A wide variety of questions are sent in each week.
It is our hope that this FAQ will answer the common
questions and challenges that you may have.
Are you insane?
Hmmm ... hard to tell.
How can you be so ignorant?
Have we met before? Remember that it's a person on the other end when making a (forgive me, but) ignorant statement about one of us being ignorant or stupid, please.
Isn't the crux of creationism: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."?
For some folks it is, yes. But in turn couldn't one state that for most people the crux of evolutionism is: "Scientists said it, I believe it, that settles it."?
When will you stop "standing against science"?
When will you stop - beating your wife? In other words the very question implies something which is not true. Sometimes the minority of scientific, reasonable persons proposing a theory are the ones later proven correct. We don't "stand against science" in the first place.
Please recall that the founders of modern science were all creationists, such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Galileo and many others. Their understanding that there is a logical, Divine Creator gave them the foundation to look for the natural laws of His creation, and to try to think His thoughts after Him. We do the same today as we recognize that we live in a logically designed universe. The idea that what we see around us happened to explode itself (Big Bang) via random chance? Creationists, standing with science, would contend that the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
What about the dinosaurs?
Simply put, they lived concurrent with man down through the thousands of years of our existence, and they appear to have gone mostly extinct prior to our modern era. Remember that the word "dinosaur" is only about 170 years old. Legends of dangerous reptilian creatures (a.k.a. dragons) have been passed down to us from our ancestors across Europe, from China and the rest of Asia, all over the Americas (North, South & Central), and they're remembered in Africa too. Why should all of these legends/histories (spanning all inhabited continents, mind you!) be trivialized and discounted just to give credence to the temporary theory of evolution? It is important in science to separate the evidence from the interpretation. The evidence is that there have been these large dangerous reptilian creatures. We have bones, recorded history and footprints; we have strong evidence. The interpretation (or belief) that they all died off millions and millions of years ago is in dispute between creationists and evolutionists. And numerous stories in recorded human history of being killed by dragons/dinosaurs and of us banding together to kill them in return (among other important evidence) is clearly on our side ... as creation theory grows stronger each year.
Didn't the dinosaurs go extinct 65 million years ago?
There is good evidence that the Earth is only thousands of years old. In BOOKS, see Dr. Ackerman's It's a Young World After All. The "65 million years" is a recent mental invention. Evolution provides a mental hiding place from our powerful Creator. Evolution claims (theologically) that our God is weak or non-existent. Right? Think about what evolution claims about our origins. Dragons (per the previous FAQ answer) were seen and sometimes fought by our ancestors on all inhabited continents. Our ancestors were honest in recording sightings of large dangerous reptilian creatures. They lived concurrent with man. Humans saw dinosaurs. Sure, stories later became embellished, but the germ of truth that humans and dinosaurs (dragons) lived at the same time remains accurate. They lived in different places ... but at the same time - until the dinosaurs were mostly driven to extinction. (There are still a few living dinos out there, by the way.)
4004 B.C. ... you can't be serious!!
There are actually several different versions of what is called "creation science." Some creationists bend strongly towards accepting most of the evolutionary interpretations but stop at the point of life falling together all by itself in the first place. These creationists argue for an "initial cause" (or "First Cause"), i.e. that "Someone" ... catalyzed early events and then evolution was the process used by this "God" after that. From www.creationism.org we link to a few of those sites, if you're interested. But other creationists, like those contributing to this web site have continued learning ... and have come to the understanding (or belief, if one prefers) that there really is no good scientific evidence supporting evolutionism at all; and there is no way that the Earth could be over 10,000 years old. This is complicated, but many of these "young earth creationists" really do believe that 4004 B.C. is probably pretty close to the original creation date. I know that this sounds utterly laughable to those who believe that the radioactive dating methods actually work, sorry.
40 Days and 40 Nights, really?
Actually, in Genesis, chapter 7 it states that the waters rose higher in respect to the land for 150 days, and went down for the subsequent 150 days. The total time of the Great Flood was about 1 year in length from when Noah's family entered till they left the Ark. That's what it has always clearly stated. Period. But it also appears to have rained pretty darned hard for the first 40 days and nights of this pivotal time (and there were strong winds, Gen. 8:1). There is clearly no evidence that rain caused the Flood and modern creationists have never contended this. Forgive me here, but only evolutionists keep this false notion propped up in order to openly distain creation theory including the Flood.
How could Noah's Ark have possibly held all of the species of big animals in the world!
The largest dragon (i.e. dinosaur) eggs that we've found to date are about the size of a football. One could fit, for example, a dozen brachiosaurus eggs in the trunk of a car, with room to spare! This also means that recently hatched dragons were not very large. Noah's mission was to preserve each kind of animal. You don't need to find the biggest of each kind. And you don't need each sub-divided species either. Did you know that most modern dog breeds are less than 100 years old? 2 healthy young mutts could preserve the genome of the entire "dog kind" of animals. The Bible uses the word "kind" for the different types of life forms. Horses and zebras can (and have) physically mated producing viable offspring; so have tigers and lions, indicating that they (according to creation theory) probably respectively diverged from the same original stock. Dogs and wolves (though considered quite different by humans today) probably originated from their same "kind" too. There are a few large animals (when fully grown) of course: giraffes, elephants, and T-rexes among them. But the average animal size is about sheep size, i.e. the 3-story Ark was plenty large enough to handle the variety of animal kinds plus lots of food for them. Speciation could descend again from original healthy "mutt" stock to start with. Thinking scientifically about this, it shows incredible variable design, huh?
Even if the whole atmosphere was 100% saturated with moisture and began raining there wouldn't be enough water to cover the continents! The Flood was impossible, admit it!
This is a common charge and relates to the answer given two questions above. The Genesis account of the Flood appears to be only what Noah saw, and may not be a full picture of all the catalyzing events. There is no mention of ice at all, we do know that the waters rising (for the first 150 days) was concurrent with the initiation of the 40 days of rain and also that the fountains of the deep broke up, which is an intriguing statement. Rain did not cause the Flood, but this symptom of the cataclysm also began at about the same time.
Salt water washing over the continents would have destroyed all of the plants anyway, right?
Have you ever added sugar to your coffee but forgotten to stir it? What did it taste like? Before the Flood the oceans "hadn't been stirred" yet. The oceans may not have been very saturated with minerals prior to the Great Flood when waters violently washed over the land masses. And we know that natural whole plant seeds (not narrow hybrids, which are much weaker health wise, just like the aforementioned split out dog breeds) are hardy and can tumble around, surviving for even months suspended in and transported by water. But from the fossil record it does look like some plant types (and many ocean creatures) did not survive the Flood and the adjustments needed for the colder environments on Earth afterwards. Cattails, for example, used to grow up to 60 feet tall in the former time, but the remnant we see today barely grow over 3 feet tall. The modern world is but a remnant of what was before.
Wasn't the Flood of Noah just a regional flood?
Impossible. Some contend this today, but Genesis is clear that God
intended to flood all land; all humans, animals and birds not on the Ark would be
drowned. An average human can walk at 3 MPH, correct? Over 10 hours one could
then walk about 30 miles (50 km). In 100 days of walking like this it would be possible
to actually walk a few thousand miles, right? (Think of American pioneers in their
wagon trains, crossing North America by walking and driving their wagons westward over the
course of one long season.) If God was going to send a "regional flood" then why didn't
He have Noah build a "Noah's Wagon" instead? Noah could have just moved a few valleys
over to escape such a regional flood. Geologically, we see deep sedimentary layers
covering every continent. Most sediments are laid down by water. Deep uniformly
thick layers extending laterally over hundreds of square miles indicates a one-time past
event using tremendous depositional processes that we do not see in action today.
Such deep layers, interspersed with coal and oil reserves (crushed former life) are on all
continents, all indicating a global flood.
The Flood was a global one. It has
been remembered in legends/histories from around the world, not just in the Hebrew account.
What is your ultimate foundation for truth? Is it "science, falsely so-called"
following the trends and beliefs of the temporary consensus?, or is it the Word of God,
with the recognition that the majority of scientists are sometimes wrong...? For over
1,000 years, from Ptolemy to Galileo scientists were wrong in thinking that the universe
revolved around the Earth, correct? Galileo's persecution by the Church stemmed from
their support of (what they thought was) "science" taught by the scientists of the day.
Church leaders supported their peers over the upstart Galileo who proposed that the Greek
scientist and mathematician Ptolemy's theory (from over 1,000 years prior) may be
incorrect. "Trust the majority of scientists"? for they must be right...? No,
sometimes the majority is wrong. They were wrong
when they contended that the whole universe revolved around the Earth and there is good evidence
that they are wrong today in proposing that we are but a cosmic accident that exploded
out of nothingness for no reason. Just a statistical happening with no God to answer to,
so live your life for the here and now; humans make the rules; human consensus is the ultimate
The Flood was a global one. It has been remembered in legends/histories from around the world, not just in the Hebrew account. What is your ultimate foundation for truth? Is it "science, falsely so-called" following the trends and beliefs of the temporary consensus?, or is it the Word of God, with the recognition that the majority of scientists are sometimes wrong...? For over 1,000 years, from Ptolemy to Galileo scientists were wrong in thinking that the universe revolved around the Earth, correct? Galileo's persecution by the Church stemmed from their support of (what they thought was) "science" taught by the scientists of the day. Church leaders supported their peers over the upstart Galileo who proposed that the Greek scientist and mathematician Ptolemy's theory (from over 1,000 years prior) may be incorrect. "Trust the majority of scientists"? for they must be right...? No, sometimes the majority is wrong. They were wrong when they contended that the whole universe revolved around the Earth and there is good evidence that they are wrong today in proposing that we are but a cosmic accident that exploded out of nothingness for no reason. Just a statistical happening with no God to answer to, so live your life for the here and now; humans make the rules; human consensus is the ultimate authority.
Didn't the Scopes Trial in 1925 (a.k.a. the Monkey Trial) show that evolution had won and creation lost - big time!
That's what the liberal media and Hollywood have consistently reported since then.
Why are you intolerant of the beliefs of others?
I link to and report on both sides of this important issue ... unlike ... the liberal media and Hollywood down through the years.
You flat-earth-creationists make me sick!
This one isn't a question, per se, but versions of this kind of comment are common. Usually they seem to come from young people who want creationists (or anyone else who disagrees with them on about anything, actually) put in their place. Oh, to be young again! :-)
You know, one thing I've freely stated before skeptical groups is that even if they completely disagree with my conclusions please consider the evidence on its merits. The folks who postulate the best new theories 10 or 20 years from now are those who can also include evidence that's quietly disregarded by the experts of this generation because the data doesn't fit their theories (see the next question below).
Radioactive dating proves that creationism couldn't have happened, right?
Creationists stand on the side of testable-repeatable science. Ahem, again, creationists are the ones standing on the side of science. Evolutionists quietly disregard science when convenient! Rocks do not come with dates stamped on them, nor has anyone witnessed them aging over (the believed) millions of years. Radiometric dating is one-third fact and two-thirds assumption, and it is unreproducible. Lava flows occuring in recorded historic times have dated radiometrically at millions of years old. This does not give us confidence in the current guesstimates of the earth's allegedly long age.
There is discernable carbon on and near many fossilized dragon bones. (By current evolutionary theory these bones must be at least 65 million years old, correct?) Creationists scrape some carbon off and periodically send samples to labs for (C14) dating; the results show the dinosaur-associated carbon to be a maximum of only thousands of years old. Science triumphs. Evolutionists have been known to fly into a rage when creationists later publish just where the dated carbon came from. A different example is the new lava dome on Mount St. Helens. It is barely 30 years old, but radioactive dating (K-Ar) shows that it is 1 million years old! ...Something is very, very wrong here. Pompeii and Hawaii also have historical volcanic flows that prove K-Ar dating does not work worth beans. Yet evolution's high priests cling to such believed ancient dates since there is no other purported "evidence" that will give them an Earth that's over 10,000 years old. All major rivers and waterfalls show the Earth to be only thousands of years old. The myth-ions of years simply never happened. This is science; testable-repeatable science we're talking about. These tests ... can be repeated, hint, hint.
What about the fossil record?
The "creationists best friend" (i.e. the fossil record) still shows a distinct lack of transitional forms. Sure, every generation of evolutionists have a few new ones, but none of them have stood the test of time so far. Lately they're trying real-hard-like to claim that "dinosaurs grew feathers" to validate temporary evolutionary theory. This will fall flat too. Wait and see. (They have good artists though, don't they?) They've got great illustrations of "probable" interim forms, without the slightest bit of scientific evidence to back them up. It's sad what they're doing to the children with such propaganda.
Human (hominid) evolution is a FACT! Admit it!
Humans alive today vary in cranial capacity from about 700 cc to 2200 cc, with no relation of brain size to intelligence. (The average is about 1300 to 1350 cc; i.e. cubic centimeters.) I used to live in Tokyo, Japan for 5 years. Their average "brain size" is much smaller than mine (as a tall Caucasian) but I can assure you that the Japanese are very smart people. If we look at computers, one could argue that circuits that are closer together are more efficient and faster, ... so a smaller brain size may not necessarily be a disadvantage, correct? When evolutionists line up old mute skulls from smaller to larger (and purposefully hide the found ancient skulls that are larger than today's average) they make false assumptions linking brain size to intelligence - neglecting reason! Plus their radioactive dating methods don't work in the first place (as stated above), so they have no idea how old each skull is in the first place.
Excuse me, but what happens to the bones of a person who doesn't get enough calcium in their diet? Or if they were lacking copper, for example, it would detrimentally affect brain development. If, in past times, many peoples only ate local foods ... (stay with me here) and the local soil in different places had a lack of selinium, or magnesium, or iron, or any number of other trace minerals ... then this would affect each person and animal in the respective area over generations, correct? When we come along now and look at the hominid fossils left behind let's consider all of the logical scientific possibilities (including potentially inbred defects), and not just use a selected dishonest evolutionary sampling of the literally thousands of found hominid remains (hiding or ignoring the vast majority of them!) in order to try to publicize and endow temporary evolutionary theory with credibility - in other words, they are proclaiming evolution at all costs in spite of the fossil evidence. There will be a high cost to us if we let them continue to deceive the public with false, doctored evidence. The fossil record (i.e. the creationist's best friend) shows that each kind has always varied within each kind, which is evidence of tremendously wise design.
What does evolution do? (Yes, I'm asking YOU a serious question!) It fills a need for our origins. It is not testable-repeatable. And when creationists show that evolution stands against scientific evidence the evolutionists get angry. Angry? Excuse me? I thought this was "science" ... the free exchange of ideas and evidence and all. We're threatening their religion. Who are we as humans? Why are we here? Where will we go? 3.5 billion base pairs for human DNA. Wow! I don't have enough faith to believe in random chance for our origins. This is different ... different than other kinds of science, isn't it?
Doesn't everyone know that "creation science" is an oxymoron?
This is the ultimate ancient history we're talking about - our origins. This makes it a contentious issue that touches us each deeply. Very deeply indeed and this makes it threatening. It is unlike other kinds of science. If there is a God out there who both created us and claims the right to judge us after this life, after this time of learning and testing, then we're mad fools if we stand strong against reality, close our collective eyes and proclaim en masse that His existence must not be. We are afterall small, finite creatures bound to a soft bluish marble in space that's off to one side of a particular galaxy; limited to only 5 senses too. And some of our "smartest" people, proclaiming themselves to be wise, assume that all that is must answer to our finite understanding or else it can't exist? "Evolutionary science" with its attendant hubris may very well be an oxymoron, but not the term "creation science" which recognizes firstly that we and our simple understanding are not at the center of all that is.
Creationists don't publish for scientific peer review, proving that they're not doing good science, right?
Well ... it is awfully convenient that the same ivory tower guardians who reject disapproved manuscripts turn right around and then blame creationists for not being allowed to publish quality research in their scientific publications.
The late Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research has pointed out that there are many creationist scientists working in industry or health professions, but that anti-creationist bias has become so intense in academia that no one can speak or write openly against evolutionism without being ostracized or fired. Peer review under peer pressure while in competition for respect and career advancement has its limitations. Evolutionists have decided that there is no "God" (none of any consequence) to answer to which means that human consensus is the highest state for discerning truth. How could any evolution-teaching professor break ranks and hope to keep his or her job? Breaking with such a (non-God-fearing) consensus makes one, by definition, wrong; understand that with no "God" to answer to the corruption will grow stronger unless broken from the outside (not unlike a corrupt city police department, political regime, or false religion's heirarchy).
The respected Creation Research Society currently has about 650 members, all of whom have advanced degrees in science. Many of these have published fine scientific articles. The CRS also publishes a regular scientific journal and a bi-monthly newsletter featuring a variety of science-based articles.
Evolution is science; creationism is religion
This statement of belief by scoffers is common. I usually respond only briefly to such offhand remarks. But here I'll mention that evolution is a believed process to explain our origins. In thousands of years of human farming and ranching it has never been recorded as occurring. There are still no bona fide transitional fossils; not a single one. The believed radioactive dating methods for postulating millions ("myth"-ions) of years do not stand up to testable-repeatable scientific scrutiny. And sometimes ...I'll admit here ... I like to alter the usual debate wording, for effect. I'll discuss instead the debate between "creation science vs. the religion of evolution." Macro-evolution (from molecules to man, automatically over time) is strongly believed by its adherents but it is not the only theory in town.
What is the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution?
Macro-evolution is the theory that one kind of life form can become another kind given enough time and chance. Micro-evolution however is the observed biological process showing descendants that are similar to (but clearly not clones of) their ancestors. (Isn't it astounding that the Creator built in such automatic adjustability within each kind!) A child usually inherits visible traits from both parents, etc. Micro-evolution is scientific. This is the way our Creator designed life to be, various speciation could occur within each preset "kind" of life form. Watch carefully--when evolutionists offer their proofs of believed macroevolution, it is ALWAYS instances of microevolution that they cite, hoping that you won't notice the difference. Mendel's laws of genetics show us why microevolution does not lead to macroevolution.
...There are many more questions and variations of questions and challenges that people ask. Hopefully this FAQ will answer some of the questions that you may have thought of concerning this important subject. If you're a God fearing person, please pray about your understanding of this foundational issue. After checking out both sides - you may come to an entirely different conclusion, but please at least consider the possibility that the reason we've written and posted all of this information on this web page is that we hope it will be edifying and informative for you.
At the time of the Fall, when Adam and Eve sinned we lost direct contact with our Maker. This was about 6,000 years ago. In the intervening generations it has been a struggle to preserve and pass on our place in the universe and how to get back into a right place with Him. As our ancestors diverged after the Flood they passed on preserved history variations including over 250 still remembered accounts of the Flood! No culture's history claims to go back further than about 5,000 years. All over the world this is so. Yet, over the past 200 years there has been a growing push by "advanced modern man" to completely forget what's left of our true ancient history of only thousands of years in total, to be replaced by the mythical "millions" of supposed years, that we are cosmic accidents and for us to stand together against our Maker. "Aliens" (i.e. fallen angels; the familiar spirits or false gods of old in new disguises) will soon be able to step in to complete the coming anti-history falsehood. Please don't fall for the spiritual deception of evolution and all of the things that belief in evolution then leads to.
I'll close this with a prayer that even atheists and anti-theists can pray in a quiet, sincere way: "Creator, if You are there and if You can hear me, please help me." Just take that first step. We're not alone in the universe.
Paul Abramson, Editor of: www.creationism.org
MP3 Audio Teaching
Dr. Dino (Dr. Kent Hovind) Creation Science FAQ
Institute for Creation Research FAQ
Answers In Genesis FAQ