asteroidal meteoroids than with cometary ones – since the former can do much more damage. (Rocks vs. snowballs.) Of course, the fluxes are different for the two types, as well, so they must also be taken into consideration – as they affect the probability of impact before the consequences are incurred.

      Is this too much information, or would you like to see the equations? Isn’t God awesome – that he could give us minds made in His Image to be able to even figure this kind of stuff out roughly – but good enough to successfully send spacecraft to His planets and asteroids and comets?

  • So your argument against science is… Science?

    Sorry, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Doesn’t work that way.

  • Klitius Smooth

    I am surprised at the amount of people, that lower there common sense everyday. To believe almost everything science say, with no real physical proof. They throw a number, people flock like birds seeing seeds on ground. But the bible is accurate on everything it places out 100 percent. If you believe there is higher intelligence in space, that created you that are aliens, slap yourself. If you believe in alien beens from another planet came to earth, an are living among human’s to plan invasion, who create this alien beens. How can you be Christian an belief in higher life form, than yourself. If God made us in his image, does that make any sense to you. Secular people, believe in other beens because they have brought into the lies, an not study scripture, or have any relationship with their creator. But people who self claim their Christians, must have never read Genesis 6. Do you think the fallen angels just disappeared. Have you forgot, that there is demon’s on earth. I don’t need to go into detail, I will just pray harder for everyone with a alien mind set. SMH!!!

  • Hrafn

    “Brian Thomas, science writer for the Institute for Creation Research”

    A “science writer” for a fanatically anti-science religious apologetics organisation? A real reliable source, particularly when the “science writer” in question has no background in astrophysics or cosmology. He therefore has no idea what those fields can explain.

    Where in Genesis does it state that “God created comets on Day 4 of Creation Week”? What is Ancient Hebrew for “comet” anyway? This guy is just making it up.

    Just another ‘science finds something surprising, therefore … Creation!’ God of the Gaps (even where they don’t know enough about the science even to be credible claiming that a “gap” genuinely exists) canard.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Oooh!! There’s an unexplained scientific mystery! It must be because God did it!

  • Jane Albright

    Mr. Thomas’s
    explanation that God created comets (and meteoroids, etc.) ex nihilo during Creation
    Week sounds nice but lacks scientific underpinnings – biblical too. Why would a “good” creation include bodies
    that could crash into earth as meteorites causing damage, injury, and even death? Dr. Walt Brown (mechanical engineering PhD
    from MIT and author of the Hydroplate Theory for the flood) makes a compelling scientific
    case that these bodies formed from water and debris ejected from the earth
    during the “breaking open of the great deep” (Genesis 7:11). You can find the explanation and supporting
    math in his chapters on Comets and Asteroids and Meteoroids. Creationscience-dot-com/onlinebook.