Tuesday, December 24, 2019

God and Science - English Orthodox Web 14


God and Science

English Orthodox Web 14


ORTHODOX WEB: http://orthodoxweb.blogspot.com - Abel-Tasos Gkiouzelis - Email: gkiouz.abel@gmail.com – Feel free to email me…!

♫•(¯`v´¯) ¸.•*¨*
✩¸ ¸.•¨ ​

Scientists’ conversions from Evolution to six 24-hours days Creation


Saint Paisios of Mount Athos, Greece (+1994): The false evolution, the temptation of atheism when he was 11 years old and the appearance of Jesus Christ to him

From the age of eleven [says Saint Paisios], I would read the lives of the Saints, I would fast and keep vigil. My older brother would take the books and hide them, but that didn’t stop me. I would just go into the forest and keep reading there.

Later, when I was fifteen, a friend of my brother named Costas told my brother, “I’ll make him willingly give up all this nonesense.” He came and explained to me Darwin’s theory of evolution. I was shaken by this, and I said, “I’ll go and pray, and, if Christ is God, He’ll appear to me so that I’ll believe. I’ll see a shadow, hear a voice—He will show me a sign.” That’s all I could come up with at the time.

So, I went and began to pray and make prostrations for hours; but nothing happened. Eventually I stopped in a state of exhaustion. Then something Costas had said came to mind: “I accept that Christ is an important man,” he had told me, “righteous and virtuous, Who was hated out of envy for His virtue and condemned by His countrymen.” I thought to myself, “since that’s how Christ was, even if He was only a man, He deserves my love, obedience, and self-sacrifice. I don’t want paradise; I don’t want anything. It is worth making every sacrifice for the sake of His holiness and kindness.”

God was waiting to see how I would deal with this temptation. After this, Christ Himself appeared to me in a great light. He was visible from the waist up. He looked at me with tremendous love and said, “I am the resurrection, and the life; he that believeth in Me, even if he dies, he shall live” (Jn. 11:25). He was holding the Gospel in His left hand, open to the page where the same words were written.

With this event, the uncertainties that had troubled my soul were overcome, and in divine grace I came to know Christ as true God and Savior of the world. I was convinced of the truth of the God-man, not by men or books, but by the very Lord Himself, who revealed Himself to me even at this young age. Firmly established in faith, I thought to myself, “Come back now, Costas, if you want, and we’ll have a talk.”

Book: Saint Paisios of Mount Athos by Hieromonk Isaac


If God created the world and everything else, who created God ?

The answer is no one! God is the ‘Uncaused Cause’ or ‘Prime Mover’. Only things that have a beginning (e.g. the Universe) require a creator. God, on the other hand has existed from all eternity. He is an infinite spirit, not restricted in any way by time or space.


‘Flat Earth’ Theory: A Secular Myth Fabricated to Defame Christianity

Where did the idea of “Flat Earthers” come from? The idea has been traced back to “a slanderous fabrication invented by opponents of Christianity in the 19th century and has been thoroughly debunked by contemporary historians of science.” …

It’s taught in school textbooks, it’s a favorite citation of New Atheism, and it’s been referenced by no less than the President himself — Medieval Europe believed the Earth was Flat. And so it’s fact! – Except that they believed no such thing.

The popular view taught in schools is that scientists came along and rescued us all from the Medieval Church’s anti-scientific views that the World was Flat.

The only flaw in that story is that nobody ACTUALLY believed it was flat, and hadn’t believed it was flat in a very, very long time — as far back as Greek Antiquity. Even Pythagoras, Aristotle and Euclid called it spherical.

Textbooks from the middle ages described the world as round. So did Dante. And no less than the Catholic Church’s leading Medieval thinker, Thomas Aquinas wrote the following in his greatest work, Summa Theologica“:

“The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth.”

Where did the idea of “Flat Earthers” come from? The idea has been traced back to “a slanderous fabrication invented by opponents of Christianity in the 19th century and has been thoroughly debunked by contemporary historians of science.”

As it happens, Washington Irving wrote a fictional novel about Columbus, which was reported as history by John William Draper (History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science) and Andrew Dixon White’s similar tome. The “Conflict Thesis“ (idea of Religion and Science being incompatible) is attributed to Draper’s work.

“Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth-Myth” is the article much of my piece has been summarizing. It goes into greater depth, and gives references. I highly recommend it.

This leaves us with two closing thoughts.

(1) If the authors and “historians” who gave rise to the Flat Earth Theory have been dismissed by serious historians as propagandists of their day, which are really behaving like “Flat Earthers” … people of faith, or those who blindly parrot debunked historians? (The latter includes, ironically, Richard Dawkins.)

(2) If the so-called historian to whom the “conflict thesis” has been attributed was caught in a lie, how much weight should we put on his characterization of the tension between faith and science? Is it not possible that a public duped by an untrue Flat Earth myth might also have fallen for his Conflict Theory? Maybe instead of “taking scientists word for it” we could decide for ourselves whether the two are in conflict.






Fr. Antonios Alevizopoulos, Greece

Orthodox Christians believe that God is “the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invis­ible”. The world is not eternal; only God is eternal. He created the entire world out of nothing: “for he spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood forth” (Ps. 33,9).

Man cannot determine the manner in which the world came into being; for it is not an object of scien­tific examination, for it transcends man’s “rational” ability (his logic). Man is part of created reality, he cannot become an “observer” of the manner in which he himself was created!

The world is not of the same nature with God; “by nature” it is entirely different. The world is not a creation from the essence of God, “light from light” but the fruit of God’s volition and freedom; there is an insurmountable chasm separating God’s essence from the essence of the created world.

God need not have created the world. The world, however, was pre-eternally in God’s “thought”. Thus the creation of the world does not mean a change in God’s life. The world came into being according to God’s plan and at a time which pre-eternally existed in God’s will.

Before making visible creation, God created the spiritual world, i.e. the angels: “When the stars were created, all my angels with a loud voice praised me”, says God to Job (Job 38,7). Neither angels nor men existed pre-eternally. Angels are spiritual persons. They were created in time and are limited by space; the swiftness, however, of the angelic nature allows them to act everywhere; only God is not limited by space.

Also, the angels, like men, were created mutable, but through God’s grace and their own disposition, they became firm and unshakable in virtue and remain faithful in their original mission: to glorify God and to minister unto man’s salvation (Isaiah, 6,3; Luke 2,14; Hebr. 1,14).

Man was from the beginning created as body and soul; man’s soul did not pre-exist. Holy Scripture states: “And God created man, taking earth from the ground and breathed into his face the spirit of life, and man became a living being” (Gen. 2,7).

Underlining the distinction between the Creator and the creatures, the Orthodox Christian does not make an idol of nature or of himself. He does not hope that in “identifying” with nature, he will broaden his existence; he does not seek out certain apocryphal transcendental powers within nature, believing that by “activating” them he will solve the problems he faces. His hope has reference to God the Creator, for He has created us from the beginning “according to His image” with a purpose to achieve the “according to the Image” (Gen. 1,26); he does not refer to the created world or to his own self. The meaning of life is to be found in achieving the “according to the likeness”, our Archetype, which is outside our own essence and not “within us”.

All that exists was created by God “very good”; “And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. 1,31). The Orthodox Christian therefore evaluates all of material creation positively.

All things are the fruit of God’s love, all things are sanctified in the Orthodox Church: not only man’s soul, but his body as well, and all of material creation: all things contain within them the “seed” of perfection and are foreordained to life, free from corruption and death.


A former evolutionist: 
Dr John Sanford, Ph.D. 
(University of Wisconsin), USA

Dr John Sanford, Ph.D.

(University of Wisconsin)


Dr John Sanford, A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years, John has been semi-retired since 1998. His Ph.D. was in plant breeding and plant genetics. While a professor at Cornell, John has trained graduate students and conducted genetic research at the New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, NY. During this time, John bred new crop varieties using conventional breeding and then became heavily involved in the newly-emerging field of plant genetic engineering. John has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of numbers and acreage) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. John also started two biotech enterprises derived from his research, Biolistics, Inc., and Sanford Scientific, Inc. John still holds a position at Cornell (Courtesy Associate Professor), but has largely retired from Cornell and has started a small non-profit organization, Feed My Sheep Foundation.

A scientific convert to six-day creation, his groundbreaking new book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome demonstrates why human DNA is inexorably deteriorating at an alarming rate, thus cannot be millions of years old.


Plant geneticist: ‘Darwinian evolution is impossible’

Creation magazine interview with Dr Sanford

Review of Genetic Entropy

From ape to man via genetic meltdown: a theory in crisis

Further confirmation of genetic entropy

Carter, R.W. and Sanford, J.C., A new look at an old virus: mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 9:42, 12 October 2012 | doi:10.1186/1742-4682-9-42.

Carter, R.W., More evidence for the reality of genetic entropy (Journal of Creation summary perspective on the above)

Refutation of critic

Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy: The author of a landmark book on genomic decay responds to unsustainable criticisms.



Biblical Forecasts of Scientific Discoveries

By Dr. Hugh Ross, Astronomer


January 1, 1976

Not only is the Bible filled with the fundamentals of science, but it is as much as 3,000 years ahead of its time. The Bible’s statements in most cases directly contradicted the science of the day in which they were made. When modern scientific knowledge approaches reality, the divine accuracy of the scriptures is substantiated. For example:

Biblical Statement: Earth is a sphere (Is. 40:22).
Science Then: Earth’s a flat disk.
Science Now: Earth is a sphere

Biblical Statement: Number of stars exceeds a billion (Jer. 33:22).
Science Then: Number of stars totals 1,100
Science Now: Number of stars exceeds a billion

Biblical Statement: Every star is different (1 Cor 15:41).
Science Then: All stars are the same.
Science Now: Every star is different.

Biblical Statement: Light is in motion (Job 38:19-20).
Science Then: Light is fixed in place.
Science Now: Light is in motion.

Biblical Statement: Air has weight (Job 28:25).
Science Then: Air is weightless.
Science Now: Air has weight.

Biblical Statement: Winds blow in cyclones (Eccl. 1:6).
Science Then: Winds blow straight.
Science Now: Winds blow in cyclones.

Biblical Statement: Blood is a source of life and healing (Lev. 17:11).
Science Then: Sick people must bled.
Science Now: Blood is a source of life and healing.

For centuries the conjectures of science also were at odds with Genesis 1 concerning the origin and development of Earth and of life on Earth. However, science has progressed beyond these conjectures and now agrees with Genesis 1 in the initial conditions of Earth, the description of subsequent events, and in the order of these events. The probability that Moses, writing more than 3,400 years ago, would have guessed all these details is less than one in trillions. Below is a partial list of other fundamentals of science explained in the Bible:

conservation of mass and energy (Eccl. 1:9; Eccl. 3:14-15).

water cycle (Eccl. 1:7; Is. 55:10).

gravity (Job 26:7; Job 38:31-33).

Pleiades and Orion as gravitationally bound star groups (Job 38:31). NOTE: All other star groups visible to the naked eye are unbound, with the possible exception of the Hyades.

effect of emotions on physical health (Prov. 16:24; Prov. 17:22).

control of contagious diseases (Lev. 13:4546).

importance of sanitation to health (Lev.; Num. 19: Deut. 23:12-13). control of cancer and heart disease (Lev. 7-19).

In the crucible of scientific investigation, the Bible has proven invariably to be correct. No other book, ancient or modem, can make this claim; but then, no other book has been written (through men) by God.

Copyright 1976, Reasons To Believe

Subjects: Creation Passages, General Apologetics , Two Books

Dr. Hugh Ross

Reasons to Believe emerged from my passion to research, develop, and proclaim the most powerful new reasons to believe in Christ as Creator, Lord, and Savior and to use those new reasons to reach people for Christ. Read more about Dr. Hugh Ross.






Former evolutionist:
Jerry Bergman, PH.D., Biology

Professor at the University of Toledo Medical College in Ohio, USA

I have always loved science, partly due to the influence of my engineer father, who was heavily involved in research and development. While growing up, my free-time diet consisted of Mr. Wizard, Disney nature films, and doing science experiments.

At Wayne State University, where I earned my bachelor’s, master’s, and Ph.D. degrees, I was exposed to evolution. Influenced by my atheist father and my professors, I accepted this worldview, as did most of my peers. We also accepted the atheist philosophy that came with it. The university invited a number of speakers to lecture on religion, at least tangentially, all of whom were quite negative toward Christianity. One even stressed that we have given Christianity 2,000 years to fix up the world, and it was high time to try atheism.

As I became more involved in the atheist movement, I got tired of hearing that all the problems in the world were the fault of Christianity and that if we got rid of all the Christians, the world would be a wonderful place. What especially bothered me was that my atheist peers were determined to suppress Christianity by any means, legal or illegal—first by banning it from the public square, then in the private domain. Atheists seemed to feel that the ends justified the means, so they ruthlessly sought to crush Christianity. I soon realized this goal was evil because in the end it always did more harm than good—and yet it has been tried in so many places.

As I studied evolution (the doorway to atheism), it eventually became apparent that the theory has some major problems. The first example I researched in detail was the “vestigial organ” claim. There are over 100 claimed vestigial organs. These are supposedly non-functional evolutionary “leftovers,” yet I found uses for all of them. I went on to study the fossil record, and then I examined the natural selection claim, concluding that natural selection only explains the survival of the fittest, but the essential problem in Darwin’s day, and today, is the arrival of the fittest.

Sexual selection, instead of explaining sexual differences between males and females, actually serves to reduce deviation from the average. It does not cause evolutionary development that requires deviation from the average. Research that documents this conclusion includes a computer program that combines the faces of many women to produce the most beautiful women; ugliness is viewed as a deviation from this average and thus is selected against.

After exploring all of the major arguments for evolution, I eventually concluded that Darwinism has been falsified on the basis of science and realized that the evidence demands an intelligent creator.

The biblical age question was more difficult to deal with, but in my mind a major factor that supported a young creation was the profound evidence for genetic degradation. It is well documented that each new generation of humans adds about 100 to 150 mutations (genetic errors) per person, and an estimated 99.9 percent of these mutations are near neutral, harmful, or lethal. Consequently, there is no way that life could have first evolved 3.5 billion years ago and still be around today because life would have become extinct long ago from genetic meltdown and cell catastrophe.

Another important finding that supports the creationist view was the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones that were claimed to be over 65 million years old. This is a problem because destructive forces such as cosmic rays would have destroyed soft tissue long ago.

The evidence against Darwinism was a critical factor in my acceptance of creationism, which opened the door to my acceptance of Christianity, biblical reliability, and a young-earth creation worldview. Like many scientists who came before me, I discovered that the evidence supports the truth of the Bible.

Cite this article: Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. 2015. Creation Conversion: From Atheist to Creationist. Acts & Facts. 44 (2).




Is your grandmother a fish?


Dr. Georgia Purdom

According to a soon-to-be published book for young children, a fish and many other animals are your “grandmothers.” The subtitle for the book is “a child’s first book of Evolution.” While the author and illustrator do a good job of simplifying evolution through words and pictures and using terminology that is kid-friendly, it is exactly those points that make the book so deceptive.Starting with the Familiar

Rather than starting at the beginning of the evolutionary tree of life with a single-celled organism, the author starts with a fish likely because this would be more familiar to young children. The author chose not to use the terminology of “millions of years” but rather states “a long, long, long, long, long time ago” probably because young children don’t have a good understanding of time. In addition, the author uses the term “grandmother” to refer to each animal (i.e., grandmother fish, reptile, mammal) since children would know what a grandmother is but not an ancestor.

Confusing the Issue of Intelligent Behavior

The book compares animal behavior to human behavior for each of the animal grandmothers. This seduces children into thinking because they can do the same types of things they must be related to the animals. For example, “She [Grandmother Fish] could wiggle and swim fast. Can you wiggle?” Well, certainly children can wiggle (every parent can attest to this!), but that doesn’t mean humans are related to fish. It’s no secret that humans and animals have some similar behaviors, but as we have reported many, many times before this isn’t because of shared ancestry. Instead, God designed animals to beintelligent, but their intelligence pales in comparison to that of humans who are made in the image of God.

Missing Evolutionary Transitions

Following the comparative animal-human behaviors for each “grandmother,” children are presented with a small evolutionary tree showing lines connecting that grandmother to the next one. The book connects fish to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, mammals to apes, and, of course, apes to humans. While visually simple, it discounts the millions of mutations that would have to occur by random chance for these transitions to be possible (and the fact that transitional fossils between these organisms are absent).

Following the conclusion of the book is a parent’s guide giving more detailed information about each evolutionary transition presented in the book. For example, grandmother mammal is said to cuddle and parents are told, “They evolved cuddling as part of nursing our young. Both of these behaviors are governed by the ‘cuddle hormone,’ oxytocin.” It seems the author didn’t stop with simplifying evolution for kids; he also wanted to absurdly simplify it for their parents as well.

How Evolution Supposedly Happens

Also in the parent’s guide are explanations of three major points related to evolution: descent with modification, artificial selection, and natural selection. Dogs are used for artificial selection to show that people have bred dogs to achieve dogs with specific traits (of course, traits that already existed in dogs). They conclude this section with, “All the different kinds of dogs come from one kind of dog that lived a long time ago.” Finally, something I can agree with in the book! All dogs did come from the original dog kind created by God on Day Six of Creation Week, approximately 6,000 years ago. I found it interesting that their point about artificial selection is that it results in variation within a certain group of animals (dogs) and yet somehow a similar type of mechanism (natural selection) is supposed to achieve molecules-to-man evolution with one kind of animal evolving into a completely different kind of animal! I honestly hope parents reading the guide will see the obvious problem this creates for evolution and how natural selection cannot be a mechanism.

As with many books on evolution, time is presented as the key. Evolution can do anything and everything with enough time. But it is this simplification presented to both children and parents in this book that is so problematic. As a professional geneticist, I can attest to the fact that time is not the key but rather what is needed is a genetic mechanism that adds new and novel information so that organisms can evolve from fish to humans. The problem is that with all the thousands of papers published on mutations, no such mechanism has ever been observed. Mutations only alter (and many times detrimentally) genetic information that is already present—they don’t add new and novel information of the type that will change one kind of organism into another. All the time in the world is useless if there is no genetic mechanism to add what is needed for molecules-to-man evolution.

Teaching Our Kids the Truth About Our Origins

With its engaging text and illustrations, I’m sure this book will find its way into many public libraries and even school libraries. I challenge parents and others to suggest to their local librarian an alternative book from AiG’s vast resources for children. One of my personal favorites is Dinosaurs for Kids. I always say it should be called “Dinosaurs for Everyone,” because it is a book that will keep the attention of both children and parents and equip them to answer common questions about dinosaurs. Also, be sure to visit the Creation Museum and take advantage of our “Kids Free in 2014.”

While it is sad to see evolutionary resources like this book for children, it is very encouraging to see the many children’s resources (including Answers Bible Curriculum andAnswers VBS) available through AiG that help us teach our kids that the truth about our origins can only be found in the truth of God’s Word.

Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!







Former evolutionist:
Biologist Dr. Gary Parker, EdD, MS, BA 

[Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA]

Dr. Gary Parker, USA

EdD, biology/geology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA
MS, biology/physiology, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA
BA, biology/chemistry, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, USA

* * *

Biologist Dr. Gary Parker began his teaching career as a non-Christian and evolutionist. The details of his spiritual and scientific conversion, From Evolution to Creation (available as a booklet and DVD), include comic incidents. For example, he was a participant in a debate where his science department, defending the Bible, debated the Bible department, which was defending evolution!

En route to his BA in biology/chemistry, MS in biology/physiology, and EdD in biology/geology from Ball State, Dr. Parker earned several academic awards, including admission to Phi Beta Kappa (the national scholastic honorary), election to the American Society of Zoologists (for his research on tadpoles), and a fifteen-month fellowship award from the National Science Foundation.

He has published five programmed textbooks in biology and six books in creation science (the latter have been translated into eight languages), has appeared in numerous films and television programs, and has debated and lectured worldwide on creation.



What does the Bible say about dinosaurs?

Are there dinosaurs in the Bible?

The Bible does mention dinosaurs, though it never actually uses the word “dinosaur.” Instead, it uses the Hebrew word tanniyn, which is translated a few different ways in our English Bibles. Sometimes it’s “sea monster,” and sometimes it’s “serpent.” It is most commonly translated “dragon.” The tanniyn appear to have been some sort of giant reptile. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament and were found both on land and in the water.

In addition to mentioning these giant reptiles, the Bible describes a couple of creatures in such a way that some scholars believe the writers may have been describing dinosaurs. The behemoth is said to be the mightiest of all God’s creatures, a giant whose tail is likened to a cedar tree (Job 40:15). Some scholars have tried to identify the behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamus. Others point out that elephants and hippopotamuses have very thin tails, nothing comparable to a cedar tree. Dinosaurs like the brachiosaurus and the diplodocus, on the other hand, had huge tails which could easily be compared to a cedar tree.

Nearly every ancient civilization has some sort of art depicting giant reptilian creatures. Petroglyphs, artifacts, and even little clay figurines found in North America resemble modern depictions of dinosaurs. Rock carvings in South America depict men riding diplodocus-like creatures and, amazingly, bear the familiar images of triceratops-like, pterodactyl-like, and tyrannosaurus rex-like creatures. Roman mosaics, Mayan pottery, and Babylonian city walls all testify to man’s trans-cultural, geographically unbounded fascination with these creatures. Sober accounts like those of Marco Polo’s Il Milione mingle with fantastic tales of treasure-hoarding beasts. In addition to the substantial amount of anthropic and historical evidences for the coexistence of dinosaurs and man, there are physical evidences, like the fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs found together at places in North America and West-Central Asia.


Ken Ham, The Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved! A Biblical View of These Amazing Creatures, MASTER BOOKS / 2000 / PAPERBACK


Evidence for a Young World, 
6.000-10.000 years old

Dr. Russell Humphreys, PhD in physics

Duke University (B.S.), 
Louisiana State University (Ph.D)


Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages.

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

1.Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”2 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.3

2. Too few supernova remnants.

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.4

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.5 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.6 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.7 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.8 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.9 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers10 and other sources11 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.12,13 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.14 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.15 Calculations16 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.

The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.17 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.18 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.19 The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.20

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.21

8. Biological material decays too fast.

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.22 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.23 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.24 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.25

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.26 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.27 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.28,29

10. Too much helium in minerals.

Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.30 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.31 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.32 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,33 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.34 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.35 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.36

14. History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.37 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.38

Additional resources for items 9–11.

-DeYoung, D., Thousands … Not Billions, Master Books (2005) Green Forest, AR.
Vardiman, L., Snelling, A. A., and Chaffin E. F., editors, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth,

-Vol. II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society (2005) El Cajon, CA and Chino Valley, AZ. (Technical).



Eve created from Adam’s rib

by Russell Grigg

Why did God make Eve from Adam’s rib? After all, if God had so desired, He could easily have formed Eve from the dust of the ground. In fact, He made Adam this way, (Genesis 2:7), as well as “every beast of the field” and “every bird of the heavens” (Genesis 2:19). So why did God make Eve differently? Perhaps He wanted to instruct us not only about the roles of Adam and Eve, but also concerning that of “the last Adam”, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45).

The first “not good” statement

Before God created Eve, He said: “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18). In the creation narrative, the reader should be jarred by this statement, because up until now, every time that God has surveyed His creation, He has pronounced it “good”, as we would expect it to have been before the Fall. Man’s being alone is the first “not good” thing that required a solution.

So God created Eve as “a helper fit for him” (Genesis 2:18b). The term ‘helper’ (Hebrew ezer) does not indicate a lesser role or status, but rather function. She was to be his counterpart, his complement. Indeed, the term is used of God when He helps us, as in Psalm 33:20; 121:1–2. In fact, this is the basis for the biblical name Azaria(h) = God helped. Adam’s words on being presented with Eve were: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”[1] (Genesis 2:23)

The significance of ‘one flesh’

But was it really necessary for Eve to be made out of Adam’s rib? J. Calvin commented that “if the two sexes had proceeded from different sources, there would have been occasion either of mutual contempt, or envy, or contentions.”[2] And he went on to say that “something was taken from Adam, in order that he might embrace with greater benevolence, a part of himself. He lost, therefore, one of his ribs;[3] but, instead of it, a far richer reward was granted him, since he obtained a faithful associate of life; for he now saw himself, who had before been imperfect, rendered complete in his wife.” [2]

Eve also needed to be related to Adam—if she had been created out of the earth, she would be a completely independent creation. But in a unique way, Eve was descended from Adam, because she was made from a part of him.

Eve’s descent from Adam is also crucial to the possibility of her salvation. The prophet Isaiah wrote of the coming Messiah as being the “Kinsman-Redeemer”[4] (Isaiah 59:20), i.e. one who is related by blood to those he redeems. Hebrews 2:11–18 explains how Jesus took on Himself the nature of a man to save mankind, but not angels (nor hypothetical aliens for that matter). Jesus entered Adam’s line to literally become our relative, to be a part of this one human family (Luke 3:23–38).[5] If all people are not descended from Adam, this vital kinsman-redeemer concept is undermined. Or conversely, if there are people around today who are not descended from Adam and hence not related to Christ through Adam, they are not able to be saved. Both situations are biblically unviable.[6]


Adam, being the first human created, was and is the federal (or responsible) head of the human race. He was thus the one whose attitude towards God determined the course of human history. Eve, being made chronologically after Adam, as well as from Adam, is not assigned this responsibility in the Bible, even though she ate the forbidden fruit a few moments before Adam did (Genesis 3:6).

It was Adam to whom God had given the command not to eat (Genesis 2:16–17), and Adam was with Eve when she ate the fruit (Genesis 3:6). However, apparently he did not restrain her other than to pass on the warning (Genesis 3:1–3).[7] Sin is basically the desire to live independently of and in rebellion against God.[8] The New Testament affirms not only that Eve was deceived (by the serpent), but also that Adam was not so deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). It therefore appears that Adam made a deliberate choice to disobey God, i.e., the overt act expressed the sin that had already been committed within the heart (cf. Matthew 15:19).

The New Testament states that Adam was responsible for the coming of death into the world, cf. 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”[9] This reminds us that, just as Adam was the head of the human race, the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of redeemed humanity (Romans 5:12–21,[10] Ephesians 1:22–23; 5:23).

Roles of husband and wife in a Christ-centred marriage

One reason that marriage was set up by God is so that we would have a picture of what Christ’s love for the Church looks like. Monogamous marriage between one man and one woman serves this purpose in a way that a ‘marriage’ between two men, or two women, or any other arrangement cannot.[11] Indeed, when Jesus taught about marriage (Matthew 19:3–6, Mark 10:5–9), He cited the Creation account as real history (Genesis 1:27, 2:24).[12]

Furthermore the Bible sets specific roles for a husband and a wife within marriage. The longest passage on this is Ephesians 5:22–33. Husbands are told to “love their wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (vv. 25–27), “as their own bodies” (vv. 28–30), and ahead of all other commitments (vv. 31–33). Wives are told to “submit to their own husbands, as to the Lord” (v. 22). This does not contradict Paul’s assertion in Galatians 3:28 that “male and female … are all one in Christ Jesus.”[13]

Note too:

Upon marriage, we are meant to leave our parents as if we had none (metaphorically speaking), because Adam and Eve (literally and historically) really did have none.

We are meant in marriage, at least ideally, to be as close to one another as if we were ‘one flesh’ (metaphorically speaking) because Eve really was (literally and historically) taken from Adam’s flesh.

A bride produced by a wound

When God made Eve from Adam’s side, Genesis 2:21–23 tells us that God put Adam into a deep sleep. So Eve, the bride-to-be of Adam was (literally and historically) born from the wound in his side.

When Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), died on the cross, His side was pierced by a spear thrust, in fulfillment of prophecy (John 19:34, 36–37; Zechariah 12:10). This was just after His death—a death made necessary by the sin of the first Adam. Flowing from that wound in the side of God’s Lamb (John 1:29), sacrificed for sin, was the precious blood (1 Peter 1:19) by which believers are cleansed from sin.[14] These believers will constitute Christ’s bride, the church. So, metaphorically speaking, the church, Christ’s bride to be, was ‘born’ as it were from the spear wound in His side.

The heavenly Bride and Groom united

The Book of Revelation speaks of the ‘wedding feast of the Lamb’ at Christ’s return after the final defeat of death and evil (Revelation 19:6–9). The Good News is that although all of us have sinned ‘in Adam’, the first husband, we can all be redeemed through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the ‘last Adam’ and the Bridegroom of the Church, and through Him we can receive “the forgiveness of sins”, “the free gift of righteousness”, and pass “from death to life” (Colossians 1:14; Romans 5:17; 1 John 3:14).

* * *

References and notes

1.KJV. Some versions incorrectly regard happa’am as having a time-suggestive meaning, so they include the words “at last”. But the word pa’am with the definite article ha means “this time”, or Gideon asking God “once more” for a test (Judges 6:39) or Abraham asking God about Sodom’s destruction “this once” (Genesis 18:32).

2.Calvin, J. Genesis, Translated and edited by John King, p. 133, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. Return to text.

3.Note, however, that Adam’s loss of a rib may well have been only temporary, since ribs routinely regenerate after surgical removal, as long as the outer membrane (periosteum) is left intact. See Wieland, C., Regenerating ribs: Adam and that ‘missing’ rib, Creation 21(4):46–47, Sept., 1999, creation.com/rib.

4.Hebrew goel, the same word used of Boaz in the book of Ruth, one of Jesus’ ancestors (Matthew 1:5).

5.Cosner, L., The genealogies of Jesus, creation.com/jesus-genealogies, 25 December 2012.

6.This section adapted from Wieland, C., One Human Family: The Bible, Science, Race and Culture, pp. 146 ff , Creation Book Publishers, 2011.

7.A correspondent has asked if either Adam or Eve lied about not touching the tree; however, a better explanation is that Adam passed on the warning not to eat the fruit to Eve, and then possibly added something like, “So don’t you even touch it, do you hear now!”, which Eve interpreted as coming from God. See Wieland, C., Did Eve lie before the Fall? creation.com/eve-lie, 17 March 2007.

8.See Grigg, R., Dawkins’ dilemma: how God forgives sin, Creation 34(1):32–34, 2012, creation.com/dawkins-dilemma.

9.Cosner, L., Christ as the last Adam: Paul’s use of the Creation narrative in 1 Corinthians 15, J. Creation 23(3):70–75, 2009; creation.com/1-corinthians-15.

10.Cosner, L., Romans 5:12–21: Paul’s view of literal Adam, J. Creation 22(2):105–107, 2008; creation.com/romans5.

11.Sarfati, J., One man, one woman: Does the Bible really teach monogamy? Creation 31(4):12, 2009; creation.com/monogamy.

12.Wieland, C., Jesus on the age of the earth: Jesus believed in a young world, but leading theistic evolutionists say He is wrong, Creation 34 (2):51–54, 2012; creation.com/jesus-age-earth.

13.While debating the detailed issues surrounding gender roles is outside the scope of this ministry, see Cosner, L., The Bible’s high view of women grounded in the creation account, J. Creation 23(2):53–58, creation.com/women, 2009.

14.The water which also flowed might be viewed as a picture of the life-giving Holy Spirit, just as the water flowed from the smitten rock in the wilderness at Horeb. 1 Corinthians 10:4 identifies that “spiritual rock” as Christ, who also promised to give “living water” (John 4:10).






A former evolutionist: 
Dr Jon Ahlquist B.S., M.S., Ph.D. Molecular biologist, ornithologist and artist, USA

Dr Ahlquist’s degrees are all in biology: B.S. (Cornell University), M.S., Ph.D. (Yale University), specializing in ornithology and molecular phylogenetics. A former evolutionist, he taught and researched at Yale, then held professorships at Ohio University, the University of Louisville (Kentucky), and several South Carolina universities. The subjects he taught while still an evolutionist include: comparative vertebrate anatomy, avian biology, mammalogy, animal ecology, conservation biology, principles of systematic biology, systematic zoology, molecular evolu­tion, and molecular systematics. In 1991, he and his frequent collaborator Dr Charles Sibley (1917–1998), formerly of Yale University, published Phylogeny and Classification of Birds, which presented a new and subse­quently very influential phylogeny (evolutionary history) for birds. Known as the Sibley–Ahlquist taxonomy, it was based on DNA-DNA hybridi­zation techniques. He is author or co-author of 62 scientific publications. He subsequently became a creationist and is now retired—see Wieland, M., Convert to creation (interview with Dr Ahlquist), Creation 40(3):36–39, 2018.


The atlatl (woomera) and the heron’s neck

Convert to Creation


What was Adam like?

by Ken Ham

Did Adam have black hair, brown skin, and brown eyes? Was he six feet eleven inches tall? These are questions we cannot answer sure, because we were not there to see Adam. However, from reading Genesis, and armed with a basic knowledge of genetics, we can learn a lot about what Adam was probably like.

Did Adam have a Navel?

But, how much detail can we go into concerning this man? Did he have a navel (belly button) for instance? This is something I have often been asked. Actually, I believe we can have a definite answer here. Your navel is really a scar formed from the attachment via the umbilical cord to your mother. After birth, the cord was cut, and where it was attached to your body it shrivelled up and formed a scar known as your belly button.

Adam was the First Man

Now think about Adam. Was he born in the same way you or I were? He certainly was not. He was made directly by God from the dust of the earth. In Genesis 2:7 we read, ‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul’

Adam was not born of a woman. He was the first human. In 1 Corinthians 15:45 we read, ‘And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul’. Adam was the first man.

This is an important point by the way, there were no other human beings made alongside Adam.

Adam had the First Operation

If Adam was not born of a woman, he would not have had an umbilical cord, thus no scar, and thus no navel. Now consider Genesis 2:21-22, ‘And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’

Genesis 3:20 states: ‘And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was [to be] the mother of all living. ’ The first woman (the first wife) was made directly from part of Adam. She was not born of a woman either. Adam and Eve were unique. Neither of them would have had a navel. When you think about it, that would have been a tremendous witness to everyone who saw them while they were alive. They had evidence that they were the first two people.

Did Adam have One Fewer Rib Than Eve?

I have often had people ask me, after reading the passage about the creation of woman, why men don’t have one fewer rib than women if God made Eve from Adam’s side (or rib). The way I answer this is: If a man had an accident and his leg was amputated as a result, and then he married and had children, would all his children have only one leg?

Of course not! This is because the instructions for how we are constructed are contained in the DNA in the nucleus of our cells—in our genes. When God took part of Adam to make Eve, He didn’t change Adam’s genes. All the information in Adam’s genes was still there.

Adam was the First Husband

Eve was made specially for Adam. This was the first marriage. That is why Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6 reminded people that the meaning of marriage is dependent on the origin of marriage – and the first marriage is in Genesis: ‘And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’

Adam was the First Farmer

In Genesis 2:15 we read, ‘And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.’ Adam, the first man, was told to work, and to look after the garden God had made. This would not have been a chore. This would have been a joy for Adam. This was a perfect garden. There were no thorns and thistles, as these did not come until after God had cursed the earth. And because everything God had made was ‘very good’ (Genesis 1 :31), Adam, the plants, the garden, and in fact every thing, would have been perfect.

How different this is to today’s world. How different looking after gardens and farming is today!

Adam was the First Taxonomist

In Genesis 2:19-20, we are told that Adam named many of the animals. ‘And out of the ground the Lord God [had] formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field’.

Man has always given names to things. Scientists who give names to the different animals and plants are called taxonomists. Anyone who studies taxonomy knows how hard it is to remember any of those names. Adam would not have had this problem because he was made perfect – he would have been as intelligent as man could ever be.

Adam was the First Linguist

By the way, to do this, Adam must have been able to speak. He must have had a complex language right from the start. He did not even have to learn to speak as we have to. He was made as a mature human being.

How different it was for Adam. He awoke after his creation, a conscious being, fully formed, able to communicate and understand. Have you ever thought about the fact that Adam did not see God make him? The evidence that God created was all around Adam though. Adam did not even see God make Eve. This means Adam had to have faith in God’s Word concerning where he came from, just as we have to have faith today. But just like Adam, we have plenty of evidence that God created just the way His Word states.

Some people think that because Adam had to name all those animals on day six of creation, this could not have been an ordinary day. They think it must have been a long period of time. I am often told that there is no way someone could name all of the names in one day. However, people who say this usually think that because they couldn’t name and remember all the names, Adam could not have either.

The Bible, though, tells us that the first man Adam rebelled against God and sin came into the world. Ever since, the creation has been running down. Not only are there no perfect humans in the world now, but all humans have lots of mistakes on their genes (mutational defects or copying mistakes that slowly accumulate in the human race).

The first man had no mistakes when he was made—he was perfect. I think we can get a glimpse (looking through a glass dimly, so to speak) of what Adam was like by observing certain people today. I have met people who have photographic memories, others who are brilliant artists. I have read about people who can play musical instruments brilliantly from a very young age, such as Mozart. Others can do extremely complex mathematical computations in their head which even advanced computers take time to accomplish. If we put all these talents, plus much more, into one person, I think we are getting close to what Adam was like. Almost makes you feel depressed, doesn’t it?

We have to realize that Adam was so much more intelligent than we are. We are even told that we don’t use much of our brain power. Imagine a human who could use all of his brain power. It was certainly no problem for Adam to name and remember animals on one day.

Was Adam Brown-Skinned?

We can’t say for sure, but I suspect Adam had a middle-brown skin colour. All humans have the same skin colour. We have a pigment called melanin. If we have a lot of this pigment we are very dark (even black). If we don’t have much of this pigment we are very fair (white).

In The Creation Answers Book, it is explained that from two people having the right mix of dominant and recessive genes for the amount of melanin, all shades of colour in humans could arise. Thus, if Adam and Eve were both a middle-brown colour, all shades from black through to white could be accounted for in their children and future generations. For the same reason, Adam and Eve probably had brown eyes and dark hair.

In a similar sort of way, if Adam had blood group ‘A’, and Eve had blood group ‘B’, all of the ‘ABO’ blood groups (A, AS, B. O) could arise.

Adam was the First Father

Genesis 5:4 tells us that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. Jewish tradition has it that they had 56 children altogether! Remember Adam lived for 930 years (Genesis 5 :5). If Adam and Eve were the first humans, and all people have descended from them (Acts 17:26, ‘And hath made of one blood all nations of men . . .’), then somewhere brothers had to marry sisters. (This is also explained in detail in The Creation Answers Book.)

Adam was the First Sinner

In Genesis 2: 17, Adam was told he could not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, if Adam, being the federal head of the human race, disobeyed, all of his descendants would have to suffer the consequences.

Even though Eve was the one tempted by the serpent, and the one who first ate the forbidden fruit, Adam is the one who brought sin into the world, because he was the head of the human race and the one to whom the commandment had first been given.

Romans 5:12 states: ‘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’ Because of this sin of rebelling against God’s law, God cursed the ground (Genesis 3:1 7), caused thorns and thistles to come forth (Genesis 3:1 8), and introduced death into the world – Adam and Eve died spiritually, and started to die physically.

The first physical death recorded is that of at least one animal when ‘unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.’ God killed an animal, and shed blood, and gave a covering to Adam and Eve. This is a beautiful picture of something special to come – that shed blood would be a covering because of sin.

Hebrews 9:22 states that ‘without shedding of blood [there] is no remission.’ God requires the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. However, the blood of bulls and goats was not good enough. Because a man brought sin into the world, a man needed to atone – but it had to be a perfect man. If all descendants of Adam now suffered from sin, how could this be accomplished?

First Adam Needed a ‘Last Adam’

God provided a second Adam – a perfect Adam who could be the perfect sacrifice.. God himself came to earth as a man. Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity, was born of a woman to become a man so that the perfect sacrifice could be made. Jesus was God, but He was also man as God intended man to be – sinless. He was crucified on the cross of Calvary. He shed His blood and paid the penalty for our sins, and was raised from the dead, conquering death, the judgment which God had brought upon man because of sin.

That is why Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:20-22: ‘But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.’

We read further in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47: ‘And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit…. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.’ First Corinthians 15:26 states: ‘The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.’ Death is swallowed up in victory, Paul says. And we can say with him, ‘O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?’ (1 Corinthians 15:55). Christ has paid the penalty. The last Adam has conquered death and provided a means of deliverance from the first Adam’s fall into sin, resulting in separation from God.

This is the message of the Gospel. But isn’t it sad that those Christians who accept evolutionary ideas are really destroying this message? Paul tells us in Romans 8:22 that the whole creation is groaning because of sin, awaiting the time that all things will be renewed. The death and the suffering we see in the world today resulted from the first Adam’s actions.

However, if evolution is true, and the world today is an evolving world in which death and suffering have been God’s way of doing things, then why did the last Adam need to come and die? What is this world going to be restored to? What were the consequences of the first Adam’s actions?

Evolution destroys the Gospel message. Evolution destroys any understanding of what Jesus did on the cross. Evolution stops people understanding the meaning of the first and second Adam. When we take Genesis literally, and understand about the first man Adam, we then understand what the rest of the Bible is all about.






Why did God use Adam’s rib to create Eve?

The story of “Adam’s rib” is found in Genesis. Genesis 2:18–24 tells the well-known account of how God created the first woman, Eve, by removing a “rib” from Adam’s body and fashioning it into the woman. The creation account clearly indicates that God used Adam’s rib to create Eve instead of making her from the dust of the ground as He had done for Adam. The question also arises as to why God created woman out of Adam’s rib. God apparently had formed male and female animals separately, but the female human was originally part of man—Adam said, “She shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23).

God used Adam’s rib to form Eve to show that they were actually the same created being, two halves of a whole. The female was not created as a separate being, second to the male. She was formed as part of the initial man, in order to be a “helper suitable” for the male (Genesis 2:18). While Adam was in a divinely induced sleep, God “took one of the man’s ribs and . . . made a woman” (Genesis 2:21–22). Eve was brought into being to strengthen and powerfully help Adam; she was made from the same “stuff,” and she was every bit as perfect a creation as man and every bit as patterned after God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:27).

The woman made of Adam’s rib was designed to be a “suitable helper” for Adam (Genesis 2:20). The Hebrew phrase is translated “help meet” in the KJV and “companion who corresponded” in the NET. It is not synonymous with assistant, servant, minion, or subordinate. The Hebrew phrase, ’ezer kenegdow, in all other instances in the Bible refers to powerful and extensive aid and support. In most cases, the phrase was used to depict dominant military forces or armed men. Other passages, including Deuteronomy 33:7, 29, and Exodus 18:4, use the same phrase to discuss the potent interventions and deliverances of God Himself. Woman, therefore, was created as a complement to man, as an integral part of man, and as a powerful and influential companion for man.

Furthermore, the Hebrew word translated “suitable,” kenegdow, carries much more meaning than simply “fit” or “appropriate.” This word also means “opposite or contrasting.” This implies that the two beings were designed to work and fit together perfectly, not just physically but in all ways. The strengths of each compensated for the weaknesses of the other. It was “not good” for the man to be alone (Genesis 2:18), but, together, Adam and Eve were something far stronger and more magnificent than either of them could have been alone. Adam had to lose a rib, but he gained so much more.

Why did God use Adam’s rib? A closer examination of the Hebrew also reveals another surprising element of the story. The Hebrew word translated “rib” in Genesis 2 is tsela. The only other instance of the English word rib in the Bible occurs in Daniel 7:5, but the Hebrew word used there is different. In other passages where tsela or its variants are used, the word is translated “side.” For example, in Exodus 25, 27, and 35, the words tselo (variant) and tselot (plural) are used to refer to the “sides” of the Ark of the Covenant or the “sides” of the altar. In 2 Samuel 16:13, David encounters a cursing Shimei moving along the side (tsela) of a hill. In these contexts, translating the word tsela as “rib” would not fit.

This raises the possibility that Eve could have been fashioned of more than just Adam’s rib. In the Genesis 2 passage, tsela could actually be translated as Adam’s “side,” rather than Adam’s “rib.” If the appropriate translation is that God removed Adam’s side, how much of his side did God remove? It is possible that Eve was constructed literally from half of Adam. This would bring added meaning to Adam’s declaration that Eve was “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23).

Whether God created Eve from Adam’s rib or from his whole side, He accomplished the act in such a way that showed the woman was to complement and complete man in the integral union of marriage. Woman was created to be “beside” man, not beneath or above him. In salvation, man is no more “worthy” and woman is no less a citizen of God’s kingdom. “There is neither . . . male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). They stand side-by-side as fellow “heirs . . . of the gracious gift of life” (1 Peter 3:7).

Source: Elmer L. Towns, Bible Answers for Almost All Your Questions, THOMAS NELSON / 2003 / PAPERBACK


Dr Jon Ahlquist is a molecular biologist, ornithologist and artist who before his retirement specialized in molecular phylogenetics. With a B.S. from Cornell University, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from Yale University (all in biology) he subsequently taught and researched at Yale. He then held professorships at Ohio University, the University of Louisville (Kentucky), and several South Carolina universities. The subjects he taught include: ornithology, comparative vertebrate anatomy, avian biology, mammalogy, animal ecology, conservation biology, principles of systematic biology, systematic zoology, molecular evolution, and molecular systematics. In 1991, he and his frequent collaborator Dr Charles Sibley (1917–1998), formerly of Yale University, published Phylogeny and Classification of Birds, which presented a new and subsequently very influential phylogeny (evolutionary history) for birds. Known as the Sibley–Ahlquist taxonomy, it was based on DNA-DNA hybridization techniques. He is author or co-author of 62 scientific publications.

It has been said, “If there is one word that makes creative people different from others, it is the word complexity”1—a fitting comment on Dr Jon Ahlquist, whose life has so many fascinating details, they far exceeded the available space.

Early life

Born in 1944 to American offspring of Finnish refugees, Jon’s early life was one of stability grounded in a strong Lutheran faith. His parents gave him a King James Bible for his seventh birthday. A prodigious reader, Jon was determined to read it right through, though “it was not easy going for a kid.”

At around eight years old, Jon made a personal commitment to Christ:

"It was in the basement Sunday school of our Lutheran Church; we were watching a movie about the life of Christ. I was taught a belief in a literal six days of creation, a real Adam and Eve (as well as a real Job and Jonah), a worldwide flood, and the veracity of the patriarchs. None of the Bible’s history was allegorized".

Developing interests

Once I got it into my thick skull that Darwinism is just one more humanistic philosophy from the Enlightenment, designed to write God out of everything, the battle was over.
Thanks to his fifth-grade teacher assigning each of his class of 10-year-olds to “create a bird book”, a budding ornithologist was born. From that grew a life-long interest in watching, listing, drawing/painting, and photographing birds. And a scientific career devoted to birds.

As Jon grew, so did his talent as an artist (figs 1, 2). At just 15, a mentor organized a one-man show of 30 of his best paintings. Especially given his age, Jon’s efforts were seen as newsworthy. His now much higher profile helped him sell most of the paintings he produced throughout high school, where he wore his faith on his sleeve.

Editor of the school’s weekly newspaper, he wrote many editorials touching on spiritual matters. He still has a copy of his valedictorian graduation speech:

"It was evangelical. The message in a nutshell was: ‘You are now going out into the world. What are you going to choose—God or mammon?’ There are about a dozen direct references to Christ. The gymnasium burst into applause at the conclusion. I’m sure there were unbelievers in the audience, but in those days nearly all accepted the principle that our nation was founded largely by believers and guided by biblical principles".

University—and alcoholism

Jon began his tertiary education in biology at Cornell University. A large part of him would have simply preferred to take up his first love, painting, full-time. Jon thinks he would have quit by the end of the first semester except for the family pressure to succeed.

Then, amazingly, his studies took a turn for the better. He joined Dr Charles Sibley’s ornithology course in his second semester. Suddenly, birds and biology made sense—albeit in the framework of evolution—and so he ‘hung in there’. A ‘theistic evolutionist’ at this point in his life, Jon moved on to Yale in 1966, following Sibley. The two began a collaboration that would last for many years and produce fame and some fascinating science.2

But Jon wasn’t truly happy and, early in his uni years, he began drinking heavily.

"Alcoholism is a sin; it puts something else in the place of God. … I was cutting off my conscious contact with God and grieving the Holy Spirit. To cut a very long story short, I found Alcoholics Anonymous and, with the help of God, following AA’s 12 steps with a Christian emphasis, and some very fine friends, I found my way back to both sobriety and sanity".

In 1988, during his tenure at Ohio University, Jon and Charles were awarded the Daniel Giraud Elliot Medal from the National Academy of Sciences for their work on the application of DNA hybridization techniques to bird classification (fig. 3).3 This revolutionized taxonomy by seeming to show at last how to distinguish similarities due to relatedness from ‘convergent’ similarities or homoplasies, i.e. those in which creatures happened to ‘converge’ on the same design, but without any possible common ancestry (evolution) explanation.4

From theistic evolution to creation

Once it was pointed out to me that it meant the existence of evil and death before Adam and Eve, and was therefore biblically impossible, I felt quite stupid.
Despite espousing evolution at the time, he says he was not an atheist:

"I was a ‘theistic evolutionist’. I thought I could simply place the DNA evidence on a secular time scale. You could reasonably accuse me of ‘fence sitting’ and be correct".

But, he says, he did not think deeply about the ramifications of theistic evolution:

"Once it was pointed out to me that it meant the existence of evil and death before Adam and Eve, and was therefore biblically impossible, I felt quite stupid".

He was also challenged on the science by an astute Bible teacher. This man pointed out to Jon that the problem was not with the data, it was the interpretation forced upon it. For example, he said that the evolutionary ‘family trees’ Jon was producing for birds proved nothing, since they were generated by an algorithm (formula) that “is instructed to make a tree. It will produce a tree out of any numbers you give it.”

Jon was immediately convicted and says:

"He was right. How did he figure it out? Part of the answer was that he studied at Grace Seminary while Dr John Whitcomb (co-author of the creationist classic The Genesis Flood) was on the faculty.
Once I got it into my thick skull that Darwinism is just one more humanistic philosophy from the Enlightenment, designed to write God out of everything, the battle was over. It’s not even science, it’s political ideology and demagoguery—end of story. The Holy Spirit had forced me off the fence. I realized that young-earth creation (YEC) was the only truth.
Today my view is that old-earth ‘creation’ of any sort distorts the first 11 chapters of Genesis and, if taken to the logical conclusion, makes God a liar".

Jon thinks that with the world much more polarized than when he retired some 20 years ago, life in academia now, as a biblical creationist, would be much more difficult for him than when he was an evolutionist. He says, “I wouldn’t last a week in that environment now.”

DNA and bird kinds

Jon is collaborating with creationist bioresearcher (and Creationmagazine interviewee5) Dr Jean Lightner in seeking to outline the avian Ark kinds, combining the data from DNA with that from morphology/anatomy—and incorporating available information about which species hybridize. This will also involve avian biogeography—the distribution of bird kinds after the Flood, showing among other things how millions of years are not needed for this. Jon hopes to also write a popular book (and possibly children’s books) on birds from a creation viewpoint.

Jon says there are interesting problems for both creationists and evolutionists in bird relationships that highlight the way each interprets the data:

"One example concerns the Galliform kind (the “landfowl”: pheasants, quail, chickens, turkeys, etc.) and the Anatid kind (the “waterfowl”: ducks, geese, swans). Any creationist will agree that they represent two kinds. Any person on the street can tell the difference between a chicken and a duck. Any evolutionist will agree they represent two separate lineages.
However, every DNA study, including our own, shows that the galliforms and anatids more closely resemble each other than they do any other group (or kind) of birds. The evolutionist says this means that millions of years ago the waterfowl and landfowl had a common ancestor. As a creationist I would suggest that in God’s master plan of designing birds, there is a fundamental aspect of the body plan that requires similarities in their DNA.
The bird genome has around 2–3 billion nucleotide pairs, the function of which we know very little about. As we learn more, we may be able to discover why ducks and chickens need certain groups of genes in order to function and why there are differences in other kinds of birds, like parrots or hummingbirds. At least the creationist has the potential to discover answers, whereas the evolutionist is left bending the knee to his goddess of randomness".

Human and ape similarity?

Drs Ahlquist and Sibley may well be best known to non-specialists for applying their DNA-DNA hybridization techniques to man,6 coming up with the well-known alleged ‘98% chimp-human similarity’. Many scientists, including creationists, have critiqued this,7 and the accepted figure these days, with more modern techniques, is in fact much lower.8 Ironically, at the time, there was concerted opposition from evolutionists who were convinced the gorilla was our closest relative. But even at the lower figures, the modern techniques show chimp DNA ‘closer’ to us than the gorilla. Unfortunately, however, the ‘98%’ result made a convenient ‘hammer’ for pounding home the myth that chimps are ‘almost human’, and was avidly seized upon for (and widely influential in) promoting evolution.

Dr Ahlquist says that when he was an evolutionist, he would have agreed with creationists who pointed out that even at 98%, the genetic differences were still huge; tens of millions of DNA ‘letters’. Also, great similarity of DNA is not surprising, given the similarity in form and function between the two. But that similarity is not evidence for common ancestry any more than it is evidence for having the same Designer:

"Molecular evidence of any sort proves nothing about evolution, in fact. All we are doing is measuring ‘God’s numbers’—or as Charles [Sibley, his long-term collaborator] used to call them, ‘nature’s numbers’ of genetic similarity or difference. The techniques used by phylogeneticists to make their ‘trees’ are laden with evolutionary assumptions. They simply assume that evolution is a fact and then stuff their data into their algorithms, which therefore will always produce an evolutionary result. Regardless, we all have the same data, the difference is how we interpret it.
The fact that our bodies have a Bauplan [body plan] like that of primates is not coincidental, nor does it have anything to do with evolution. To achieve our function we need to be bipedal, have a large cranial capacity, be omnivorous and have opposable thumbs. This produces certain constraints on our DNA, in the same way that the need to fly in certain ways restricts the design of birds, and thus constrains their DNA".

The bottom line, according to Jon today? “It’s all a part of the Lord’s amazing design.”