Creation vs Evolution FAQ

Creation vs Evolution FAQ

Translate: GermanSpanishGreekFrenchPortugueseRussianHebrewArabicChinese

Why does it matter? (Why should I care?)
Here is a small list of reasons, in ascending importance...
  • The most important thing in the universe is what we believe (Romans 10:9-10). What you believe dictates how you behave.
  • If we have no Creator then we have no accountability.
  • The meaning of everything comes from its origin. So the meaning of life is wrapped up in this question. (Only the originator, his superior, successor or equal may change the meaning of a thing after it has been created but God has none of these.)
  • The Bible says that death entered the world through Adam & Eve's sin (Genesis 2:16-17,3:6) and that redemption/​salvation only comes from Jesus' sacrifice (Romans 5:17 & 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Denial of half of this principle is denial of the whole. Or put another way, how can you take God at his word when he describes the plan of salvation if you can not trust his description of creation? Charles Templeton may be the most famous example in the 20th century and James Watson is another more recent example.
  • While creation is not a matter of salvation, it's about the perception/​trust of the next generation in the word of God. People (not just children) see the hypocrisy of putting your salvation on John but reinterpreting Genesis and they will tune you and God out.
  • The underlying question here is not where we came from, but can we take God at his word, period? (By definition of being God, our answer should be "yes".)
The following questions and answers are listed in little particular order, other than to make them flow smooth. I have tried to pick topics that are commonly cited and/​or are of great importance to me. The verses listed are not the proof for supernatural creation. The science is proof the universe is young and if it's young, then it's fascinating that the Bible supports this and the scriptures listed below reinforce the observations. The origin and nature of the universe is one of the most fundamental beliefs we have and it is highly unlikely that simply reading a webpage would cause someone to change that belief. So this page isn't expected to convince anyone, but rather just to be a summary apologetic resource to edify fellow believers so that when we engage with non-believers we have material to discuss to get them pointed more toward our Creator. For more information see the bracketed links below each question or the bulleted links at the bottom of the page. Let me know if you have feedback.


Why does the Earth seem so old?
God made everything "mature". Adam and Eve, the stars and the trees were all created mature on creation week. God is powerful enough to just speak and the world formed correctly, from absolute nothing. (Psalm 33:6-9, John 1:1-3) If Adam had the tools to carbon date a rock on day 10, what do you really think would be the result? (1 Corinthians 3:19, Jeremiah 10:11-12, Jeremiah 33:2-3)
Could the Earth have formed "naturally" 4½ billion years ago?
No, the laws of physics can not contradict each other. The second law of thermodynamics (the study of energy) says the natural state of any closed system is chaos. The universe is the ultimate closed system. Even astrophysics (the study of the behavior of celestial bodies) must obey this law so planets and stars could never form on their own (Isaiah 40:26).
» PhysLink: What is a simple definition of the laws of thermodynamics?
If God made the entire universe and only put intelligent creatures on Earth, isn't that an awfully big waste of space?
No. The universe, just like each of us, exists only to glorify the Creator: God. (Mark 12:28-34, Psalm 19:1-4, Psalm 103:19-22, Psalm 148:1-6, Isaiah 44:22-23, Isaiah 49:13). What's more, our universe declares that everything is in relationship with each other in the physical, just as we are also in the spiritual (Matthew 22:37-40).
Distant starlight: how could light travel billions of light years in only 6,000 years?
You are underestimating the power of an infinite God. When we say that God is omnipotent, we do not simply mean he can spread oceans or withhold the rains if He wants, we mean He can do literally anything. As with Adam, God made the universe mature, which includes when he made a star 10 billion light years away he also made all the light in all directions at the same time, even the light that was billions of light years away (Job 9:8-9, Isaiah 46:9-10). As with rock layers (below), we can't always correlate size and age.

That said, observable explosions over 6,000 light years away beg a better explanation. Remember Einstein's theory of relativity? It's important to admit we've never traveled at the speed of light and therefore have no observational evidence of what it's like, therefore no proof, therefore only assumptions. See the AiG article below for a well thought out explanation, including a problem evolutionists have in explaining something very similar.

Note God either says or is attributed as "stretching the heavens" 9 times in scripture (including Psalm 104:1-2, Isaiah 40:22, 44:24, 45:12, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1). If the stars were formed much closer to Earth before God stretched out the heavens, that may help explain this phenomenon.
» AiG: Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?
Does the Sun tell us anything?
Evolutionists believe it formed a few billion years ago as a result of dust and gas condensing. This dust and gas also somehow began rotating, which is important to avoid it all just collapsing into a singularity (black hole). The trick is when rotating objects get smaller, they spin faster. Ice skaters are good examples of this. Based on long-age-models our Sun should be rotating every couple hours, but in reality it only rotates once a month (every 25 days). This is great for special creationists but a major downer for long age believers. (Psalm 74:16-17, Colossians 1:16-17)

Which leads to 2 more questions. Why'd it start rotating in the first place? If God didn't set it (and all celestial bodies) in motion, then what did? Why'd it condense? Everyone learns in high school physics that gases expand, not contract. If the solar system started out as all gas, what caused the gas to contract? If it was dark matter, then where did it all go? Notice the lack of observable evidence means dark matter is not currently in the domain of "science." Maybe someday we'll find some, but until that day, it's like the Oort Cloud and in the domain of "necessary conditions to explain reality without the God of the Bible."
Why is Mercury significant?
Astronomers build models of how the Solar System formed, how each planet formed, chart the planet locations, etc. It is common practice for astronomers to make observations and develop models, then organizations like NASA send satellites to observe closer and confirm or refine the model. NASA sent one such satellite (Mariner) to Mercury in 1974 and got very basic information. Since then evolutionists and creationists have published models of how it must have originated. The superior model would do a better job at describing the real current state of Mercury, should we ever return. NASA sent a second satellite (Messenger) to Mercury which arrived in 2011. Read the article "New Discoveries Delight Creationists" to see how starting with the correct paradigm (assumptions) led creationists to make accurate predictions that embarrassed evolutionists, proving the ability to observe doesn't translate into authority to invent origins.
» Mercury: New Discoveries Delight Creationists
What about our closest celestial neighbor?
The moon is an easily overlooked proof of special (supernatural) creation. Consider that it is moving away from the Earth very slowly, about 1.5 inches per year. This does not pose a problem for creationist time lines but this is a serious problem for evolutionists because it would have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. Not only would this require the moon to very slowly pass through the Roche Limit on its way to its current position (causing it to be destroyed) but why would it only be moving away at 1.5 inches per year? Creationists have a perfectly sound scientific answer involving the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. (Psalm 8:3-4, Psalm 136:3-9, Jeremiah 31:35-37).
» AIG: The moon: the light that rules the night
» Wikipedia: Roche Limit
» HyperPhysics: Conservation of Angular Momentum
Why is the color blue relevant?
Blue stars burn bright and fast, so they do not last very long (relatively speaking). Yet there are a plethora of them in all observed spiral galaxies, including our own. The trick is they are mixed in with other yellow, white, and red stars which have a much longer estimated life span. Since no stars have ever been observed to form, simple mathematical logic (even a grade schooler could deduce) says this is evidence that all the stars came into existence at the same time and recently. (Psalm 147:4-5, 1 Corinthians 15:41, James 1:17-18)
Where do celestial objects come from?
As with biological evolution, there is no "missing link" in stellar evolution. In other words, no one has ever observed anything turn into a star, planet, moon, etc. There is not even any target in space we can point our telescopes to that looks like a star birth in process. Sure there are nebula (the most popular is arguably the Eagle Nebula, nicknamed 'the pillars of creation') but that is just a cloud floating in space with a density measured in molecules per cubic centimeter. The sun supposedly has a density of about 1.4 grams per cubic centimeter. In context of the Avogadro Constant, the difference in density of a nebula and our Sun is somewhere around 60 with 20 zeros after it. Just because nebula and stars are made of the same elements does not mean the two are stuck forever in a "circle of life". Common elements in stars, nebula, and even on earth and in people can also be explained as evidence of a common designer and creator.

Evolutionists think the universe is approximately 13 to 14 billion years old and our Sun is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Clearly then not all stars are as old as the Big Bang (there's even a scientific name of "Population 1") so they must have come from some repeatable process. Evolutionists look at stars and are forced to say "they must have come from somewhere, how about nebula?" They have to put all their eggs in this basket. Instead, Creationists can know they were created directly by God (Jeremiah 10:11-12,33:2-3, Colossians 1:16-17) just like our planet.

Science is based on observation, but no stars have ever been observed to form. In 2016 I heard the founder of provide some basic math to help determine if this fact is strange. The European Space Agency estimates that there are somewhere around 1023 (that's 10 with 23 zeros after it) stars in the known universe. This means in 13 billion years (9 zeros), 1023 stars have formed (more really, since stars have been observed to die in our short lifetimes). Divide this out and on average, hypothetically, we would expect more than 70 trillion (12 zeros) stars to be born per year. Divide that by the number of seconds in a year and we can estimate to expect there be over 2 million (6 zeros) stars forming every second. The first telescope was invented about 4 centuries ago. The Hubble Space Telescope has been in operation for over 25 years. We would expect to have seen at least some of the averaged 1 quadrillion stars that should have formed during this time, but zero star births have ever been observed. Creationists believe all stars were formed on day 4 (Genesis 1:16-19) and none have been born since. Which model fits observable reality better?

Also note that we have observed stars die, as more than one nova or supernova have been observed even without telescopes. The fact that stars have been observed to die but have never been observed to form is consistent with a supernatural creation and is non-helpful to the evolutionary theory.
» Hubble: Gas Pillars in the Eagle Nebula (M16): Pillars of Creation in a Star-Forming Region
» AIG: The Stars of Heaven Confirm Biblical Creation
» AIG: Taking back astronomy: the heavens declare "creation"!
» Wikipedia: Chemical Mole
» NASA: How old is the sun?
» ESA: How many stars are there in the universe?
Why is the color red relevant?
Light has a very small Doppler affect causing it to favor the red end of the spectrum (called a red shift) when it is moving away from us. Astronomers have detected this red shift in all directions from our galaxy. There seem to be two main ways to interpret the evidence.
  • The Milky Way is around 2 million light years from the center of the universe (a trivial distance in universal measurements) and the universe is expanding in all directions away from that center.
  • The universe is really comparable to a balloon and the Milky Way is in a non-unique location on that balloon. As the balloon expands everything only seems to be moving away from us in all directions. (By the way, this would be a 4 dimensional balloon so that the things on the opposite side of the balloon are not visible except by light that has traveled around the surface of the balloon.)
How we prove which one it is without divine intervention is beyond me, but it sure prompts interesting science to be thrown out by both sides. Remember God created science so it cannot accurately be used against Him. Whatever the arch-structure of the universe is is fairly trivial, the real heart of the issue is "is humanity and the earth at the forefront of deliberate divine focus or is it just a needle in an infinite haystack of divine-less random chance?" (Psalm 104:2, Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, Zechariah 12:1)
» Creation Ministries International: Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' redshifts show
» Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red Shift
» Wikipedia: Modern Geocentrism
» The Theory of Big Bang - a mistake build on wrong precondition
What if life evolved elsewhere and was then just "seeded" on Earth?
Nice try, but this doesn't answer anything. We can't explain life by saying it came from somewhere else, because then where did that life come from? Granted it can make for interesting speculation and science fiction, but it's still just fantasy. This is just a cop-out in case all the evidence on Earth fails to prove the evolutionist agenda (which it does, but evolutionists don't want to admit it) (Deuteronomy 4:19). By the way, keep in mind there is no such thing as proof for creation in the eyes/​mind of an evolutionist. But this is to be expected because there is no such thing as proof for evolution in the eyes of a creationist. (Isaiah 45:12)
Does a creationist have to believe in a flat Earth?
Certainly not. The belief in a flat Earth is an excellent example of a worldview that has noble intentions of honoring God but is intentionally interpreting observable science differently (by only accounting for a subset of the evidence) to support their own presuppositions. Whether the Earth is flat or spherical is not a question of origins but observation, and so can be answered in the present without any concern for the past.

Click/touch to unhide more comments on this topic...


Are not sedimentary layers and petrified plants evidence of millions of years?
In the case of the rock layers you are incorrectly comparing rock layer formation with tree rings. Trees have been observed to grow a ring for every year they are alive. Rocks are not alive so the analogy is not appropriate. When Mount Saint Helens erupted on May 18, 1980 it unleashed the equivalent of 33,000 Hiroshima sized atomic bombs (minus the radiation). This caused ash to be deposited, and after being compressed into solid rock was 25 feet thick in some places. In only a few hours a canyon was formed which revealed sedimentary layers resembling those found in thousands of other places around the world, except these were obviously laid down in an extremely short amount of time, not thousands or millions of years as was once assumed. Thousands of trees were uprooted and tossed into the surrounding ash and lakes, immediately petrifying and still observable in this state today, destroying the previous "given" that long ages are mandatory to form rock layers and petrified plants. The only thing rock layers tell us for sure is what order the rocks (things) were laid down. (1 Corinthians 1:19-20,27-29)
» MSH Creation Information Center
» AIG: 'I got excited at Mount St Helens!'
» AIG: Creation Road Trip
How could you possibly form Grand Canyon without millions of years of erosion?
There is so much evidence that Grand Canyon (GC) was formed by a lot of water and a little time, not a little water and a lot of time. Here's a quick summary and is not exhaustive.
  • Bent rock layers: Rocks are hard, so when you bend them, they break. But there are numerous places in GC where the rock layers (many of which are thousands of feet thick) curve up and down, indicating the material was exposed to incredible forces between the time the material showed up in this location and the time it turned into solid rock. If the exact same curve is found in multiple layers then that dictates they must have been bent at the same time. (What's the best way to bend rock? When they're freshly wet minerals that've just been deposited and before they dry out.)
  • Polystrate petrified fossils: Trees are organic. Big individual trees may last a couple hundred years. Under the right circumstances (mainly including rapid burial) organic things can petrify. Petrified trees that stick up through the rock layers is evidence for a short-time-scale flood and is evidence against a long-time-scale explanation. Even a petrified tree would not survive millions of years sticking up out of the ground if that is indeed how the layers were formed. And fossils only form when burried, not when sticking up, exposed.
  • Erosion: Erosion is an extremely common phenominon in the observable world around us, with rain and other weather being the primary cause. (Remember, erosion is the evolutionist's cause for why GC is there at all!) But there is no erosion between the layers of rock exposed at GC. When we look at the layers we see very clear distinction between them, the line of differentiation is very sharp, and their thicknesses are consistent for vast distances. Evidence of erosion would include blury/​rough distinction between the layers and uneven thicknesses of the layers (even to the point of some layers possibly eroding away in at least one small place in the over 4 trillion cubic meters of GC.) The lack of erosion is direct evidence of both rapid deposition of the rock and rapid carving of the canyon.
  • Cross-continental layers: Also referred to as megasequences, the idea is the same sheets of rocks, which are over a hundred feet thick in most places, can be found consistently over most of the continent. Not only are the rocks present, which would by itself be only slightly more than trivial, but they have similar characteristics. Namely they are sedimentary rocks that demonstrate the same current whether analyzed in Arizona, Wyoming, or Kentucky. So this is not evidence in GC exclusively, it's larger evidence GC exposes to us that would be less dramatically visible otherwise.
  • No delta: The Mississippi River is a great example of a little water over a reasonably long period of time. At the end of the river (where it dumps into the Gulf of Mexico) is a delta. It is made of about 3 million acres of land that was deposited by upstream erosion (and there are no canyons it supposedly carved out). The delta at the base of the Colorado River is teeny. Yes, we've damed the Colorado River, but that was long after GC formed.
» Polystrate Fossils & Petrified Wood
» AIG: No Slow and Gradual Erosion
» AIG: Transcontinental Rock Layers
» Wikipedia: Mississippi River Delta
» Wikipedia: Colorado River Delta
» Wikipedia: Grand Canyon
» National Park Service: Grand Canyon
» AiG: Sand Transported Cross Country
For those interested in how GC formed, the short story is probably post-flood waters collected in Cayonlands Lake and Hopi Lake, which ruptured and sent an insane amount of water gushing out, carving the canyon. But explaining in how GC formed is not the purpose of this article, so here are some others that try (though honestly I've heard talks in person that go into the science much better than any articles I can find online).
» AiG: When and How Did the Grand Canyon Form?
» AiG: What Carved the Grand Canyon?
Are not stalactites examples of things that require millions of years to form?
No. Answers in Genesis has an article every few years about another man dug mine that is only a few decades old but is filled with these. Long time isn't required to make stalactites and stalagmites, all that's necessary are the right conditions. (2 Peter 3:8)
» AIG: Caving in to reality, the shrinking 'age' of stalactites and stalagmites
» Rapid stalactite growth in Siberia
Doesn't the fossil column (or geologic column) have observable proof for evolution?
Fact: the geologic column is observable science. Fiction: the geologic column is conclusive. Fact: the strata can be found in the wrong order lots of places around the world. Fiction: the progression of amoebas to vertebrates can be seen. Fact: all the "evidence" for slow, gradual (or any) change from one species to the next is implied (assumed), there are no transitional creatures and no proto-creatures. The implication of gradual change has its origins in the presuppositions of the person doing the interpreting. Here are some facts that are fundamentally non-helpful to evolutionary interpretation of the fossil column:
  • Polystrate fossils exist (fossils that stick up through multiple rock layers).
  • Living fossils exist (animals that are found far down in the column so are supposed to be many millions of years old, but are not found higher up in the fossil record so are supposed to have die off millions of years ago, but yet are found alive in the world, unchanged today).
  • The fossil column is found all over the world, is fairly (though not entirely) consistent everywhere, yet contains no examples of transitional organisms nor proto-organisms.
  • Soft red tissue has been found in T-Rex bone(s).
We can argue about this observation and that observation, but the fact remains fossils have no birth certificate connected to them. The Biblical interpretation of the billions of fossils around the world (both on the surface and buried in the rock layers) is the flood that happened during Noah's life (Genesis 7:21-23). Remember God made everything good in less than a week (Genesis 1:31) and suffering entered the world only after Adam ignored God's direct command (Genesis 2:15-17, Genesis 3:6).

While creationists (as a category) have strong answers for all the issues, everyone can't have every answer all the time. If a question is asked and we (as individuals) don't have the background to answer it, it's ok to say we are unfamiliar with that specific issue and need the chance to research the facts before giving an intelligent response. If criticism follows that answer, then criticism was the point to begin with. It's important to remember that we don't have a burden of pulverizing all alternative interpretations (remember the last part of 1 Peter 3:15). Our burden is to understand the Word of our Creator and how the facts corroborate it. Our worldview isn't (shouldn't be) affected by how polished or how many holes there are in the alternatives. We're not right because we're creationists, that would be dogma and circular reasoning. Supernatural creation is right and evolution is wrong because both science and history (hence reality) overwhelmingly corroborate this.
» ICR: Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column
» AiG: Unlocking the Geologic Record
» AiG: Order in the Fossil Record
» AiG: Where Are All the Bunny Fossils?
» AiG: Living Fossils
» AiG: Do Fossils Show Signs of Rapid Burial?
» Dinosaur Shocker
» ICR: The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue
» AiG: The Scrambling Continues
» AiG: Solid Answers on Soft Tissue
What about dinosaur bones/​fossils?
These were obviously deposited as the result of a catastrophe, otherwise the bodies would have decomposed or been devoured or otherwise dispersed. If the flood were real, we would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. Dino's are just some of those billions of things that we do find. Many evolutionists believe a giant meteor hit the Earth millions of years ago resulting in a radical climate change across the planet. However the evidence fits subtly better if you consider the possibility of the global flood in Genesis being our catastrophe (Genesis 6:5-9:16, Psalm 104:5-7,9). By the way, the only thing we can surely conclude from the fact that human and dinosaur bones have never been discovered together is that they were not buried together.
How would Dinosaurs fit on the ark? They were huge!
Easy, God did not send fully grown dinosaurs to Noah. There would have been no reason to bring fully grown dino's, kids or teenagers would work better for repopulating the planet anyway. (Genesis 7:2-3, 7:8-9 & 8:17)
Where did the surviving dinos go?
Another easy one. How did many creatures go extinct? We killed them off. A few must have survived the flood because something like them is referenced twice in Job (Behemoth, Leviathan) and the word "dragon" can be found in historical non-fiction. The term "dinosaur" was only coined in the mid 1800's. If you read the King James Version of the Bible you may notice that Isaiah, Jeremiah, and a psalmist were contemporaries of dragons:
  • Isaiah 27:1 KJV  hub
  • Isaiah 51:9 KJV  hub
  • Jeremiah 51:34 KJV  hub
  • Psalms 74:13 KJV  hub
  • Psalm 91:13 KJV  hub
And Isaiah used the term "fiery flying serpent":
  • Isaiah 14:29 KJV  hub
  • Isaiah 30:6 KJV  hub
Why am I referencing KJV (published in 1611 AD) instead of something a little more modern? Perhaps the more modern translators thought using such language would be too hard to accept for their modern readers. (Compare to how NIV translates a word into "living creatures" in Revelation but into "animals" most everywhere else in the New Testament. See Heaven by Randy Alchorn, page 379.) And curiously in Revelation 13:11 hub, John nonchalantly mentions a dragon's voice.
» Amazon: Randy Alcorn's Heaven
Are there not man-made constructs older than the flood?
According to Wikipedia, the oldest pyramid is dated about 2670 BC. According to Archbishop James Ussher in his book, The Annals of the World, the flood ended in 2348 BC. Assuming both of those dates are accurate, that's a difference of 321 years. The keyword is "assuming." Ussher based his calculations on the genealogies recorded in the Bible, the earliest of which were very intentional to say the exact age fathers were when their sons were born (Genesis 5:3, 5:6, 5:9, etc.) Like radiometric dating and much of origins science, there's a lot of assuming required to draw any conclusions about ancient history. To think that one or both of these numbers is slightly inaccurate is not a terrible stretch, though I'm not educated enough to say if either or both are right or wrong. Ussher also concluded that the incident at the tower of Babel happened about a century after the flood, roughly 2240 BC. If we assume the oldest pyramid was built a hundred years after that (2140 BC) then the archeologists who dated the oldest pyramid would only be off by 25% or less. Not bad considering how hard it is to precisely date things that happened long ago, and convenient if you want to try to discredit the Bible.

The Chinese say their culture is over 5,000 years old. That would mean it dates back to at least 3000 BC. The evidence for their culture being so old is based on pottery and similar archeological finds, which are again conclusions drawn using assumptions. Assumptions that are no more scientific nor accurate than the fossil column. It's not a stretch to say those assumptions are off by up to 28%. The oldest Chinese writing is found on Oracle Bones which are dated around 1250-1350 BC. This is about a thousand years after the flood, and there is fascinating evidence of the history of Genesis found embedded in the design of the language. My favorite example is how strongly the word boat reminds us of Noah's ark (Genesis 7:13).




If you're going to be picky and say the "eight" isn't perfect, the point is not how modern Google renders the characters but how the Chinese did over three millennia ago. My second favorite character alludes that the people who invented the Chinese language also believed in the hope of the savior promised by God.




(The number ten is symbolic in Asian culture as completion/​fulfillment/​finality.) The foreshadowing of this character to the events recorded in Matthew 11:28/​John 14:6, John 19:18, and John 19:30 is amazing. A prophet from China (a non-Jew) is perfectly within a Biblical worldview. Remember the prophet Balaam in Numbers 22:4-5 (full story is Numbers 22-24), God's lament to Amos (Amos 9:7), and how easily He went to the gentiles (John 10:16). But prophesy is outside a evolutionary worldview. These two characters are just my favorites, and there are many more. (See the AIG & CMI links below.)
» Wikipedia: Egyptian Pyramids
» Wikipedia: Ussher chronology
» Amazon: The Annals of the World (But search the Internet for a free copy before you buy your own, the copyright of the original text expired long ago since it was originally published in the 1600s.)
» Wikipedia: Chinese language
» Wikipedia: Chinese culture
» Google Translate
» AiG: Chinese Characters and Genesis
» CMI: Linguistics Q&A: Are ancient Chinese characters related to Genesis?
» CMI misrepresents ancient Chinese language?
» CMI still misrepresents ancient Chinese language?

Chemistry & Physics

Hasn't Carbon dating proven many things are millions of years old?
The half life of Carbon 14 is shorter than 6,000 years so it's maximum capability for dating is less than 60,000 years. If someone says they used Carbon 14 to date something as hundreds of thousands or millions of years old then they don't know what they're talking about. All radiation-based dating methods are based on four assumptions:
  1. We know how much of radioactive isotope "A" was originally present.
  2. We know how much of the inert daughter mineral "B" was originally present.
  3. We know the rate of decay from isotope "A" to inert "B".
  4. We know the radiating process was constant and uncontaminated.
Error on any one of these four assumptions will invalidate any conclusions. How would we know any of them for sure if we weren't there the whole time? We can't, we can only hypothesize/​theorize (both are fancy, adult synonyms of the word "guess"). But remember, God made Adam and Eve, the stars and the trees mature, so if we were to Carbon date a rock on day 10, would the process really have provided the intended result? God's not trying to trick us, this just shows His awesome power. If Adam and the rest of the life forms God created had been created as zygots and seeds, it would've taken years for them to mature. But God wanted to enjoy his creation on day 7, so that's one reason (He surely had many) He created everything mature. Contrast the Bible was written by people who were there or were told what to write by another eye witness. (Job 38:4, Luke 1:2, 1 John 1:1-3)

Note that radiation was essentially discovered in 1896 (by Henri Becquerel and Marie Curie) and using it for dating began in the 1940s. Darwin wrote his infamous book, The Origin of Species, in 1850. Evolutionists already knew what they wanted this new dating system to conclude (just as they had with the fossil record). The fact that it is a house of cards, based on extravagant assumptions, is dismissed by all of them, and refuted by none. (Isaiah 29:15)
» QCCSA: The end of long age radiometric dating
» Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
What does H2O have to do with anything?
Water is one of those things that is required for life as we know it. Without it life does not exist, period. The human body is 50-60% water. Have you ever noticed that water is one of the few compounds found in nature that expands when it freezes? This is not just random trivia. Consider what would happen to our ecosystem if lakes and ponds froze from the bottom up instead of from the top down? As it is, the ice forms insulation and the life in that body of water is not completely destroyed (compare to the "frost line" in the ground where everything dies after a frost). Coincidence, dumb luck? I think not. The word "water" is found 436 times in the NIV translation, most notably its association with baptism (mentioned 26 times) including the flood in Noah's time (Genesis 6-9). God invented water, and everything else (Proverbs 3:19-20).

What do the oceans have to do with anything?
There are two significant points:
  • Salt: Each year approximately 450 million tons of sodium enters our oceans, but only about a quarter of that makes its way back out. At most it would take 40-50,000 (four zeros) years to accumulate this much salt, yet evolutionists think the oceans are a couple billion (nine zeros) years old?
  • Mud: Plate tectonics add an estimated 1 billion tons of sediment to the ocean floor per year, but 19 billion more are added by erosion from dry land. At most it would take only around 10,000 years to accumulate this much mud.
In both cases, when I say "at most", we must remember that God created everything mature (Genesis 1) and the world wide flood (Genesis 7:11-12) would have significantly upset the ecosystem, so believing those maximum numbers are overstated by 10-50% is much easier for creationists than the 99.9983% understatement evolutions must believe in. (Psalm 24:1-2, Psalm 146:5-6)
» AIG: Evidence for a Young World
» AIG/ICR: Reiterating: ok to use sea sodium as evidence for a young world
The most obvious thing in the universe is an exception to an unwritten law of nature?
All energy is expressed as either a particle or a wave. (Sound and water exemplify wave energy, electricity and radiation exemplifying particles.) However there is one exception, light has been demonstrated to behave like both at the same time. I am unaware of this being a specific proof for either side of the argument but it sure is weird. You would not be surprised by something like this in a universe created by an infinitely creative God, but it does not make sense if the universe formed on its own (Revelation 4:11).
» Wikipedia: Wave-particle duality
» Wikipedia: Complementarity (physics)
» The world’s first image of light as both a particle and a wave
How could Noah have built a 450 foot wooden boat over 4 millennia ago? We couldn't even do this in the 20th century!
Making the Ark didn't take more skill than making a normal sized boat, it took more labor. Modern ships need to balance many constraints, like being light so they can be fast to maximize fuel efficiency and cross the Atlantic faster or have a chance of out maneuvering attackers. They also have to be affordable. The Ark could ignore all these concerns. It didn't even need a rudder, it just had to float, be stable, and meet God's specifications (Genesis 6:14-16). As an example, mortise and tenon planking is way too labor intensive for us in the 20th and 21st centuries, but wouldn't have been in the old days.
» Wyoming (schooner)
» AiG: Thinking Outside the Box

Biology & Information

Every living organism has evidence of evolution, right?
Granted, humans and monkeys share many common characteristics, but that can just as easily mean they have a common creator instead of a common ancestor. So no, there is nothing that definitively points to evolution. Consider the platypus, which has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, a tail like a beaver, soft velvety fur, milk glands, a large brain, a complete diaphragm, their blood temperature is influenced to some extent by their surroundings, and it is one of only two mammals in the world that lay eggs. Evolutionists do not even have a clue what this evolved from but this is not surprising if it is another product of an infinitely creative God (1 Corinthians 12:18, Psalm 33:13-15) who told us both man (Genesis 2:7) and animals (Genesis 2:19) were made by the same process, though man had the added bonus of being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). Woman was different but she came from man (Genesis 2:21-22) so that still counts. If you don't like the idea of us coming from "dust" then consider replacing that word with the scientific technical term "atoms" which weren't officially discovered for a few thousand years after this was written.
» AIG: The echidna enigma and the platypus puzzle
» AIG: Still more questions than answers for evolutionists
What about all the proof for biological evolution we see in the world today?
Actually there is no proof at all. There is nothing even close. Business evolves, technology evolves, and processes evolve because intelligent people motivate them to. Biological evolution dictates that in general more complex life forms come from simpler life forms. Specifically this means that the DNA of living things must gain information over time. The second law of thermodynamics and 28th theorem of information defy this. What people are actually referring to when they cite proof for evolution is either "mutation", "natural selection", or "genetic variation." All 3 of these phenomenon have been observed, evolution has not. Creation, by the way, was observed. See Job 38:1-38 and Deuteronomy 4:32.
  • Mutation is random destabilization of DNA often caused by external factors (such as radiation.) Destabilization by definition is destructive, not constructive. Even if a mutation ends up being beneficial it is still caused by a loss of genetic information, so this is the opposite of evolution.
  • Natural selection involves certain characteristics of a particular species breeding more than others which results in a formerly rare characteristic becoming common. However in this situation no new information has developed, only rare info became common.
  • Genetic variation is where each parent provides half the genes for the new baby, resulting in a new combination. This is not the same thing as mutation because information stored in our DNA isn't randomly being lost, we simply only get to pass on half our genes when we reproduce. (Of course mutation could also occur at this same time and would be more damaging to a life form with one or just a few cells than would be to an organism with trillions of them.) And it's not evolution because no new information is being created. The information is just being passed on and two [hopefully] diverse living organisms merging into one new one (Genesis 2:24).
In 2016 I had a college professor argue with me that cancer is a fourth category. We ran out of time to really discuss each other's point of view, but would you really want your closest proof for your worldview to be cancer? And if that were the case, then don't we have the completely wrong attitude toward cancer? If evolution is exemplified in cancer, and evolution is what made us who we are, and is the key to our future, then shouldn't the health care industry be promoting cancer rather than trying to eradicate it? (Matthew 12:25-26) Fortunately this is a moot point, because cancer doesn't change the fact that evolution is fiction.

In 2012 I made a creation themed mantra: "Encoded usable information never increases without the aid of intelligence (think DNA.)"
» PhysLink: What is a simple definition of the laws of thermodynamics?
» In the Beginning was Information: Information in Living Organisms (includes 28th theorem of information)]
What is the principle of "irreducible complexity"?
All the complexities of a biological system must exist together because the components are useless separate and must all be functional at once for the system to work at all. Examples of this include: flight, sexuality, and all 5 senses. DNA is another example because you need the encoded information, a system to decode (read) the information, a system to write the information (reproduce it) and a system to utilize it all appearing at the exact same time because each of these systems alone or even all but one of them is utterly a waste (Psalm 94:9, Psalm 139:14, Proverbs 20:12).
Up until the mid 1600's people thought that life could form spontaneously. One supposed "proof" for this was the situation where maggots would form on dead animals. Mold was probably another. In the mid 1800's Louis Pasteur made the final proving experiment that killed this philosophy. I do not know that evolutionists had too many hopes in this philosophy, but either way now all their eggs are in one basket. They have to believe that the first cells came from sludge and the next ones evolved from simple to complex. But just because they are single, even single celled organisms are not simple. To get by this evolutionists place a distinction between "protocells" and the first cells. Protocells being truly simple and full cells being comparable to teeny cities or factories, with all their specialized functions of energy production, waste disposal, repair, reproduction, etc. Except the development of protocells into full cells is no easier to believe (or prove) than the development of single celled organisms into multicell organisms.

Not only do observable living things only come from other living things, as proven by Mr Pasteur, but God (who is alive) gave the first creatures their life about 6,000 years ago and specifically declared that all creatures would reproduce more of the same kind. On day 5 He created sea dwellers and the birds (Genesis 1:20-28) and on day 6 He created land dwellers, most notably including man (Genesis 2:7) and woman (Genesis 2:21-22). Further, this was not an isolated incident but God continues to be the source, sustainer and enabler of all life (Deuteronomy 30:20, Nehemiah 9:6, Isaiah 42:5, Ezekiel 37:4-10).
» AIG: Life from life... or not?
» AIG: God & Natural Law
» Catholic Encyclopedia: Biogenesis and Abiogenesis
» Wikipedia: Biogenesis

» The Molecular Impasse of Evolution
» How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve into Multicellular Ones
» Bacteria and single celled organisms (forum)
» Wikipedia: Microorganism


Increased functionality/​usefulness requires intelligence?
Yes. Just because crystals form complex, mathematically explained patterns naturally does not mean natural life-useable information for functionality ever increases on its own. Just because the cloud immediately after a nuclear explosion looks like a mushroom does not mean anything resulting from the explosion is more useful than what was there previously. There is a difference between beauty and information inventing itself. The proliferation of beauty, of symmetry, of harmony, all around us is actually perfectly good evidence of a divine Creator who wanted His creation to make sense and wanted it to be enjoyed (Jeremiah 29:11). Have you ever witnessed productivity improve in nature? I don't mean reproduction, I mean efficiency, capacity, capabilities, etc. Nothing except that which is motivated by intelligence ever becomes more productive. You might witness a random event where something good happened by accident, but productivity never increases on it's own. The second law of thermodynamics demands that any closed system deteriorate over time and therefore become less productive/​effective/​efficient. Any true productivity increase requires intelligence. Astronomical and biological evolution would be examples of countless productivity increases so can't be a real phenomenon. (Psalm 102:25, Isaiah 40:28).
» PhysLink: What is a simple definition of the laws of thermodynamics?
» Amazon: Werner Gitt: In the Beginning was Information
» Why are butterflies colored? (Interference)
What's this about two 'kinds' of science?
This is nothing new, it's just not discussed in most schools (public nor private). Science is the study of knowledge, and is a subset of philosophy (which is the study of being). In the name of science we can observe how things are (observational science) or where they came from (origins science). Observational science has changed our lives dramatically in the last couple centuries, bringing steam engines, space travel, the Internet, cell phones, etc. The credibility of the former should not be shared with the later. For example knowing how an airplane works does not help you understand in any way how the first one was invented (created).
» Inventing a Flying Machine
Why can not creationists keep their faith from interfering with their interpretation of the facts?
Since the probability of all components of irreducibly complex systems evolving or otherwise developing independently at the same time are so huge, especially considering the second law of thermodynamics, it takes at least as much "faith" in evolution as a religious person has in God to believe evolution has ever happened. So it is not a matter of leaving faith out, but instead a matter of choosing what to have faith in. God did not try to trick us when he created the world, it is our own expectations, presuppositions, and prideful desire to disprove God that get in the way of seeing the truth. By the way, completely blind faith in God is not faith at all, but ignorance. The God of the Bible wants us to be educated (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) about things he has & continues to demonstrate to us and then to trust him (have faith) on things that we are not able to understand (Hebrews 11:1,3). Observable scientific "evidence" alone should not be cited because by reading the links at the bottom of this page you will see that the same evidence is consistently and seemingly convincingly used to prove the points people make from both sides of the argument! This reinforces the point that the real question at hand is not "where did we come from" but instead "can we take God at his word, period?" (Isaiah 66:1-2, John 3:32-33 MSG)
» AIG: A look at some myths about scientists
» TalkOrigins, an anti-creationist index to creationist claims
» Quotes about God to consider if you think science leads to atheism
Are Creationists really scientists, or are they just religious zealots with an old book of stories?
While it would be irrational for me to say that nothing good has come from a belief in evolution, it would be just as irrational for me to say that nothing good has come from a belief in creation. My wife saw someone wearing a tee-shirt claiming to list some scientific inventions made by Evolutionists and by Creationists, and of course the Evolutionist list was long and the Creationist list was completely empty. Being ignorant is dumb but lying is evil. Let us be clear on some basic facts.
  • 900 years ago science was simply "knowledge gained by study" but only in the last hundred years has the dictionary qualified this to "the physical world", in part to differentiate it from philosophy. Philosophy comes from Greek words meaning "the love of wisdom" and has a broader scope including knowledge (epistemology), reasoning (logic), being in general (metaphysics), beauty (aesthetics), and human conduct (ethics).
  • A scientist is simply someone who uses the scientific method to study something, presumably one of the mainstream sciences. (But remember 'mainstream' is defined by culture and isn't absolute.)
  • The scientific method is a method of research in which a problem is identified, data are gathered, a hypothesis is formed from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
  • Here are a few scientists who might be read about in secular history books (minus their religious convictions) who believed in special creation by the God of the Bible (Acts 17:24-25).


Remembered For

Francis Bacon 1561-1626   Father of the scientific method (, wikipedia)
Johannes Kepler 1571-1630   Formulated the three laws of planetary motion (wikipedia)
Isaac Newton 1643-1727 Formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope, co-discovered calculus, etc. (wikipedia)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 1646-1716 Co-discovered calculus (wikipedia)
John Dalton 1766-1844 Father of modern atomic theory, cataloged first periodic chart of the elements (wikipedia)
Michael Faraday 1791-1867 Co-discovered electromagnetic fields, invented the electric motor (creation safaris, wikipedia)
Charles Babbage 1792-1871 The first speedometer and first true automatic computer (creation safaris, wikipedia)
Joseph Henry 1797-1878 Co-discovered electromagnetic fields, one of the original pillars of the Smithsonian Institution & National Academy of Sciences, insights into electromagnetic relay lead to the electrical telegraph (creation safaris, wikipedia)
James Prescott Joule 1818-1889 Developed what became first law of thermodynamics, got a unit of energy named after him (creation safaris, wikipedia)
Louis Pasteur 1822-1895 Proved biogenesis, formulator of the germ theory of disease (wikipedia)
William Thomson 1824-1907 First to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics (disbelieved in evolution but not exactly a creationist, creation safaris, wikipedia)
James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 Formulated the unified equations of electromagnetic fields (light, magnetism & electricity), made first color photograph (wikipedia, ASA3)
Raymond Vahan Damadian   1936-? Invented the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner (wikipedia)
These people were not religious zealots, they were rational people who used the scientific method to learn about the universe and then asked themselves what they could do with that knowledge. A persons presuppositions about creation are not a qualifier nor disqualifier for whether or not a person can be considered a true scientist. Francis Bacon said a "A little science estranges a man from God. A lot of science brings him back." Note the reason I haven't listed many recent (currently living) creationists is there are too many, and modern scientists are obscure. These listed above are world famous. (Psalm 115:15, Psalm 124:8)
» Quotes about God to consider... if you think science leads to atheism.
» AIG: Can Creationists Be Scientists
» Amazon: Fred Heeren's Show Me God (see especially bonus section 1: fifty believers who lead the way in science)
» Wikipedia: Thomas Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions
What about Occam's Razor?
In general this asserts that all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. It also includes a minimization of assumptions. None of us are informed enough to know that evolution nor creation are truly "simpler". However, that being said, there is nothing that even comes close to explaining why the universe is orderly if the Big Bang was real. There is no reason the laws of physics should exist, there is no reason the universe should be consistent. Yet they do and it is. There was nothing to cause the laws of physics to form, and even if there was (which there was not) then how did they form with such simple equations? (Is the universe "simple minded"? If so then why has it obviously matured but not obviously gotten smarter?) Creation is not a concept by itself, it is a package deal with the Bible (or at least the Jewish Torah) which is why it is so hard for some to stomach. Let us consider a summary of what Evolutionists think is too "complicated" to be possible.
  1. God made the entire universe and everything in it. (Genesis 1:1) If you want to play the causality game and now ask "who or what caused God" then see one of the links at the bottom of this answer. More to the point now is that God created the universe. We know because he told us but he did not tell us he had a beginning. (Isaiah 26:4, Jeremiah 10:10, Romans 1:20)
  2. God made Satan but then Satan decided he was better than his creator, deserved to take God's place and attempted a coop. (Isaiah 14:12-15, Revelation 12:7-9)
  3. Satan and his followers fail and are put in their place. (Luke 10:18, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6)
  4. Satan is furious with God and resolves to do anything he can to attempt to hurt God (Revelation 13:6). Since humanity is God's favorite creation, Satan realizes the best way to try to hurt God is to trick us into turning against God too. God allows Satan to try this (Job 1:6-12, Job 2:1-7) in order to allow us to choose for ourselves between good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17, Proverbs 1:32-33)
  5. Satan appeals to Eve's pride and lust, as well as Adam's pride and complacency, and convinces them to commit the first human sin. (Genesis 3:1-7)
  6. All of mankind (which was just two people at the time, but has grown) is cursed by God for our disobedience, and the universe with us. (Genesis 3:8-24, Romans 8:20-22)
  7. Satan and his followers exploit their supernatural powers and continue to use our pride, lust and complacency against us in effort to keep us from the purpose God created us for (Acts 17:26-27, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, 1 Peter 5:8)
  8. We play right into Satan's trap and some of us choose not to believe the truth, condemning ourselves to confusion, doubt and conflict in life and damnation after that. (Mark 16:16, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 8:31-32)
  9. Some of us realize what is going on and notice that what the Bible says seems to fit the facts. Some of these believers go out into various places around the world and encourage strangers to believe in the God of the Bible. Amazing wonders and miracles happen to and around those who believe Jesus. When these miracles occasionally defy the laws of physics they essentially prove that the God in whose name these miracles happen is real. (Acts 12:6-10, Acts 28:1-10, Hebrews 2:4)
  10. Jesus came to Earth to prove God loves us in a way we can relate to and that fulfilled the prophesies He gave the prophets hundreds (and thousands) of years prior. And He says He will come again. His first visit was as savior (John 3:16) and His second will be as judge (Matthew 16:27). We only get one chance at life then we continue to live with the consequences of our choices in life for eternity (Hebrews 9:27).
This may be "deep" but it is not more "complicated" than evolution.
» Wikipedia: Occam's Razor
» ICR: Everything has a cause
» AIG: If God created the universe, then who created God?
» Jesus Freaks (DC Talk)
» End of the Spear
Why can't Christians just work to redefine "evolution" to mean "natural selection"?
Because we must realize there is literally a spiritual war going on (2 Corinthians 10:3-5) and this would send a mixed message to the world. Any attempt at this is missing the point. The strongest proponents of molecules to man evolution don't want to believe in God. They love it when creationists use their terminology because then they can truthfully read your quotes word for word, out of context, to people who are undecided and easily convince them of the lie. Can you imagine moving to Israel and setting up a new humanitarian aid group, honestly hoping to help Jews and others alike, but naming it a concentration camp and having a corporate identity (symbol) of the swastika rather than the red cross? That would be ridiculous, you would never redefine those things for the Jews because it would dishonor the people who suffered from the ideas that symbol represented. The idea of redefining evolution would not only fail for similar reasons, but it would also simply be legalistic and have no impact on truly reaching people with the Truth of God. This would be yet another needless compromise to make both sides happy but only end up appeasing the evolutionists. Because they know that good people tire and all people rebel, and eventually our efforts to redefine the word will grow weak and we will be in such a habit of using their terminology that we will adopt their theology, too. The only thing (as far as evolution goes) for a believer in Jesus Christ (or even a Jew) to do is to lovingly, educatedly, encourage people that the Bible is the word of God and that it should be taken as serious Truth. If you do not take my word for it then read what God says in the Old Testament in Exodus 23:13,33, Deuteronomy 7:25 and Deuteronomy 12:4,29-32, or in the new with Colossians 2:8 and 2 Timothy 2:23-26.

By the way, in some circles "natural selection" is also referred to as "microevolution." This is not a good idea for Christians for similar reasons as just stated.


What is "mitigated evolution"?
This was a compromise invented by men who wanted to make both sides of the evolutionary debate happy but ended up making neither side happy. (This is more generically referred to outside the Catholic Church as "theistic evolution" or "progressive creation".) This recently invented concept is comparable to patronizing Jesus as simply a "good man". But good men do not claim to be God unless they really are, otherwise they are liars and hence not good. So there is no middle ground on whether Jesus was God or an idiot, nor is there middle ground on this issue. Mitigated evolution was invented to make the Bible "fit" our modern society's evolution-based paradigm of the world and is not based on scripture. Jesus warns us of taking seemingly neutral, or appeasing, attitudes towards lies and falsehood (Revelation 3:15-16).
Does not the word "day" in Genesis chapter one actually translate to "time period"?
This is again just another compromise. Let's count the reasons.
  • Notice that at the end of days 1-6 (chapter 1 verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31) it says "there was evening, and there was morning" (NIV). No other length of time is separated by an "evening" and a "morning". Why would it say this six times in a row if it was not trying to be painfully clear that the days are referring to literal 24 hour days as we know them now?
  • If you want to attempt the stance that the people of Moses's day were "simpletons" and could not understand evolutionary timescales, then consider these verses that describe astronomical numbers without cryptically and inconveniently reusing another word (like "day"): Genesis 16:9-10, 22:15-18 and 41:47-49. Contrast that to John 4:10-15 where Jesus cryptically reuses the term water.
  • If the six days of creation were just philosophical representations of larger time period(s), then why is it never explained later (consider the harmony of the Bible) yet consider how ridiculously strongly God ties the modern seven day week to the literal week of creation in Exodus 31:12-17.
  • Four of the authors of scripture took Genesis 2:7 (which says God formed man directly from the dust of the earth) literally: Job 10:9,34:15, Psalms 90:3,103:14,104:29, Ecclesiastes 3:20 and 1 Corinthians 15:47. That's not even including how Moses also quotes Abraham in Genesis 18:27. Zero even hint at any other origin of man, especially not biological evolution of proteins to people.
  • If the six days of creation were just made up hypothetical references, then why would God keep referring back to them as literal days and never once clarifying them as nebulous, astronomically long "time periods"?
  • If you think the reference to death in Genesis 2:17 is only spiritual then perhaps you didn't notice that thorns (Genesis 3:18) and returning to dust (Genesis 3:19) didn't come until the curse. (Romans 5:12)
As usual the question is really just "can we take God at his word", or to rephrase "can we take God seriously"? Because then there is the opposite problem that in Genesis 5 the Bible does a 180 and describes how six of the nine people in the lineage from Adam to Noah lived over 900 years and the rest lived over 300! Either the record is right or it is not. The Jews are not a people group who accepted such blatant inaccuracy, if that is what it was. At the very least someone in the thousands of years between Moses and the orthodox church would have fudged the numbers to make them more reasonable if anyone did not believe them to be literal and accurate. And let's not confuse the purpose of 2 Peter 3:8 (the "a thousand years is like a day" verse) which is just pointing out God is above time and therefore not in any hurry. It isn't Peter making excuses for inaccuracies in the past but rather both a warning and reassurance about the future. Read the context in 2 Peter 3:7-9.
» AIG: If evolution over millions of years was the way God created, He could easily have said so in simple words.
How can we believe Genesis 1 or 2 if they are contradictory?
There is allegation that the first two chapters of the Bible contradict each other in their orders of creation. The straightforward answer is Genesis 1:1-2:4 is an account of the creation of the universe, the Earth and everything on the Earth, which happened in seven days (including a day of rest). Genesis 2:4-25 expounds on what happened on day 6 and more importantly begins the critical account of the origins of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind. The key is Genesis 2 is specifically describing the dawn of time from Adam's perspective (even though it is written in the third person) and Genesis 1 was written more broadly.

As usual, this is just another attack on the authority of scripture (Psalm 11:3) for the purpose of removing God's perceived ability to speak into our lives (John 3:12, John 5:46-47) so that we can think we can do whatever we want without accountability (Judges 17:6 and Judges 21:25). For anyone interested in more than a FAQ, I wrote a blog post expanding on this concept, too. Read it here.
» Are there two creation accounts?
» Genesis contradictions?
» Two Contradictory Creation Accounts
Why can't we just "take God at His word" and still believe in evolution/​mitigated evolution/​old age/​long time periods/​etc.?
You need to understand how naive it is to blend flat-out contradictory religions. One definition of religion is "a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by." The origin of the universe, the earth, and human life was not observed by any human alive today nor has anything comparable ever been observed, nor can the process be repeated for future observation, so any belief about how it really happened requires faith. People who do not want to believe in any God usually find comfort in the concepts of the big bang succeeded by biological evolution. This has become those people's religion, an anti-god religion where God is simply not necessary and not wanted (Judges 17:6, 21:25). Most people who call themselves Christian believe the Bible when it claims to be the inspired word of God. (It does this explicitly in 2 Timothy 3:16.) But this is not a blind faith because we believe that the God of the Bible is a living God (Daniel 6:26, Revelation 10:6) and that He is actively involved in our lives. At some point (especially if you are a follower of Christ) we must stop asking ourselves what God could have done (used millions of years/​evolution) and we must ask what God says He did. Let's take a close look at what God says in Genesis 1:1-2:23
  • God says He made light three days before He made the Sun, moon & stars (GE 1:3). Big bang proponents do not believe in any universal light sources other than from stars.
  • God says the Earth was at first all water. Then He added the sky and lastly He formed dry ground (GE 1:6-10). Big bang proponents say the earth formed from stellar dust/​gas, condensed to become all molten rock, and only after it cooled for a long time did water appear.
  • God says He made vegetation capable of producing seeds and fruit the day before He made the Sun (GE 1:11-16). Old Earth, or "long ages" proponents say the Sun had to come way before any plants.
  • God says He created sea dwelling animals and flying animals on the same day (GE 1:20-21). Evolutionists believe life originated in the ocean and took a long time to evolve into birds.
  • God says He created land animals the day after He created birds (GE 1:24). This totally contradicts biological evolutionary chronology.
  • God says He formed the first man directly from the dust (GE 2:7). Biological Evolutionists want us to believe man evolved from apes, who evolved from smaller animals, who evolved from less complex life forms, who evolved from single celled organisms, who evolved from inanimate/​non-living proteins.
  • God says He formed the first woman directly from the first man (GE 2:22). This contradicts all secularly recorded human history, as no man has ever given birth. The closest thing is human cloning and clearly that requires a lot of intelligence to pull off!
So why did God create things out of order? God is all knowing (Psalm 139:1-4, Hebrews 4:13) and never changing (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, James 1:17) therefore He must have done it on purpose. I think He did it this way to discourage us from making up dumb stories like "everything came to be on its own" and so we would not even think about blending those ideas with His word. (Isaiah 45:5-12, Romans 1:21-22, 1 Corinthians 1:19-21) And just as important (if not more) there's a recurring theme in scripture that God cares a great deal about getting credit for what He did/​does (Exodus 20:4-6, Deuteronomy 6:14-15, Isaiah 42:8, John 8:50, John 11:4).
» ICR: Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
» AIG: Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias
» AIG: Religion and Evolution
Was the flood global or local?
There is no scriptural basis what-so-ever for a local flood. There is no way to read scripture and come to the conclusion that it was anything but a global flood. If you think it was local, that belief was 'fed' to you. Read it yourself in Genesis 7:19-24.
  • The concepts of 'highest on earth' and 'every living thing on earth' are found six times in those five verses. This would be gross negligence if the author didn't mean what he wrote.
  • God himself, speaking to Isaiah approximately 1,600 years later, reiterates the flood "covered the earth" in Isaiah 54:9.
  • The apostle Peter believed it was accurate, as stated in 2 Peter 3:3-7.
  • From another angle, after it's all done God promises in Genesis 9:11-16 never to do again what He just did. Not because He was wrong to have done it the first time, but because of His plan. This is what the rainbow was and still is a sign of remembrance of. If he was promising never to allow/​send a local flood again then He's a liar. If He's promising never to send a global flood again (like He explicitly says when He mentions "all life on earth" twice) then He's truthful (John 3:32-33).
  • For external confirmation consider the Biblically sound explanations for the origin of the grand canyon, the ice age, fish fossils in the middle of deserts & on top of mountains, etc.
» Canyon Ministries
» Grand Canyon-what is the message?
» Where Does the Ice Age Fit?
Is there any Biblical reference to an old earth or old universe?
Nope. It is only implied (read in) by compromisers. Though really, since the universe was built mature to begin with, there is no direct evidence of its actual age, anywhere. However, there is overwhelming direct evidence of the global flood, and we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus. If Jesus and the flood were real, then so was Creation.
Is there anything else in the Bible that reinforces the seven day creation?
Yes! Consider these references, besides the dozens mentioned above.
  • In the Old Testament a six day creation is explicitly cited and is the only explanation for the 4th of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11) which were given to Moses written in stone by God himself. If you do not think he was being literal, read his elaboration in Exodus 31:12-17.
  • In a gospel account, Jesus himself clearly confirmed that creation was recent when he said Adam and Eve existed in the beginning, not billions of years after the universe and Earth had come into existence (Mark 10:6). If the universe were billions of years old then the entire span of human existence has all occurred in the last 1% of universal time (or "at the end", not the beginning).
  • Make note that Jesus warned the Jews of his day to believe what Moses wrote (John 5:45-47). Moses is widely recognized as writing the first five books of the Bible, including Genesis and Exodus, which is where the literal account of creation and the Ten Commandments referenced above are found. If he had to warn the Jews of his day to believe in special creation then it is no surprise we have to remind people today.
  • Paul, who wrote most of New Testament, confirms Adam was formed directly from dust, not apes (1 Corinthians 15:47).
  • Peter says the flood was absolute and exactly 8 people were saved (1 Peter 3:19-21).
  • Peter warns his friends that in the last days people will deliberately forget that "in the beginning God created" and that He "brought the earth out from the water" (2 Peter 3:3-7).
  • The author of Hebrews was unanimously considered an expert in Jewish theology and history and he refers to the literal day seven, not a vague 'end of creation'. (Hebrews 4:3-4).
» AIG: Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture
Why does any of this matter again?
This was the first question we asked and we'll close with it again, but this time take another angle. Aside from truth mattering (John 8:32) there is another important element. God cares about His reputation:
  • Exodus 9:16
  • Leviticus 19:12
  • Deuteronomy 18:20
  • Psalms 106:8
  • Isaiah 46:8-10
  • Ezekiel 36:22-23 (back story Ezekiel 22:2-16)
  • John 12:27-28
  • Romans 2:24
He's jealous of glory we give anywhere else:
  • Exodus 20:4-6
  • Exodus 34:14
  • Deuteronomy 6:14-15
  • Isaiah 42:8
  • Matthew 22:1-14
Making up and believing stories, then teaching others these alternatives about how He could have done it is insulting when He told us how He did it:
  • Job 38:1-11, 31-36
  • Job 40:6-9
We can't mock God without there being numerous consequences:
  • Exodus 20:7
  • Deuteronomy 8:11-20
  • 1 Samuel 12:24–25
  • 2 Chronicles 32:15-23
  • Psalm 14:1
  • Psalm 81:8–16
  • Proverbs 14:34–35
  • Proverbs 21:2
  • Proverbs 29:12
  • Matthew 25:24-30
  • John 15:5-6
  • Romans 1:25-30
  • Galatians 6:7
When Jesus was asked by the religious leaders of His day, what is the most important commandment in all the law, remember the response (Mark 12:28-34, Matthew 22:34-40). As James alludes to (James 2:19), loving anyone isn't supposed to be limited to believing in them, but also believing them, and requires taking them seriously (more).


If you already agreed with me before reading all this then I hope it encouraged, edified and emboldens you. If when you found this page you were undecided, a skeptic, or otherwise on the "other side" then here are final thoughts:
(now agree)

(still disagree)

  • Be on guard. Genesis is more of a threat to Satan than Mathew, Mark, Luke & John put together. Everywhere you go, everything you watch, you will see just how many people are pushing the lie of evolution, which is really the "God does not exist and I do not need to be accountable" lie. This is an example where "just because everyone else is doing it doesn't mean you should" that hopefully your parents taught you when you were a kid.
  • Step 1 was to recognize the universe has obviously come into existence in alignment with what the Bible says.
  • Step 2 is to recognize that human nature and other history is in alignment with what the Bible says.
  • Step 3 is, if the Bible is right about all that, combined with all the miracles that believers around the world experience, to recognize the Bible must be right about the teachings of Jesus and our need for Him. Jesus wants us to have a personal relationship with Him, not a world religion. The Bible is the word of God, treat it as such. Study it and obey Him (1 Samuel 15:22). Listen for His voice (it will be an indescribable voice from within your soul, not an external sound).
  • Step 4 is to go back and read Genesis, this time not as a novel but rather as a love letter from God explaining where you (we all) came from. Note that the first 11 chapters cover 1,700 years of history so read them very carefully. Then read the rest of your Bible and then repeat.
  • Step 5 is to participate in the advancement of the Kingdom of God. I cannot tell you how to participate, listen to God for your role. But consider attending a church, a Bible study, going on missions trips (either near or far), and listening to Podcasts (my two favorites preachers are Erwin McManus & Craig Groeschel, but there are countless others).
  • I have no personal need to randomly call your beliefs wrong. However what we believe spills over into our speech and our actions. Just as an addicted smoker would be lying (even if out of ignorance) if they said "I'm not hurting anyone but myself", the same can be said about any belief that is not in perfect alignment with the Truth. I realize I am asking you to change your perspective on the fundamental nature of the universe, but more importantly I want you to know and experience Truth. God invented logic and science so neither one can ever accurately be used against Him (Proverbs 21:30) and when they are attempted it involves ignorance or deceit.
  • If I lost you with all my talk of absolute Truth, you would sure hope your surgeon, chef, or banker believes in absolute truth. It is only your pride that makes you think you can get away without it.
  • All the arguments of evolution/​naturalism are built around the idea that if you can think up a way for something to happen without God then that must be the way it happened. This is the kind of logic used by fiction writers but try using it in a court of law! Yet it is all too often status quo in the science lab. This idea is convenient if you are trying to avoid the existence or importance of God but is hardly adequate justification to believe there is no God.
  • Do not hold a grudge against God for anything dumb his worshipers do. If you have been hurt by people who call themselves Christian or by people who acted in the name of Jesus but you find no justification for their behavior in the Bible then do not blame God. (Matthew 7:21-23) We live in a fallen world and people can do dumb things, but God cannot. He is perfect and worthy of your love and obedience. If you still have questions then God has answers. Read a Bible with an open heart and carefully pick a believer(s) to dialogue with, and God will be faithful.

If you found this webpage interesting (in a good or bad way) then please send me some feedback.

More Information

Creation Evolution

Last Modified: Tuesday, July 14, 2015

( back | top )