Young Earth Creationists killing Christian credibility?

Ken Ham is an excellent marketer and salesperson for Young Earth Creationism.Ken_Ham

I should know — much of my professional background is in marketing, working with some of the most talented marketers and sales people on the planet.

I got the chance to hear Ken Ham. He was speaking at a home schooling conference my wife and I attended.

What I experienced from Ken Hams was masterful rhetorical skill; skillfully crafted,

fear-driven persuasion; and artful manipulation of the audience’s emotions to get them to buy into his vision of Creationism.

I grew up a Young Earth Creationist. It sounded fantastic when I was 14. But in time I came to recognize that in order for Ham’s vision of where we came from to make sense, you have to dramatically revise most of our modern, scientifically-verifiable understanding of life and the universe. (The speed of light, for example.)

Young Earth Creationism played a major role in my brother Bryan losing faith and becoming an agnostic. YEC backfires badly on the smartest and most curious students. Bright kids walk away from faith literally every day because Ken Ham forces them to choose between the Bible and science.

This leaves Christian parents heartbroken, terrified and defensive. It makes for tense conversations with your 22-year-old college senior at Thanksgiving dinner.

This launched my 10-year journey of writing Evolution 2.0.

By refusing to consider that secular science may have some accurate facts — dismissing them whole cloth — Young Earth Creationists cannot have a productive conversation with people who understand empirical science.

This kind of stubbornness leaves you stuck.

This destroys the credibility required to have a meaningful conversation with non-Christian people.

When folks like Ham stand up and claim to speak for all Christians, we lose face in the debate.

The good news is, there’s a better narrative that allows for God and evolution — religion and science — to coexist. One where all of modern science’s discoveries only support the mystery of God, not debunk it.

This video may give you a new perspective…

Click here now to get 3 chapters from my new book, Evolution 2.0, right now. 


A closer look at Genesis 1

Is Evolution Biblical?

Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here –

Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here –

270 Responses

  1. Science fiction author Greg Bear (in 1985, 1999, and 2003) and young earth creationists in 2015 Acts & Facts were among the first of many to link virus-perturbed biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry to all pathology for comparison to everything known about the nutrient-energy dependent physiology of reproduction.

    Are you claiming that they were wrong about the viruses or wrong about everything known to serious scientists about nutritional epigenetics?

    • Jack Dingler says:

      I reread your comment several times to make sure I have an idea if what you’re trying to say.

      It’s been known for decades, that most viruses are RNA based, and RNA contains the templates for protien production.

      Epigenetic effects from viruses and environment have also been known, even if the exact mechanisms weren’t known.

      By bringing in YECs, are claiming that the Old Testament contains detailed information on DNA, RNA, Methyl Groups and Amino Acid Chains?

    • Ken Qualls says:

      I grew up with the idea that God used evolution to create everything. That’s what preachers said if the said anything on the subject. Through the years I’ve ditched that idea. Interestingly, the thing that most changed my view Is the fact that the people on the evolution side were pretty much exactly the way you say YEC people are. There are extremists on both sides. Basically I don’t have a horse in this race. There is a lot coming out of both camps that I can’t buy. I get a kick out of hearing both sides get upset when the other side is acting like they themselves are acting.

      • Steven Stoller says:

        Look at the EVIDENCE from physics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and biology. It’s overwhelmingly supportive for an ancient universe and earth, with massive transformations through time. You say you have no horse in this race. Do you value truth? Then look at the evidence.

  2. Jason says:

    You are arguing starlight as an argument for an old universe?? First of all we don’t know what the one speed of light is, so in one direction it goes, it could be almost instantaneous.. Second, the cosmological horizon problem has the same speed of light conundrum, so when cosmologist solve that problem it also solves the distant starlight “problem” for Yec’s. thirdly, it has been noted and proven that time passes with different rates depending on what inertial frame of reference your in….So, we could be in a time “well” where time passes way slower for us than in other parts of the universe. So, my question to the creator of the video is…did he not know this science, or is he intentionally trying to mislead people?

    • Jason,

      We do know what the speed of light is. We can measure it to 8 decimal places.

      Speed of light is a fundamental constant in numerous physics equations. E=MC^2 for example. C is the speed of light. If the speed of light is changing, is makes a complete mess of modern physics (which experimentally is rock solid, and is not a mess at all, therefore C is not changing). Speed of light comes up in numerous places in physics, and for E=MC^2, changing speed of light would mean conservation of matter and energy goes right out the window.

      Speed of light is the same regardless of your velocity.

      I’m not a physicist but I am an Electrical Engineer and I can’t count how many things in Electrical Engineering depend on the speed of light being a constant. When you do something for a living, you know that you know that you know certain things. So far as I’m aware, the only people who have any question about the speed of light at all are the YEC folks.

      So Jason with all due respect whoever you’ve been getting your science from is not being honest about the facts and you need to seriously question their integrity.

      Ken Ham is not honest with the facts. He is dishonest and manipulative behind the scenes, bullying other ministries who question his teachings and threatening to discredit them (this was told to me by the president of an organization); making outright false statements about the history of science (representing that YEC has been the default position in church history for millennia when it has not, for example) and twisting science to fit his interpretations of the Bible. If you are basing your beliefs on the teachings of AIG your faith is on very shaky ground, I’m afraid.

      Ken Ham has done a great deal to discredit Christianity. And he as a teacher will be held to a higher standard.

      Also from this point forward please use your first and last name.

      • Jason says:

        Here is the science that I am talking about. Please read up on the science before you make another attempt at a retort.

        *The difference in the rate of time for objects in different inertial frames of reference is basic understanding of anyone that has taken a rudimentary class in physics that has studied the theory of relativity and it’s consequence’s…I would assume that being an electrical engineer that you have taken this class and know that time passes at different rates “relative” to what frame of reference you are in.

        • Jason,

          I don’t see what the problem is. Especially with the first article. Perhaps you can elaborate.

          • Bart Nielsen says:

            Jason left to go to the bathroom, so I’ll fill in for him.

            The point of the first article and discussion thread is that the speed of light is constant in our frame of reference, but that it MAY be possible that this is not so in every possible frame of reference.

            This is coming from that notorious YEC propaganda outfit, MIT.

      • Gary Burruss says:

        The last I knew they slowed light down to about 10 miles an hour (if I remember correctly) in a lab.

        • Grant Miller says:

          Yes, it can be slowed down when it passes through many substances (like the lenses of your glasses, for example), but in a vacuum (like space) it is constant. You have to be careful of the context of such statements and situations.

          • Correct. I’ll be responding later to more comments which are in the queue, but in physics, for stuff like e=mc^2, semiconductor behavior and all kinds of other things (VERY important in engineering!!!), c is most definitely a constant. I’ve never seen any YEC or other data to prove otherwise.

          • Noel Dixon says:

            Think about it logically, you answered your own question about context. At the start of time, if the big-bang holds true, wouldn’t there be minimal space/vacuum, thus slowing the movement of light?

      • Bill Holbert says:

        Perry, A lot of things you say I have a great deal of respect for. But bashing Ken Ham is not one of them. Personally I believe Russ Humphries has provided a very good cosmological model for the starlight problem and I have no idea if you have read his work. But until you can thoroughly refute his work in this area, I believe you are out of bounds bashing Ken Ham. I think an apology might actually be in order.

        • Hugh Ross competently critiques Starlight and Time here:

          • DL says:


          • Fred CB says:

            Hi Perry, I keep coming back here pondering the thoughts exchanged. I seriously wonder if Hugh Ross is the the last and only word on this issue. Have you considered this response: ? Or for that matter, studied at length the many articles at Creation Ministries International (CMI) that comment or respond to issues raised by Hugh Ross. If you access the CMI Web page and enter Hugh Ross into the Search field you may be surprised at the number of articles that appear, if you have not done this before. Do you consider that all such articles are written by numbskulls who don’t really know what they are talking about? I note that you have much to say about Ken Ham, but not a lot about what actually issues from CMI, especially from their heavy weight writer Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. May be try this for starters: Yes Perry I have read your book: Creation 2 and even given a short review which you may recall. I consider your work makes a valuable contribution to the debate as a whole, but it is far from the last answer on the subject. Whilst if offers much food for thought, it doesn’t nothing for resolving the age of the earth consideration. At best, your book adequately explains the mechanisms that exist to bring about the vast diversity we observe in he natural world, given that most life was kicked off from base pairs after the Noah flood. Enough from me. Over and out for now. FCB

          • Bill Holbert says:

            Perry, Hugh Ross may have critiqued Humphreys but he did not prove him wrong. There is a difference and you know it. And you accuse Ken Ham as if he is all by himself in the YEC corner. He is not, and you know that as well. Bashing Ken Ham is not a Christian attribute and should be abandoned. If you want to address Dr. Humphreys directly, I suggest you do so. You are both very smart guys and I’m sure you could work this out and come to a reasonable conclusion.

            • Bill,

              Humphrey’s claims have been a public debate for over 20 years. As have the scientific views of Ken Ham.

              The following paper refutes Humphreys point by point in exhaustive detail:

              I do not see this debate as a private matter between believers that needs to start with a 1-1 discussion. I’ve never even met Humphreys. His work has been widely published for a long time. The place to confront that, therefore, is also in public.

              A friend has challenged me to be more friendly in my approach. Perhaps she is right. Thus I invite you, respectfully, to consider that there are valid alternative ways to read scripture that are much more harmonious with scientific discoveries; discoveries that are quite reasonably well established, than the YEC position – and that Christian faith and much of cosmology have no need to be in conflict with each other.

              An excellent book is

            • Jose Lopez says:

              Bill, Ken Ham does not represent Christianity, or Christians. There’s no doubt that his interpretation of God’s Word is destroying the credibility of Christianity. Thank you Mr. Marshall for your work and passion you present on this subject. I appreciate your work and efforts.

        • Darren Saunders says:

          Bashing Ken Ham off limits? After his ‘debate’ with Bill Nye he was asked what it would take for him to reconsider his position re: god etc. his reply was nothing, absolutely nothing could shake his belief. As far as I am concerned Mr Ham has made a god of his feelings, dignified them with the term ‘faith’ and held that up as an infallible means of discerning truth. Coming from a flawed, limited human being this is hubris putting it mildly and no more worthy of respect emanating from Mr Ham than oit is when it comes from the mouth of a muslim mullah. Re: speed of light, this is hardly the only evidence of an old earth.

        • Jose says:

          Bill, I actually thought Perry handled his comments about Ham very well. I would’ve told it a different way, but; I like Perry’s threads so I need to remain somewhat professional.

      • Erik says:

        Three HUGE problems with Evolution:
        1.) They deny the Biblical account and, therefore, deny the accuracy of the Bible
        2.) Assumes that God is limited, and that He must learn by trial and error. Today’s car is more advanced than the Model T because we have learned and adapted. Does God need to learn and adapt as well?
        3.) If the Adam and Eve story is incorrect, then the concept of original sin falls apart as well. When, and where, did sin enter the picture, and why, if not the original humans, is all of humanity affected?
        By saying any part of the Bible is incorrect, you are saying you can’t know what parts are true and what parts are not, and you are left with creating a god in your own image.

        • Original sin is way overrated. I discuss this at

          • Daniel says:

            So you don’t think Adam and Eve were real people? You do realise that Genesis is clearly written as if they were. It’s kind of ironic. I like the work you are doing, and how you are questioning the status quo (of both sides). But you cannot dismiss the Bible’s account of creation out of hand, or you are just as subjective as Darwinists. What the Bible says is a valid explanation for many Christians.

            • Daniel,

              Please use your full name. Yes I think Adam and Eve were real people. See

              Also see



              • Daniel Everett says:

                Very sorry about that. I have to say you do have a very interesting take on the Bible then. If they were real people and did not do the original sin like you suggest then where did death and suffering come from? Surely God did not create via suffering, that would be an affront to his glory.

                • I would invite you to reconsider the position you have espoused, because I don’t believe that you can show it’s Biblical.

                  “Surely God did not create via suffering, that would be an affront to his glory” is not a belief or position that is given anywhere in scripture.

                  If you disagree, then show me.

                  When Job asks God for an explanation for his suffering, “you sinned” or “humans sinned” was never part of the explanation at all.

                  In fact God offers the ferocity of nature as a challenge to Job’s search for answers: “Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook or tie down its tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through its nose or pierce its jaw with a hook?” (Job 41)

                  Keep in mind that even the Garden of Eden was staffed with a serpent from the word go. The serpent being the 2nd most powerful and #1 most furious and jealous creature in the cosmos (!) Yet God gave Adam and Eve no advance warning about him.

                  Surely Satan’s agenda is far more dangerous overall than physical death itself, bacteria, earthquakes etc.

                  Why would one think death before the fall was impossible, yet accept that the devil himself is free to roam the earth?

                  Compared to the spiritual gears set in motion before the earth even came to be, issues like physical death pale in comparison.

                  I think you should think more deeply what God is or is not willing to set in place.

                  • Jonathan Turton says:

                    “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Rom 5:12, death before the fall WAS impossible. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [JESUS CHRIST] shall many be made righteous.” Rom 5:19 In your example of Job you make mention of “the ferocity of nature” but the ferocity of nature is itself a direct result of the sin of Adam and thus original sin: “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom 8:20-21 The present state of nature as well as man is reduced to vanity but this was done in hope by God of its and our redemption through the death and resurrection of Christ.

                    • Is Paul talking about physical death or spiritual death here? Read the text VERY carefully.

                    • Jose says:

                      Johnathan Turton, did you say death before sin was impossible?

                    • S.Maclaren (UK) says:

                      Amen. Death was both real death, and spiritual death, as is clear in all of the doctrine of the NT and the deliberate, simple statements of the Genesis writer that are very hard to avoid. Other evidence of course was that man’s life span was massively reduced, and pain and death was the curse pronounced on Eve and on Adam. Dust we are and dust we shall again become.

                    • Angel says:

                      Says someone who’s not living a Christian life. Jonathan Turton from Whitby, Canada. Google

              • Bart Nielsen says:

                Why do you insist that Daniel and Jason use their full names but make no similar demand of Mr. Rude Cherub?

        • Alfred says:

          The age of earth and universe has NOTHING to do with evolution. The Young Earth clown posse brings reproach on God and his son the Christ. The bible was not intended to be a science text book, but if read properly (in context and using a decent translation) it is 100% accurate. For instance, it tells us that we are still in the seventh “day”. Therefore the word day must mean a period of time as opposed to a literal 24 hours. Ham needs to read his bible instead of hitting people with it or what I can only assume is him ripping the parts he disagrees with out to use as toilet paper.

          • Hugh says:

            You should read Jonathan Sarfati’s ‘Refuting Compromise’ to see the extent to which the Genesis days of creation are couched, repetitively, ‘ad nauseam’ for the evolutionist, with linguistic reminders of their 24 hr. duration. The 1000 yr/day is a different understanding of the duration of the Earth for a week(7000 yrs) before a final Judgment, and a new ‘Heaven and Earth’ is re-created. When the transgressions of Adam and Eve occurred, they died physically ‘that day’ – but it was a 1000 yr. day. No-one lived for a full day; though creatures mutation-free (to begin with) lived for many hundreds of years; instance Methuselah. In the NT the gospel writers could accurately refer to their being in ‘ the last days’; the last three days of the 7-day week (4 days having elapsed). We are now balanced in the 6 to 7 day transition, as the prophetic writings of John and Daniel indicate.

            ‘For instance, it tells us that we are still in the seventh “day”.

            Where does it say this? The seventh day is the Millennial Reign. Christians hope they will be ‘raised up on the ‘Last Day’ to reign with Christ; to experience the full Day which Methuselah and all fellow sinners couldn’t; followed by eternal life in a new Heaven and Earth which we presume will not be created through the ‘trial and error’ horrors of millions of years of evolution.

            • Hugh says:

              ‘‘For instance, it tells us that we are still in the seventh “day”.’

              Found it; or is there another reference? Surely you are not referring to Hebrews (4;8-11) ‘For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God; for whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, …?

              That reference to a ‘seventh day’ or ‘day of rest’ is about a Day which we ‘strive to enter’; namely, that we be ‘Raised up on the Last Day; the Millennial Reign. To represent it as referring to our present state is disingenuous in the extreme.

              • At the end of Genesis 1, why doesn’t it say “and there was evening and morning, a seventh day”?


                • Hugh says:

                  At the end of Genesis 1, why doesn’t it say “and there was evening and morning, a seventh day”?

                  The interesting question arising out of Genesis I is why the insistence on the repetition of evening and morning if it is not deliberately emphasizing, as for slow learners, the 24hr duration of each day of creation. it would be ludicrous to restrict God outside of time and creation to a 24 hour rest, or even a 1000yr rest; though he still works to sustain a falling world. He has not gone away. The representative Sabbath was of 24hr duration, but those who have the hope and promise of being ‘raised up on the Last Day’ will enjoy a Day of 1000 years rest while Satan is restrained; a glorious sharing of God’s generosity which will offset the debacle resulting in the mutational decay, and physical death, which marked Day 1. Paul and the apostles were alive during the beginning of Day 4. We now live in the prophesied era when according to Daniel there would be an increase in knowledge, and people would be running here, there and everywhere; as we see fulfilled only too clearly today. The Jews would return to Jerusalem after an absence of two Days, and we would see all the turmoil, agitation, and hearts ‘failing in fear’ of the end time in real time as predicted.

                • Bart Nielsen says:

                  This proves the opposite of what you want it to prove. On the seventh day God rested from creating. After six days He rested and is resting from creating, but now upholds creation by the word of His power.

                • Christo McClintock says:

                  Do you think that there is a conflict between Genesis 1’s ending and Exodus 20:8-11?

        • Alberto Bencivenga MD, PhD says:

          I confess one thing: I am unable to understand how rational people do not feel ridiculous in keeping on quoting what they read in the Bible as if it was… Bible and not mere fiction!

        • Alberto Bencivenga MD, PhD says:

          The concept of original sin was invented by St Augstin and is nowhere to be found in the Bible

        • Darren Saunders says:

          Does it not occur that the bible is the product of men given divine imprimatur to make it more authoritative? The burden of proof should be on you to demonstrate the bible is an accurate claim about reality whereas you seem to say the bible is inerrant a priori while reality or our interpretation of it is frequently in error.

          • Alberto Bencivenga MD, PhD says:

            I agree that the bible is a product of men, as it can be said about any other available book. But where is the notary public that witnessees the divine imprimatur?

        • Tyler Perry says:

          That’s my biggest problem with religion. The Bible had to %100 true. Christians aren’t willing to believe any of it might be an exageration, a stretch or a flat out lie. I don’t believe Jonah was swallowed by a fish and spit up 3 days later… so therefore I cannot be a Christian

          • Alberto Bencivenga says:

            The problem is that the inclination to superstition typical of too many Christians lets them consider the Bible differente than “The adventures of Pinocchio”, even if both books contains just fictional tales!

            • Alberto,

              You are not apprised of basic Biblical, archeological and historical facts about the Bible and you are displaying your lack of knowledge.

              • Alberto Bencivenga says:

                If you speak of yourself, you may be right, but I have studied for years the archeological and historical facts you point at, most probably without knowing anything about them! Send me your email address and I will provide you with something you need to read.

          • Kerry Green says:

            I have no problem with the miracles, because I am aware of a far greater miracle – the universe exists. We know not whence it came. It had a beginning, but science tells us nothing about the cause of that beginning. Before there was something, there was what? Nothing? Because if so, how can something come from nothing? We know that is impossible. Therefore, there must be something which existed outside of time and space, great enough to cause the time, space and matter of this universe. Given such a great mystery, I don’t stumble at the idea that a human could be swallowed by a prepared sea creature, and vomited out after three days. After all, said sea creature was created by that great mysterious force that existed before time, space and matter. (I call that mysterious force “God”.)

        • Roger Drake says:

          Thank you Erik, Last time I discussed this issue with a professor at a Christian college he said, for God to create man on the 6th day would take much more time than just 1 day. And they do believe that the bible is filled with error because we really don’t know what scripture is inspired and which scripture is not. Oh ye of little faith!

      • Don Smith says:

        Is light speed constant and how many things affect it?
        Scientist slow the speed of light:

        Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
        Light travels in space, but what is space, where did it come from and how old is it?

        You can calculate the energy of a photon:

        Photon lifespan?:

        • Don,

          None of these experiments alter the basic fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant regardless of speed or frame of reference and that it is a constant in a dozen fundamental physics equations, like Maxwell’s equations and conservation of matter and energy.

          If the speed of light was changing, your cell phone wouldn’t work, your internet wouldn’t work, transistors wouldn’t work – the list goes on and on.

      • Gregg Kroodsma says:

        Why not look at the Bible as Scientific Anatomical Astronomy. The Bible explicitly tells you that the lights in the firmament of the heaven ‘where the celestial bodies revolve’ will be for signs, as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc. That is astrology. With that in mind, consider the tribe of Judah. Go to Hebrews in the Bible and consider the Savior Jesus Christ. Jesus came from the tribe of Judah. Jesus said, ‘I am the light.’
        The tribe of Judah was the first tribe to go forth from the east at the rising of the sun. (Num. 2:3,9) But that brings up something else; the speed of light. What is the constant speed of light? Is it 186,400 m/sec? Look at Num. 2:9, the population of those in the camp of the tribe of Judah.

      • Fred CB says:

        Perry, How can you be so confident about the Speed of Light, when we have Scientist such as Paul Davies suggesting that it may in fact have changed and there have been others? What do you say about this fairly objective commentary on the subject: ? I am slowly but surely getting the impression, that whilst we have made a lot of advance in knowledge and understanding, the more we think we know it all, the greater we reveal our ignorance. Wasn’t this Job’s mistake? He was humbled when he was made aware of the extent of his ignorance. We have a lot to learn about how things really work. Explain to me how Christ was able to defy gravity and ascend into heaven before the very eyes of His disciples. Explain to me how Christ went from Earth to where ever, which must be outside the observable Universe, as the location has never been picked up on any search of the Heavens. Did He leave at a speed faster than light to cover the distance involved, or pass through a time warp? Lot’s of questions involved in this consideration. FCB

        • Fred,

          If the speed of light is changing, then it raises a host of SERIOUS problems. And I mean serious.

          The first:


          Energy = matter times speed of light squared.

          Conservation of matter and energy is implicit in this formula.

          If the speed of light is changing, then conservation of matter and energy go out the window. And physics falls apart.

          So if that’s the case then why does physics work so well? Why does nuclear power work the way theory says it should? It does, you know.

          Then there’s Maxwell’s equations. if the speed of light is changing then the relationship between electric and magnetic fields is also not stable. An Electrical Engineer can appreciate what a mess this would make.

          But there is no mess.

          So the argument that c is changing is very very very flimsy and so far as I can tell, entirely based on wishful thinking. The only people who even talk about it are mostly YECs.

          If someone can show that c is changing and resolve this problem, then I’m all ears.

          • Fred CB says:

            Hi Perry, Thank you for your further thoughts. What you say is absolutely true, as we see and understand the situation in present time. I don’t think it is a question of whether it is changing now, or within recent historical time, but whether or not it has changed previously to what we now consider to be constant, or whether it can change gain.

            The fact that there are now Scientists who are in fact suggesting that it may have changed; even if very minutely, in terms of what Paul Davies says on the matter, then it obviously opens the door to such possibility. If ‘the door’ can be opened just a smidgen then as knowledge and understanding increases, who can say just how much further it might open? Can we still say with absolute certainty that it has never changed and can’t change after being lead to understand for years that there was not the slightest possibility that such could ever be true, and that any one who entertained such thought had to be out of their mind?

            The New Testament writings strongly indicate that there are many things that happen which are outside the known way things usually happen, given our knowledge of how things work. Let’s consider turning water into wine in an instant. That defies the time it takes to make good wine, given the chemistry processes involved. Then there is the case of multiplying a few loaves and fishes to feed thousands, all virtually done in a ‘flash’ so to speak. Then we have walking on water, no mean feat, to say nothing of the gravity defying ascension into heaven. Also there is the case of bringing a stinking corpse back to life. All of these feats evidently involved changing some factors that otherwise we would say were governed by constant laws/processes. Yet, all the factors involved were subjected to extraordinary change from what is considered everyday observation (the constant became in-constant). How then can we knowingly say that the speed of light has never changed or can’t change, because it is not what we presently observe and know? Isn’t it this sort of thinking that leads to saying, the Biblical ‘miracles’ as they are called; never happened? As you are aware, I am a YECer after holding the opposite stand for many years. I now put what we read in Genesis 1 in the same category as the extraordinary happenings mentioned above, which all fall outside of scientific understanding. Should we not stop trying to fit things that evidently fall outside our understanding (limits of our knowledge), into what we think we do understand? FCB

            • Fred,

              I’m fine with miracles. I take the NT miracles on face value.

              But even those had evidence that made sense to people. People touched the scars in Jesus’ hands and side. There was a HISTORY that was traceable.

              YEC does not provide that. In fact one has to get uncomfortably close to God making a universe 6,000 years ago with 13 billion years of “apparent” (=FAKE) history. This is not consistent with Judeo-Christian theology at all. In fact it’s in conflict with what the Bible reveals about God in general.

              If the speed of light tells you unambiguously that the universe is 13 billion years old, what’s the problem with changing your Biblical interpretation? I just do not see what the problem is with doing this.

              • Fred CB says:

                Hi Perry, I hadn’t realized that you had responded to my comments, no Email notification came through? As to your question, “what’s the problem with changing my Biblical interpretation” there is actually no problem at all, if such change can be shown to be absolutely and certainly necessary. Having held and defended the ‘long age’ view for the better part of my early life, I know what it means to change ones interpretation of the Bible. In fact, I have done it many times, that is why my current day understandings are a way divergent to what is normally presented as mainline Christian Theology. But I wont go down that track. To date, I have not as yet seen adequate and convincing arguments/reasoning against material presented by Creation Ministries in their many books, DVDs to say nothing of their WEB page articles. I hear a lot of criticism but never, piece by piece dissection and refutation of particular points that they have not adequately covered or responded to. See my other comments in another section, relative to Hugh Ross. Time to stop. Probably said more than enough at this point. FCB

              • Fred CB says:

                Thank you Perry. I see that the ‘missing’ items are now in fact included. Evidently there is a time lag sometimes, between time of entry and when it actually appears here? FCB

            • David Lee says:

              The whole water into wine bit fails to look at the context of it’s place in history. In the times of the Romans wine was treated as a “cordial”and added to water and drunk highly diluted – one of the reason the Romans dispised the Barbarians from Germania was they drank wine undiluted and became drunk and “fearless” in battle ie while drunk they were unpredictable in battle and took greater risks and did not follow the norms of battle. Back to Canaan, the wine casks were “empty” instead of adding wine to water to be served to the guests Jesus added the water to the dregs in the wine casks and produced an acceptable drink. Nothing to see here folks -move along.

              • Clay says:

                You may want to reread those verses.

              • Tim says:

                Ah yes, context. But the context of the Bible is the Jewish culture and not the Roman culture. The Roman culture is purely background and largely irrelevant to Jewish traditions and the accounts of scripture. It only enters in when relevant to the the scriptural events such as the practice of crucifixion and Jesus’ trial before Pilate. I’m pretty sure the Apostle John knew the difference between a miracle and the practices of the Romans.

        • As for the miracles, I can’t explain them. I believe in them, I’ve seen them with my own eyes. But my limited view is that there are miracles; and then there is the regular and normal operation of things. Miracles being blatant exceptions to normal laws of the universe. Or possibly higher laws that we do not understand, which don’t actually break the ‘normal’ laws.

          That said I’m very reluctant to abandon what we seem to know, and be able to measure to 9 decimal places, and calculate with great precision etc etc in order to satisfy the questionable hermeneutics of a particular vocal sect of American Christianity that also differs from many of the church fathers over the last 2000 years.

          • S. MacLaren (UK) says:

            Believing the traditional and plain reading form of interpretation of the scriptures is the right way is NOT the sole right of some USA Christians, but a worldwide, strong and growing minority (used to be a massive majority) which holds to the factual, relatively recent creation of all things, as believed and accepted by Christ and the apostles, as well as of course the church fathers. Moreover, you have not the slightest evidence that Genesis must be interpreted the way that you prefer, from any factual basis – other than by imagining that science has demonstrated evolution, or long ages, or both. It has not, and much embarrassing evidence to the contrary is available, which so many refuse. There are great scientists and educated, well read and researched people who reject the old earth hypothesis, ON THE EVIDENCE ALONE. Good evening sir.

            • I would suggest that you have not read a very wide range of church history, particularly on this topic. I reference quite a bit of it in Evolution 2.0 in the Appendix. Good evening sir.

              • S.Maclaren (UK) says:

                Well, Perry that may be. I shall certainly check my sources. However I suggest that you wish to continue with your belief in millions of years directly because of, and in support of evolution theory, which you accept. However, this is, on its own attempt at ‘evidence’ alone, a clear and most damnable lie, as all lies are. It is a clever lie, as it is very near the truth, of course, as natural selection and adaptive radiation etc are all observed. But these genera/species and sub-species level developments can never create new life forms. Give it up Perry. It will distract you from what is important, and ruin your life. Darwin, neo-darwinists, and all who grasp at this stupid hypothesis were completely and are still completely wrong. (Not a theory, as there is nothing demonstrable experimentally which could ever promote the truth of the development of disparate species from some distant common ancestor). Furthermore, a Christian believing evolutionism, creates massive problems for what was believed by the Lord Jesus, who told us that in the beginning, God “created them male and female” etc.

                We clearly have had many ‘bushes’ of life from the original organisms in the Phyla, classes, and orders (man made /named systems) that were created ex-nihilo by the Lord. We cannot actually know what forms were made at creation, but there has certainly been diversification and a lot of extinction of that diversity.

                That much is plain, but there has never appeared the slightest evidence for any direct morphing of lines of life from one ancestral form to all the others. It is all complete rubbish, and conjecture.

                Christians need to get behind the collapse of confidence in the scriptures caused by the teaching of amoral humanism, greatly encouraged by the mass (lemming) and cowed acceptance of evolutionism. God’s Word, and His word alone is the rule of what is truth.

                Kind regards

                • You seem to be unaware of demonstrable empirical experimental evidence of new species. Read my book.

                  • Seumas Maclaren (UK) says:

                    Perry, I am fully aware of some new species claims (some more genuine than others), as adaptation is pushed to the hilt as an base of evidence for “change over time” – That lovely fluffy loose definition that some evolutionists use as a get our of jail free card and allows them to say”LOOK THERE! Evolution in ACTION!” when what most of what they are observing is merely the standard adaptational response which all organisms possess that allows them to survive. Much of this is driven, as we know, by the variability of the genera, and many species and sub-species that are inter-fertile. Now, as to claims of “empirical experimental evidence of new species”: But is this evidence, Perry, of evolution from common ancestry? We think not, as there is no known means by which completely new functional design can appear out of the evolutionary hat like magic rabbits! Information theory expressly forbids it, which I can predict, will get a lot of evolutionist scoffing, demonstrating they have never studied mathematics or statistical theory properly, but have hopeful and sincere beliefs in evolution somehow being able to add wings to the bats, and complete the first metamorphosis of a caterpillar to a butterfly – one of the most complex processes in the natural world that it is possible to observe.

                    Creationists are, in the main, in full understanding that new species (diverged from existing lines to more greatly specialized forms of the same types of organism) are a fact. Speciation (an observation of specialization of form and function) but not de-novo creation of new forms, is clearly the way in which we have had a myriad of sub-types of all kinds of life. This is evident in the fossils, in which we see most representative major groups low down the Cambrian strata (according to the suppose evolutionary timeline, early in history). Do you deny or agree with my views? If not, then where is your evidence – any evidence – that could show how, over millions of years, the green algae from the seas could have eventually spawned enough independent new lines of life to create an English oak tree? The truth is that any link between types is guesswork, as to how they came about.

                    • Please explain which kinds were created by God and which ones adapted from other forms. Please back up your statements with credible sources.

                      If your sources are Biblical, then please delineate which species or forms the Bible says God created originally, and which ones adapted.

                      Also explain the exact meaning of the word “baramin” and tell us how we could determine whether “after their kinds” is a general principle/pattern or an absolute iron-clad rule.

      • Roger Drake says:

        I am not a scientist or a cosmologist but I find it very interesting the boastful responses by people who have studied in these disciplines.
        You say, “YEC cannot have a productive conversation with people who understand empirical science”? FYI as I understand it, scientific views are constantly changing, new theories are proven true or false by the scientific method (unless of course you are a well read scientist and then your faith belief is considered proof). You say, “Ken Ham forces young people to choose between the Bible and science” FYI he doesn’t force anybody to believe anything, he basically points out the folly for believing that scientist have all the right answers. Let me remind you that God is the one who created the heavens and the earth and I’m sure you do not know how he laid the foundations of the earth or how he formed the stars. As to the speed of light, I certainly do not know the consequences of a changing speed of light but apparently not all scientist believe that either. Farid Ahmad and co York University Toronto Canada says the “string theory predicts variations in the constancy of the speed of light. Variable speed would also solve other problems in cosmology”. Instead of insulting others who do not believe like you why not say well, he has his opinion, he may be wrong but until more information comes out we may differ in our beliefs. Have a nice day.

      • Jose says:

        There’s no doubt in my mind that Ken Ham is destroying God’s Word.

      • Tim says:

        Then as an electrical engineer, you also know that many of those constants you use in formulas are in relation to the physical world we live in. They would not necessarily be constants in another reference point as others here have mentioned. Have you considered that the instant the “big bang” occurred, those same laws of physics may not have been applicable at all? The greatest physicists of history did not necessarily see all those possibilities. Man continues to trip over his own suppositions in what seems to 100% correct but is later invalidated. You and I live in linear time while God lives in eternity. There is no yesterday, today, and tomorrow in His perspective. Everything is now and since that is true, His actions transcend linear time as well. So if He spoke to a prophet about something that happens in our future, it has already happened in His experience. There is then no need to think that He formed the universe but that it then took eons for the light to travel from one point to another. When he spoke it, it was instantly everywhere He was. You cannot put God into the same box you and I live in and expect that His acts of creation must fit into your understanding of the physical world.

        • That is all fine as far as it goes, but you cannot then at the same time – after you’ve said all you just said – trot out all the assertions of YEC and call them science.

          If you wish to keep creation within the realms of the mystical, then that is fine. But do not call it science because it’s not.

      • Bob Stephen says:

        My question / statement about the speed of light is this; We all “Know” that EVERYTHING was created in the “BIG BANG”. Every document I’ve read takes the mathematical equations needed to explain the “BIG BANG “and reduces the energy needed and the forces needed to supply the building blocks of what we call the Universe into a timeframe that is powers of 100’s minus a second of the Big Bang. The sub atomic particles, the strong and weak forces, Gravity etc are all described as “Coming into being” in minus micro fractions of a second. All matter we know of was made in those fractions of micro seconds. Then the articles describe how the Universe expanded filling the volume of a beach ball, then the size of our solar system, then the volume of our Milky Way galaxy then to its present state….all within ….you guessed it; micro seconds. (I may be a little off on that…it has been a while since I’ve read those different descriptions, I would have to look up the different articles, starting with Isaac Asimov ) but it was certainly described as less than a couple of seconds). The point is; EVERYTHING was created ( oops, my bad….”Made”) in that time frame……..including LIGHT. It filled the volume of space at the same time as the stars formed….it was and is energy. Because of this I believe that light can not be used as a distance or an age constant. TRUE? Astronomers state that the Universe is about 13.8 Billion years old….but the better our instruments get the further “back” we can see and they are astounded that there are fully formed Galaxies at the distance of 13.2 Light years away. How did they form in a cosmological fraction of time from the “Big Bang”?

    • Richard Porter says:

      The speed of light sice we have been able to measure it has been slowing down. Look up Barry Setterfield’s work …

      • Roger Drake says:

        I have been following Chuck Missler and he has cited Barry Setterfield’s work also. Is his work also consider fairytales.

    • Rex Brighton says:

      Speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.

  3. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum, but organisms do not typically exist in a vacuum.

    Your ignorance of physics and chemistry is greater than any I have encountered.

    It’s time to end your attacks on others, and learn about RNA-mediated cell type differentiation, so you can quit blocking my comments.

  4. Re: “Ken Ham is not honest with the facts. He is dishonest and manipulative behind the scenes, bullying other ministries who question his teachings and threatening to discredit them (this was told to me by the president of an organization)…”

    Please consider not believing everything you are told by others about Ken Ham or about hybrids.

    Thanks for not blocking my comment about the speed of light. If you also intend to stop your attacks on others, I am willing to compare levels of ignorance in the context of different disciplines and lack of integration, which you prevented by not allowing part 1 of what could have been a two part prize-winning explanation of the origin of the code and the origin of changes.

    • James, you are one step away from being banned because of your disingenuous comments, your accusations, and your unnecessary combativeness. I am getting tired of it. People accuse you of being a troll for a reason.

      This is your final warning.

  5. I apologize, Perry. I thought you were attacking my beliefs. Typically, I am not combative, but I am not defenseless, either.

    What aspect of my model are you willing to discuss?
    For example, I presented this poster at the Labroots Neuroscience 2016 Virtual event last week:

    From hydrogen atom transfer in DNA base pairs to ecosystems

    • Darren Saunders says:

      Attacking your beliefs? Is not potentially disagreeing with your beliefs or questioning them a form of attack? If this stricture were reciprocal I submit you and Perry would be mutually struck dumb lest you offend one another. You can have as many sacred cows as you please but I am compelled to respect none of them.

  6. Thor says:

    So what tools are used to determine the actual speed of light? What is used to tell us how far a distant galaxy is? What is used to tell us how old the earth is?

  7. Matt Owens says:

    I have listened to your video and have read several articles or posts by you. I’m not here to defend Ken Ham. Obviously, you don’t mind impugning one’s motives by calling Ken Ham dishonest in his teachings and methodology but I usually try to avoid that area. Now, I would like to discuss the age of Adam and Eve with you instead of discussing the value of “H” is not absolute on quasars and if you want I can give examples. In your view of Scripture, can one determine within a couple thousand years of when Adam and Eve were created? Do you believe they were created fully human or they are products of evolution or were they just “literary devices”? A loving brother in Christ, Matt Owens

    • I answer this question here:
      I recommend James Fischer’s book “Historical Genesis.” Adam was a real guy who lived 6,000 years ago. It appears that he was the first prophet, not the first homo sapiens.

      • Matt Owens says:

        I listened to an hour of that video. So I will ask, are any of these human beings who supposedly lived prior to Adam and Eve still have any progeny on earth today? If not then when did they die off? Who was the one man in Acts 17:26 from whom all nations came? In Mark 10:6 to whom was Jesus referring when he said God at the beginning of Creation made them male and female?

        • Matt,

          The original Greek in Acts 17:26 says God made man of one “blood.”

          Mark 10:6: Human beings in general.

          • Matt Owens says:

            Perry, who told you the Greek says one blood? They lied to you if someone told you that. “Epoiasen te ek enos pan ethnos anthropon” I don’t if you read Greek so I tranlitered it. Translated it says, “he made from one ‘man/person’ all nations/ethnics of people. So I’m sorry that is incorrect to say one blood unless you are using blood as a synecdoche for Adam. Mark 10:6-9 is a direct citation from Genesis 2:20-24. I hope you will change your mind on that position because it won’t hold water. Who were the first CREATED human beings if not Adam and Eve? Did God create from the dust of the ground some human beings other than Adam? The Genesis 4 explanation won’t work but we can discuss that later if needed. Now I say all this in absolute love, so please do not say or even think that I’m being mean spirited or unloving. I’m not at all. Thank you Matt Owens

            • Matt Owens says:

              I did go back and look at the all the Greek manuscripts. The texus receptus which the KJV and nkjv are translated from, does have the word for blood in it (acts 17:26). Most found that version a little lacking because they did not have all the manuscripts that have been found in the last 200 years. The older manuscripts (closing to the first and second century) do not have “hiama” in the verse.

              • Thanks for looking into that. I’m not a Greek scholar but I don’t see anything in scripture that specifically says Adam was the biological father of all men.

                When Genesis says God formed man out of the dust of the ground, in my view it’s being no more specific about how the man was physically formed than it’s prescribing the mode of his death when it says “to dust he shall return.” It doesn’t say when or how or how long. Most people assume that God scooped up dirt and literally made a human but there is nothing in scripture that precludes a process of development.

  8. Bart Nielsen says:

    So are you saying that Jason Lisle, David Menton, Danny Faulkner, Michael Oard, and Georgia Purdom are misrepresenting science in their various disciplines? Or is the locus of YEC evil at Answers in Genesis solely resident in Ken Ham.

    Forgive my being so forward, but your post seems to follow the pattern of pick the target, freeze the target, personalize the target, polarize the target.

    • I have not encountered anyone who can provide a coherent explanation of how the speed of light is changing and still account for the success of most theories in physics, like conservation of matter and energy.

      • Bart Nielsen says:

        First off, Answers in Genesis does not particularly favor the speed of light decay theory of cosmology, so you are really setting up a straw man with your response. Certainly c decay is not a requirement for each and every creationist cosmology. From AIG’s website (

        Starting from the Bible, there are several potential solutions to the problem.

        Relativistic time dilation (as discussed in Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?).
        CDK or speed of light decay (AiG leans against this, but we encourage researchers to keep working on it.)
        Cosmological time zone conventions
        Miraculous intervention: the light arrives by a supernatural means, no longer in operation today (While this is not a model, it is a possibility.)

        You seem not to have really examined what Answers in Genesis teaches, since you often ascribe to Ken Ham positions which it is easy to verify that he does not hold. (See the example above.)

        You furthermore have not really answered my original question, since of the five scientists I listed, only two are astronomers/astrophysicists. So are all of these people “not honest with the facts” as you accuse Mr. Ham of being? Have you examined their work sufficiently to make this judgement?

        Final follow on question: Have you studied the work of leading creation scientists sufficiently to be able to give a coherent discourse on the places you agree with them? Perhaps starting with the points of agreement might help bridge the gap between you and them. As it is, you really appear to be engaging in ad hominem attack against Ken Ham, and that is not very persuasive.

        • Bart Nielsen says:

          Thank you for allowing this comment through. Do you have any response to the points raised?

        • No scientist who claims that the speed of light is changing fast enough to make the universe 6,000 years old is being honest with the facts. Period. I have studied this issue enough to see that nobody in the YEC community has solved it. If you know of someone who has, I am happy to find out and retract my statements and revise my views.

          The fact that AIG doesn’t embrace any one workaround for this problem doesn’t change the fact that it is a very serious problem.

          My take on AIG is that they are rigidly committed to a strictly literal, very particular interpretation of Genesis and are not willing to entertain any other model. And although I think they are well meaning, they end up seriously distorting significant aspects of science across multiple disciplines in order to make the data fit their particular Biblical interpretation. You’ll be hard pressed to find a geologist anywhere who thinks the earth is young, for example. I need not repeat the many problems with YEC here; you can find them all over the internet. As I say in my book, I respect and admire people for being willing to suffer ridicule for their views and convictions. It doesn’t mean they’re doing honest science.

          By the way I have benefited greatly from some YEC people. Werner Gitt’s book “In the beginning was information” is a masterpiece for example.

          • Bart Nielsen says:

            Every cosmology out there has serious problems. Why throw out creationist attempts to model cosmology but not similarly reject the other cosmologies out there which have anomalies at least as glaring as those you dislike in creationist models?

            • Because it denies basic things you can measure like the speed of light and age of and distance to stars.

            • Robin Boom says:

              There is a compelling argument for Creation in that the universe came ex-Nihilo around 14 billion years ago. Big Bang cosmology does not appeal to some hard-core atheists as it suggests a prime cause/mover outside of space and time. As Steven Hawking once admitted in a BBC interview 20 years ago ‘The ultimate conclusion of the Big Bang is God, and to understand the universe is to understand the mind of God’. The facts as we know them just don’t fit the YEC creation models. If you stopped using Genesis 1 as your lens through which you try to view science, God becomes a lot grander and logical.

  9. Thanks. Please prioritize your response. Here’s a link to another poster session that I presented last week. I prepared the abstract in haste due to a deadline for submission that subsequently was changed to allow me to revise the abstract and title. But, as you can see, they included the original abstract when they posted the narrative and content of my presentation.
    RNA mediated molecular epigenetics and virus driven entropy

    Published on 2 Mar 2016
    Poster – The Origin of Information: How to Solve It
    Perry Marshall is the author of “Evolution 2.0.” He has offered a prize that could be claimed by someone who can show how the genetic code came into being.

    However, he has established guidelines that appear to prohibit a neuroscientific explanation for the de novo origin of nucleic acids and the link from their creation to ecological speciation. The link must include hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution. Saline is one solution and blood is a tissue linked to brain development during life history transitions. The molecular mechanisms of cell type differentiation must be linked to behavior during life history transitions via information that links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA.

    This poster will integrate information from recent findings published by Cori Bargmann’s group, Bruce McEwen’s group, Marc Vidal’s group, Anna Di Cosmo’s group and Eugene Daev’s group into an explanation of what is currently known about how physics and chemistry must be linked to the molecular mechanisms of protein folding and biodiversity in all living genera via the energy-dependent physiology of reproduction.

    • To all reading this post:

      Mr Kohl does not seem to understand that to solve the origin of information problem, you can’t start with DNA or blood or anything else biological.

      I have asked him to stop posting here because the negative nature of some of his communications. You are welcome to pursue his writings at his blog

  10. Diane Fleming says:

    I am someone who believes that the earth is young and the Biblical account of creation. A six day period. The Bible declares that it is God’s word of truth. I do not except what it says by faith…I know Jesus Christ as my savior and the creator. The problem with the lie of evolution is that it is based upon millions of years and death occurring before the creation of man. The Bible teaches that death did not happen till after man sinned. When you study scripture you will actually see this problem and much of what you see in the fossil record is supported by scripture and a world wide flood. Dinosaurs and man living together. Jesus Christ is the creator in Genesis. Do you deny Him? There is much to learn in the Bible…the way God shows himself to you. You can learn about God by looking at his creation and then He spoke to us through His only Son, Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Jesus confirmed the creation account of Genesis. Study your Bible….Do not believe Satan’s lie of evolution.

    • The Bible does not teach that there was no physical death before the fall. See

      • Bart Nielsen says:

        OK, I’ve tried following your links RE: death before sin, and I’m afraid I’m not seeing anywhere in the links where you address death before sin. So are you saying that death, disease, suffering, cancer, futile evolutionary dead ends and cataclysm after cataclysm are part of God’s very good creation as He intended it from the beginning?

        If so, will the eternal state be any different? Will the suffering, cruelty and death that has marked God’s creative process also be part of the eternal future? If not, why not?

        Are you ever concerned that by ascribing to God’s creativity aeons of suffering and death, you may actually be ascribing to God the works of sin and Satan?

        • Bart,

          Thanks for coming into our conversation here.

          Death before sin:

          I’m going to say something you might initially find surprising or even offensive – but I’m asking you to pause and consider.

          Nowhere does the Bible ever indicate that there was no animal sin or death or suffering before the fall.

          What does the Bible say?

          It says there was a place called Eden, there was a garden in it, and they were cast out.

          There was an outside of the garden as well. So whatever you think life was like inside, outside was different.

          Romans 5 – read it carefully, it’s talking about spiritual death (of men and women) not physical death of animals. See my other article at

          The idea that there was no death before the fall has cause enormous problems in the relationship between Christianity and science.

          God did not make a perfect world. The scriptures say God made a GOOD world. Those who say it was perfect cannot support their assertions with scripture.

          People who think there was no death before the fall equate the original state with the final state. Where we came from = future eschatology.

          This idea does not come from scripture either.

          Yes the eternal state will be different. We have lots of scripture that says so. But we have hardly have scripture that describes life before Adam and Eve.

          I have considered your last concern but actually the problem is the opposite: People think that God would never make a world that was free to be the way that it wants to go, but that’s exactly the world we actually live in. The real problem is that YEC conditions people to think that the world was SUPPOSED to be perfect – when in fact we have zero historical evidence of there ever having been a perfect world. The whole thing was set up for conflict from the word go.

          Case in point – never mind bacteria – the most FURIOUS AND JEALOUS creature in the entire universe was waiting for Adam and Even when they showed up.

          And they received no warning from God. No “Watch out for this guy.”

          That’s a way more disturbing problem than cancer, carnivora or bacteria.

          Well if you can accept that FROM THE BEGINNING the world was design to be a testing ground for what kind of creatures people choose to be, you can relax about a whole bunch of theodicy type questions.

          I realize this may be completely foreign to what you’ve been taught but I insist it’s empirically supported by all of science – and it’s scriptural.

          Thanks for your participation in the discussion.

          • David says:

            Just read your reply, cant believe what you have written. Gods word is very clear regarding creation being 6 literal days . if man didn’t fall and sin in the garden as the bible says there was no need for Christ to dye on the cross and rise again. because there was no sin. if you don’t believe what is written in the first part why believe any of it. the has many scientific facts long before man even thought of them, and all are true, why question his word, the only one if find that did that was the devil himself. when he confronted eve with the question hath God said.

            • The word “day” (yom) has multiple meanings across Genesis 1-2, clearly cannot always mean 24 hours, and days as we normally understand them do not even begin until “day” 4.

              We are in the seventh day now, per the author of Hebrews.

              Please use your full name when you post – thanks.

              • roger drake says:

                Peter, What are you suggesting? Don’t take the words out of context. Exodus 20- the Law God clearly relates days to working days of mankind. Consider Jonah in the belly of the great fish- it would be a fairy tale if he were there for 3000 years (a day as a thousand years. Peter) To doubt would have to say God could not do that because he wasn’t really God. Have a nice day (from now on kind of day).

    • DL says:

      I suggest MoreThan a Theory by Hugh Ross. Progressive Creationism defends inerrancy of Scripture while disproving evolution.

    • Darren Saunders says:

      The bible is proof of nothing, it is a claim one of many. The bible is the product of men masquerading as god. Consider, the sentence of death pronounced on women who are raped in a city and do not cry out. It seems to have escaped the cognoscence of the omnipotent author of the universe that the woman may have been gagged of had a knife held to her throat. Point being this is what one would expect from men not the all knowing. This is just one example. I find it vexing that christians at your end of the spectrum never seem to hold their own beliefs to the same standard of proof as they demand of evolutionary theory. If the bible were true the faithful would be emptying hospital wards with their prayers and raising then dead… Unequivocally, undeniably.

    • Darren says:

      The bible indicates we would know the followers of christ by their ability to perform miracles and raise the dead. When was the last time you emptied a hospital ward with your prayers or raised the dead? Point being at what stage do you plan holding your non-faith based ‘belief’ system to any meaningful standard of proof given, as far as I have been able to determine, the evidence on the ground emphatically does not support your glib assertions re: evidence supporting biblical literalism and evolution being untrue. Your whole ‘argument’ can be summarised as ‘the bible is true because it is true because I know it’s true….’

  11. I look forward to your book. As an OEC, I wish we could get a hearing in more churches, but non-YECs have been effectively smeared by the likes of Ken Ham, and we first have to fight to establish that we are Bible believers and not apostates. We have an uphill fight.

    • Bart Nielsen says:

      Is it possible for people to have strong disagreements about important matters without resorting to accusations of “smearing?” As a creationist who believes that the earth is thousands not billions of years old and that death of all descriptions is the essence of the Curse, and not at all part of God’s creative acts, I realize that you think I am scientifically uninformed and am damaging your ability to effectively share the Gospel with scientifically literate unbelievers. I don’t take that as an insult or a smear; I take it as a strongly held opinion on an important matter.

      Can we drop inflammatory rhetoric and exercise Christian charity here?

  12. Robert Byers says:

    YEC is a major successful movement for credibility of Christianity.
    It defends historic christian doctrines in the bible as the word of GOD. start to finiosh. Human ideas in opposition are just incompetent wrong.
    It gains intellectual cred for Christians whose faith is under attack from those who hyjack ‘science’ to disprove god and genesis.
    Ken Ham is famous and popular because he has the right cause, right ability, and God blesses him.
    We YEC were here first in saying evolution is without evidence and just obviously impossible. We welcome all and lets party together.
    A great change is coming to biology in our time.

    • Evolution happens in real time. New species, new capabilities. Documented adaptations and they happen rapidly. Chapters 11-16 of my book Evolution 2.0 document this.

      Christians should be talking about this. Atheist don’t like to, because it demolishes the idea that evolution is random and accidental. It’s not. It’s purposeful and contextual. It happens in response to specific situations. I have many articles on this site that discuss it. The book covers it in detail.

      Do the research and see if what I’m saying is true.

      • Robert Byers says:

        Thanks for the reply.
        Biological change is welcome and predicted by YEC. We need it to explain human colour and all sorts of attributes of the body from the folks on the ark. Likewise with many creatures.
        there are mechanisms. YEs they have a purpose. I think a innate trigger working on memorized abilities in the genes.
        Since its purposeful then no reason to say its evolution. Its not about chance.
        Anyways Ham and YEC do top quality attack on old man Darwin.
        They create a great audience for ID thinkers to introduce their ideas. Money makes money.

    • Darren Saunders says:

      Human ideas incompetent and wrong? Who or what is it that pronounces the bible (as opposed to the koran, book of mormon…) the inerrant word of God in your case if not a flawed, limited human being who has graced his feelings with the term ‘faith’ and held that up as a superior means of discerning truth than getting off his gluteus maximus to find out? All this in the face of billions of other earnest human beings who have reached radically different mutually exclusive determinations about the divine. You conflate your limited human determinations with the qualities of your deity I.e. Inerrancy. It is this breathtaking, immoral arrogance that gives us everything from Hitler to IS, there is no humbleness in such behaviour… It is a horror.

  13. Otangelo Grasso says:

    I agree the starlight issue is a major one. But is it enough to reject the YEC position all together, and ignoring all the other evidence that points to a young earth ? I am often asked how old the earth is. I respond : I don’t know. It’s a issue that has divided Christians, and removed from the focus, that is to reach the unsaved. Fact is, that this question is a complex one, because there are many issues that must be weight one against each other. Both sides have good reasons to defend their positions, but to draw a clear dividing line and say: one of both is right for this and that reason, is difficult. Thats why i think the proponents of both explanations should be respected, and move the focus to issues that are more important. No one will lose its salvation for being the advocate of one or the other side, but millions are losing their souls for not knowing Christ. So what about unite together, and focus about what really matters, that is to reach the ones that are deluded through mainstream science and the mainstream establishment, which tries to make us believe that our origins can be explained by pure natural means ? There is so much to be explored and exposed to show that naturalism is a utmost irrational position, and why intelligent design is by far the best explanation of what we observe in the natural world.

    Btw. Cosmicfingerprints was the first website a few years ago where i learned about CS information, one of the main tenets of ID arguments.

    Thanks for that Perry. Much apprechiated.

    • I think starlight, all by itself, is more than sufficient reason to reject the YEC position entirely. It is that clear. I have yet to see a resolution to the YEC position on this issue.

      To your point, Christians advocating scientifically impossible stances significantly damages the credibility of Christianity in general. AIG consistently converts Christians into atheists and agnostics. My brother is one of them. There are many others.

      Thanks for leaving your comment.

      • Bart Nielsen says:

        A week ago I left a reply to one of your comments and it languishes still after several rounds of further discussion. It contains a link to AIG’s website that shows that your characterization of their position is inaccurate. Have you seen this comment? Just wondering if we are having a real dialogue.

      • Donald Smith says:

        It’s more than starting light. I’ve never heard a good argument why the stars are that far away in the first place. Nor, a good one that explains the various and diverse materials that exists in the universe.
        Nor if there are trillions of stars divided into the estimated age of the universe, why we don’t see them forming all the time.

        • Donald,

          All of this is basic undergraduate level physics which is straightforward observation and calculation. There are many ways, starting with simple euclidean geometry, to determine the distance from us to stars. You can find these things in any good astronomy book and I encourage you to do the research for yourself. (Start with a Google search, such as “how to measure distance to stars.”)

          It’s math.

          We can determine the velocity of stars relative to earth based on red shift.

          Composition of materials is also well understood by astrophysicists and they can explain to you how various elements of the periodic table are born in stars.

          And yes we DO see stars forming all the time. We can see it in distant galaxies, where what we see actually happened billions of years ago and the light is just reaching us now.

          Sir, please raise your curiosity and do some real personal digging and research. And I respectfully ask and suggest that you place less trust in Answers in Genesis and more trust in basic observable math and physics – which you can double check for yourself – and which by the way is FAR less ambiguous than biology.

          • Hugh says:

            The problem is that when we discard some of the premises on which Answers in Genesis depends we trample the bruised reeds into the mud; and where on the scale of ambiguities do we position the miraculous? Perhaps only the miraculous can reconcile the ambiguous evidence for old and young Earths?

            • I’ve witnessed a bunch of miracles, see But my bias is that demonstrative miracles are for when and where people can see them. Not for long long ago when no one was around to be there.

              Jesus was risen from the dead but he still had scars. Miracles do not disguise age. So if the earth LOOKS old then it IS old.

              Hugh, to be frank there is nothing ambiguous about the age of the earth. 99.9% of the evidence unquestionably says it’s old and the 0.1% that can be construed to say it’s young is itself ambiguous.

              • Hugh says:

                ‘Jesus was risen from the dead but he still had scars. Miracles do not disguise age.’
                If, as I believe, He actually appeared as depicted in Isaiah 53 carrying our burden of sins then the burden would have disappeared with his resurrection victory. However, the new unrecognizable body retained the recognizable scars of his ordeal, and now he moved at speed,overtaking and appearing and disappearing in a twinkling. When travelling with his disciples before his death He was sometimes tired and falling asleep in the boat, etc. He met the Samaritan woman when resting at a well while the disciples went ahead to get provisions. Pontius Pilate, a man who must have seen many beatings and crucifixions was astonished at his early death on the cross. Also consider ‘Physician heal thyself.’ He was not the good-looking protagonist of Hollywood films, etc. (Read Isaiah 53). I saw a ‘Gospel of John’ dvd the other day, and He had a sexy image in that.
                His scars were the only signs which convinced a disbelieving Thomas, since He was otherwise unrecognizable.

                ‘So if the earth LOOKS old then it IS old.’
                I would not concur with this assertion, which is contradicted by lava flows which occurred within living memory in NZ, and which have been erroneously dated as old. Likewise, new atoll islands, etc. are remarkable in their soon being indistinguishable in ‘old’ settings.
                i believe there is as must evidence for a young Earth as an old. We face a mystery which challenges our faith and I incline to a childlike interpretation; as supported by Our Lord. Children were the only models He held up for us for emulation; after we repent of course.

      • Kerry Green says:

        I am no scientist, just a born-again believer in Jesus Christ the Lord. But I understand that in the garden of Eden, as created, fruit trees were bearing fruit. They were not just seeds. Grown trees existed. Animal life was already mature and breeding. Adam and Eve were not children, but probably late teens or adults. God created an apparently established, aged world, and universe. The Bible says that the heavens declare the glory of God. Thus, no matter how our technology evolves and our telescopes get bigger, the further we see, the more we realise there is in this universe. Just like God. But what would be the purpose of creating such a vast universe, to show to us the awesomeness of God, if we could not detect it because it was only a few thousand years old, and thus the light from distant stars was nowhere near reaching earth? I believe God created it in a mature state, with light from distant stars already reaching earth.

        • My book says:

          11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

          12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


          24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

          25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

          What you’re saying does not appear to me to be what is written in scripture.

          And let me remind you that if the earth was created 6,000 years ago with light from stars 100 million light years away, then 99.9% of the universe’s history is an illusion deliberately created by God, because it never actually happened and the appearance is an illusion. Are you sure you want to take that position?

      • Grahame Hall says:

        So, instead of just disagreeing with AIG and perhaps trying to find a cosmology that would be acceptable to his Christian faith, he abandons his “faith” entirely. Faith, or a lack thereof, doesn’t come from Ken Ham, AIG, CRI, CMI, or any other person or organisation. As I understand it, faith is a gift from God, and one is free to accept it or reject it as one wants. I think you’d find, if it wasn’t for Kem Ham, your brother would have found any number of other reasons for converting to atheism or agnosticsm. Also, you don’t know how many other people may have come to discover biblical truth through YEC websites, so I think the point about your brother is somewhat moot.

        • “I think you’d find, if it wasn’t for Kem Ham, your brother would have found any number of other reasons for converting to atheism or agnosticsm.”

          How could you ever know that? I have no way of knowing whether that’s true or not. History only gets to run one time. But I do know that AIG and Ken Ham take a number of scientific positions that are not factually defensible and are in fact demonstrably false.

          • Grahame Hall says:

            Even if Ken Ham’s entire site was “demonstrably false”, that still doesn’t really give any bible-believing Christian an excuse for abandoning their faith. For instance, you believe Ken Ham’s site is replete with “not factually defensible” and “demonstrably false” claims, yet that hasn’t caused you to abandon your Christian faith, has it? My statement about your brother (and you are quite correct, I cannot possibly “know it” in the sense you mean, as impirical fact) is based on my knowledge of why some people I know claim to have rejected their own Chritian faith. A broad range of reasons are given, from disbelief in Genesis 1, to personal or collective tradgedy. Imagine this conversation: A: “You used to be a Chritian. But now you say you are not. Why?” B: “Because Ken Ham says the universe is young.” Not really a logical or defensible position, is it? However, if the reply was: “Because I have lost my faith in the Bible as being the inerrant, infallible Word of God,” well, that’s a whole different ball game. But I wouldn’t blame Ken Ham for that. Rather, I’d look for another cause – Charles Darwin, perhaps?

            • I quite disagree. Ham forces people to choose by insisting that “evolution and millions of years” is utterly incompatible with scripture. When a Ken Ham follower comes onto my site they use the words he gave them: “I’m not going to COMPROMISE scripture by bowing to the beliefs of secular scientists,” they say. He scares people into embracing his view – and those who leave are conditioned to believe – via bad exegesis and misrepresentations of church history – that all serious Bible scholars have believed YEC throughout church history.

              This is poor scholarship and it exacts a real cost in modern Christianity.

              Legalism always has this effect on people. It places a heavy burden on people that was never Jesus’ original intent.

  14. Charlie Richardson says:

    Perry et al,

    It seems as though this thread has people shooting past each other on the YEC position. In my own view here, the YEC position is and was fundamentally (no pun intended) based on the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy or at least infallibility. The real “un-get-overable” point for hard core YEC advocates, is that they absolutely WILL NOT ACCEPT any argument or evidence which compromises their view of Biblical inerrancy, therefore divine inspiration, therefore “Biblical authority.”

    Therefore all the quasi-scientific rationalizations, apologetics, hammering and sawing on definitions of Hebrew words, of the YEC contingent is to defend their basic framework of faith and for these people, those core beliefs are NOT amenable to logical persuasion, argument, or scientific evidence of ANY sort, because they see them as the bedrock foundation of their faith.

    In my opinion it is possible to completely reject the idea of Biblical inerrancy and still be a Christian. That’s the Rubicon that a Christian either crosses or doesn’t cross. For most moderate denominational Christians it’s not a problem. For anyone brought up in fundamentalist denominations, or conservative Church of Christ or similar, it’s a big problem.

    Perry, I absolutely appreciate your efforts to build the bridge of dialogue here. But I think you are building more of a bridge back to faith for those who have had their faith damaged or destroyed by the set of beliefs embodies by hard core YEC, to circle back to your point.

    • Charlie,

      Thanks for your comment. I think many people confuse infallibility with their own interpretations.

      • Charlie Richardson says:

        Perry, some fundamentalist churches equate doctrinal non-conformity with “not walking with Christ.” So for a lot of folks your idea of “evolving your interpretation” of Scripture, based on science is anathema and the liberal slippery slope to hell. I know this from firsthand experience.

        Extreme fundamentalism of any sort is a big problem in general whether Christians do it, Muslims do it, or anyone else does it. A closed mind admits no light.

        All Ken Ham has to do as you said, is to equate believing in evolution with all the ungodly things happening in the world, and losing faith/not walking with Christ, and he’s got ’em.

        And you are absolutely correct about the backlash and damage that happens with young people when they begin to question what they are taught and compare an interlocking web of research and scientific exploration of our world. Kids don’t like being lied to. The statistics for church attendance are showing the complete consequences of the abysmal strategy of Christians hiding their head in the sand about human origins, the age of the earth, and evolutionary theory.

        • “Kids don’t like being lied to.”

          And when they’re being lied to… when there’s an elephant in the room… they can TELL.

          Amen bro.

          • Hugh says:

            Yeah, little children are not hoodwinked. I read recently that their ability to detect sleight-of-hand much surpasses that of adults. It has been proposed that this ability is due to less blinking.

        • Grahame Hall says:

          My word Charlie, you seem to think YEC believers are mindless automatons dancing to Ken Ham’s tune! Perhaps the reduction in church attendance has less to do with YEC proponants and more to do with the prevailing evlutionary brainwashing that human beings are nothing more than a chance combination of molecules in motion, answerable to nothing, or no-one, higher than ourselves.

          • Perhaps there are other alternative views in addition to a) YEC or b) chance and selection?

            • Grahame Hall says:

              No-one denies there are other alternative views, Perry, not even the omnipotent (as some here seem to think of him) Ken Ham. AIG is openly and unapologetically (no pun intended) a literal-6-day, YEC-promoting website. Why should they promote alternative views? Do you promote alternative views? Does Hugh Ross? Does Richard Dawkins?

              • Yes as a matter of fact I encourage alternative views, it’s the only way any of us can learn. I am dogmatic about very little. We should be far more interested in the questions than in obsession over exact answers.

    • David Stirneman says:

      Your opinion that you can be a Christian and believe that the Bible has errors is one that I’ve never understood. To be clear it is not a matter of salvation but it is an important issue nonetheless. Our lifelong goal is to be more and more like Christ. We are told that he actually is the Word. And every time he referred to the Law and the Prophets he confirmed its authenticity. He was the agent of creation. All things were created by him and through him. How can a Christian believe something that makes God a liar. We know that men are fallible. However, we are told more than once that the human authors of the scriptures wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

      Science is man’s pursuit to understand God’s handiwork. How could that be in opposition to his revealed Word that includes the creation of our world and human history?

  15. Kenneth Heck says:

    One thing young earth creationists cannot prove from scripture is that the 6 days of creation were accomplished within a consecutive 144 hour time period. Even if we grant that each day was 24 hours, they still could have been separated by a number of years, even millions. Also, nothing in the bible supports the idea that everything God created was created from nothing. In fact, he actually started with water covering the sea floor.

  16. Stefano says:

    Old-earthers and evolutionist theist, are killing the consistency and credibility of the Bible:

    • Charlie Richardson says:

      Close study of the Bible can kill the consistency and credibility of the Bible for inerrantists just as easily. Have you attempted to reconcile the two dates/times given in John and Luke for Jesus’ crucifixion, or attempted to harmonize the events at the empty tomb and immediately afterwards, given in all four Gospels? After all, the resurrection of Christ is the single most important event in human history for Christianity, as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 15. Which version of those did the Holy Spirit want us to rely upon as a factual description of the most important event in human history?

      Also, the Koran also claims direct inspiration by God. What additional real-world proof could you offer to resolve the truth or falsity of both the Bible’s and the Koran’s claims to inspiration? My point is that faith for a thinking adult should be an examined choice, and reasonable faith in the Christ of the New Testament is sufficient, but absolute faith in the inerrancy of both the New and Old Testaments is a mug’s game played out of willful ignorance.

      Biblical scholarship and textual criticism have come a long way in just the last three hundred years, and that genie is not going back in the bottle. A good introduction is Bart Ehrman’s book, Misquoting Jesus.

      • Stefano says:

        The Bible is free of contradictions, they do not exist.
        There are just ignorant, wicked and stupid men that do not understand the Bible. You are unable to use Google, because with a few clicks you can find thousands of explanations for these alleged contradictions.

        Biblical scholarship and textual criticism is trash and Ehrman is just a false prophet from devil, and he was publicly refuted by James White.

        If you put the Bible in the same plane of the Koran, it means you’re not a Christian, you are not saved, you are lost and you have to repent for not going to hell. A Christian must firmly reject evolution because it is nothing more than a compromise.
        Atheists hate all beliefs not materialistic, it does not make sense to compromise with them by following nonsense as theistic evolution and the theory of the days of creation, many long years.

        Atheists hate everything, and if you teach theistic evolution and creation in the long times, however, they attack you anyway.
        You have to stand firm in the Word of God and reject everything that goes out of biblical exegesis. No compromise with devil’s hoaxes.

  17. Charlie Richardson says:

    Perry, Q.E.D. on the original subject of my posts. I was not deliberately trolling but apologize if I was a bit emphatic in posing my questions and statements as to possibly create diversion in your forum.

  18. Mike says:

    I love Perry’s work but I have to defend YECs here. The speed of light isn’t the problem that you think it might be. Watch Episode 18 on Astronomy on the following page.

    With all the unprovable assumptions underlying the secular timeline, and the plethora of evidences we have for a young earth, I see no reason to accept the secular timeline.

  19. Mike says:

    Oh here is the link

    Episode 18 – Astronomy

  20. Mike says:

    After reading some more of the comments on here, I have to say that although I love Perry’s work exposing the effects of random mutations, I disagree with what I seeing of his theological positions.

    Satan rebelled against God and was then God cast him out of Heaven. Why did He allow Satan in the Garden? Well the first Adam was free to choose good and evil and he failed, introducing sin and death into the whole creation… “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Rom 6:23

    Death is the price of sin. Physical and spiritual. It was Christ’s physical death which paid the price for our sins. Why did God allow Satan into the Garden? You could just as easily say, “why did God create Satan?” Adam, like Satan choose to disobey God, and now we, being descended from Adam, have a sin nature. Sin pulls on us.
    So I think this verse is appropriate – “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Rom 8:28

    God may allow bad things to happen but He is ultimately glorified. He didn’t have to redeem mankind, but He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. There is no redemption for fallen angels but because mankind is of one blood, being descended through the First Adam, the Last Adam’s (Jesus Christ) death makes salvation available to mankind.

    Jesus was glorified through His death on the cross – “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you.”

    Jesus Christ, our savaior, endured the cross for the joy that was set before Him.

    “looking unto Jesus the [a]author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Hebrews 12:2

    The Hugh Ross model, where there is physical death before Adam and Eve puts you in a bad theological position. Mutation rates and consequent accumulation of mutations alone make secular timelines untenable.

    Why accept secular timelines when secular timelines are all build upon unprovable assumptions the there is immense evidence that the secular timeline is wrong? Just so some guy won’t ridicule you for believing in a young earth? Keep in mind that the guy ridiculing you has been conditioned to accept the secular timeline as fact. And keep in mind that the such a guy also doesn’t understand the assumptions underlying his own world view. He hasn’t learned to think for himself.

    • Mike,

      There is not immense evidence that the secular record is wrong. There is almost no evidence that the earth is young. And don’t say I didn’t warn you – if you wade into the topic with willingness to really examine the evidence, you will see that the YEC position is tragically lacking in empirical support. Start with the speed of light (if a star is 100 million light years away, how old is the light that hits your eyes?) And when you talk about mutation rates etc. I don’t think you understand my evolutionary model. I encourage you to read my book Evolution 2.0 cover to cover, then make a judgment. You may agree or disagree but it will force you to think.

      A world where the cruelest, most bitter creature in the universe is free to roam and deceive is not a perfect earth. You would never let such a creature into your baby’s nursery, would you? God’s willingness to let man freely make mistakes needs to be understood for what it is – part of a larger universe that itself has freedom to develop in its own way. This is not bad. But it’s not remotely utopian.

      • David Stirneman says:


        It is a good thing for us to study God’s character. However, it is a very dangerous thing to make judgements about God. Your statement, “A world where the cruelest, most bitter creature in the universe is free to roam and deceive is not a perfect earth”, contradicts scripture. Satan and a third of the Angels were in a fallen state prior to God creating the universe as we know it. God declared his creation “Good” and it was not cursed until after, and as a result of, Adam and Eve’s sin. If God chose to allow Satan to inhabit a serpent in order to offer mankind a choice to obey or to disobey him then who are we to question that? Just as in the book of Job Satan had to be granted permission by God.

        I do not believe you would make this theological error if you were not required to do so in order to justify your need for death before Adam. Besides having 6,000 years of all the men of God accepting Adam as the first created human, you also have Jesus affirming this.

        I do genuinely hope that you will search your heart and find a way to measure your work against the standard of God’s word. I pray that if you find disagreement that you are humble enough to place God’s will above your own.

        1 Corinthians 3:9-15, [Paul speaking] For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

        • Where does scripture ever say the earth was perfect? My book says “good.”

          • Stefano says:

            A world formed by millions of years of violence, blood, extinctions is not perfect, is not !good”, it is unfair, it is trash, it is false doctrine from satanic milieu.

            Jesus created the wine in a few seconds away from water, it had no need of months of fermentation: instantaneous creation.

            • If the universe was created in the space 168 hours, 6000 years ago, with the appearance of being 13.8 billion years old, then why do you criticize scientists for observing that it appears to be old?

          • David Stirneman says:


            If you re-read my comment I said, “God declared his creation ‘Good’ and it was not cursed until after…”

            However, it seems that you imply that good does not equal perfect. We could argue semantics and the Hebrew root words but I don’t think that is necessary. The onus is on you to prove by sound reason, logic, and scripture that God, who is perfect, can create something less than perfect. I argue that he did not.

            God did create things that could themselves become less than perfect but they were still originally created perfect. That is an important distinction.

            Deuteronomy 4:12, “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.”

            Psalm 18:30, “As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.”

            We know that God created Angels with the free will to love him or reject him. We are not told the how and when but we know the results, a third followed Lucifer and rejected God. Their fate is predetermined. We also know that God created the heavens and the earth and gave Adam and Eve the same choice. They also rejected him. And as a result Genesis 3 explains the consequences. His creation became cursed. What was good was no longer good. These conditions stand in contrast. There is no philosophically sound reason to infer that God’s creation was less than perfect prior to being cursed. We are even told that creation itself awaits being restored to its former perfection as is prophecied.

            Romans 8:22-23, “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”

            2 Peter 3:12-13, “Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwell righteousness.”

            Just as Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden because they could not dwell in paradise due to their fallen state, we must have a new paradise in order for our future perfected bodies to dwell in. The original paradise was cursed because of sin. And death is the ultimate consequence of sin. It did not precede it.

            And this brings up another good point. Do you believe that the future new heaven and new earth will likewise take a big bang and billions of years to create? Jesus told us that the Father began preparing a place for us 2,000 years ago. That was in order to begin to receive sleeping saints I would assume and not because of his need to take long in doing so.

            • Exodus 4:11 Then the Lord said to him, “Who made man’s mouth? And who makes him deaf or not able to speak? Or who gives a man sight or makes him blind? It is I, the Lord.

              Good and perfect are NOT the same. And I think if you attempt to define “perfect” you will find the definition itself elusive.

              Man did not introduce imperfection. He abdicated his authority to heal the earth and bring peace and expand the borders of the garden to the whole earth.

              I don’t have any idea the process God uses to create new heaven and new earth. We are not told. What we are told though is that it is a process, not a snap of the fingers. “I go to prepare a place for you.”

            • Robin Boom says:


              You claim that God who is perfect cannot create something imperfect. According to my Bible, God called what He had created ‘good’ as opposed to ‘perfect’. If God is perfection, can God create something as perfect as He is?

              The onus is not on Perry to prove through logic, reason and scripture, that good doesn’t equal perfection, but yourself that it does. If creation was perfect and God has perfect insight as to the future and all possibilities, why the Fall? Was God aware before Creation that Adam and Eve would sin? Were the cards stacked so to speak for evil and rebellion to succeed? Was Adam to blame for being made imperfect with a vulnerability to corruption? Creation was not perfect, but was and still is essentially good.

              The whole idea of a perfect omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God is also vague in scripture. It is more in line with the Greek philosopher Plato’s concept of the Divine. God’s thoughts and ways for sure are higher than our human ways and thoughts, but in scripture God repents and changes His mind a number of times in the scriptures and appears to be surprised by our human reactions and responses. An all-knowing perfect God cannot repent or regret doing something if He had foreknowledge of the outcome.

              God’s knowledge however is certainly much grander than our miniscule understanding of things and He is absolutely wonderful in His ongoing interactions with us mortals, but that God has implicit and absolute knowledge of all things can make God out to be an ogre if you really believe God created Adam and Eve with inherent weakness to sin and the consequences of this sin as the Genesis story expands upon.

              I do believe in a Good, Loving and Gracious God who interacts and co-operates with us to make us better as depicted in the life and death of Jesus and interactions of the Holy Spirit as seen in the New Testament and also with us today. But to take the poetic allegory of Genesis 1, which the editor/writer of Genesis combines with the separate narrative in Genesis 2 and 3, as literal truth has its problems. If you believe they are one complete narrative, why the two names for God? The Almighty creative Elohim of Genesis 1, and the Jewish Yahweh of chapter 2 and 3 who walked as a man in Eden’s garden here on Terra Firma and didn’t know where Adam was hiding. Genesis 1,2 and 3 are merely a blending of oral traditions. You want proof? Its there in the texts, poetry and words used. Its the ancient Jewish tradition of their faith and understanding of the world and universe going back some 4000-5000 years. Because Yahweh is a post-Moses name for God, the Adam and Eve story is a more recent narrative than the 6 day creation narrative.

              That YEC like Ken Ham and the likes try to insist that all Christians must take it all literally when there is so much evidence today that the universe and planet are a lot older than 6,000 years, and that if the science contradicts the Bible, then the science is wrong and not the Bible is dishonest and incredibly naïve.

      • Fred CB says:

        Perry, I am not so sure that the cruel, bitter creature exists, in the form generally promoted by Christendom at large. Many years ago I came across this book which which made me rethink the subject very thoroughly and exhaustively – Have you read it and reflected on its case? Of course the case does not end there, but it is certainly a good jumping off point for further research. May truth, logic and sound thinking prevail. FCB

        • Leszek Kolakowski, the famous Polish philosopher who lived through the holocaust, said: “I can understand people who do not believe in God, but the fact that there are people who do not believe in the devil is beyond my comprehension.”

          Unfortunately I cannot spare the time to read all the links various people post here, I hope you understand.

          • Fred CB says:

            Perry, It is not a question of whether the Devil (diabolos/falseaccuser) exists but what actually constitutes such entity. The fact that you cannot read all the links that get posted is fully appreciated, I likewise have the same problem. However, this said, I think if you can just find the time to look this one over, you may just find it opens up a very challenging and thought stretching consideration FCB

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *