Now, scientists are saying that this is wrong.

I imagine some fundamentalist Christians will use this news to further their own causes, but it’s really not all that remarkable to the layman (no offense to any of you science heads who are excited about this kind of news).

This news doesn’t mean that scientists are saying evolution didn’t happen. It only means it didn’t happen the way they originally thought it did. As one scientist said, “The more we know, the more complex the story gets.”

My family attended the grand opening of the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum this past weekend and I saw what I expected to see: closed minded propagandists who don’t want any challenge to their narrow view of origins. But they weren’t in the Museum.

So we drove past the protesters and into a museum whose exhibits constantly reference both sides of the creation/evolution debate.

I’d love to go to this museum. If I ever drive through Kentucky again, I plan to stop. It sounds fascinating!

My three older boys were, quite literally, jumping up and down at the prospect of dinosaurs, and the animated creatures did not disappoint. The moving, roaring facsimile reptiles were big and (at least in the post-Fall exhibits) fierce. The 27 million dollar budget was obvious here, since the dinosaurs were more Jurassic Park quality than Land of the Lost. While my boys ran around on a lifesize replica of Noah’s Ark and pretended to sword-fight a T-Rex, their mother and I read the displays on ice ages, species development, and differing understandings of radiometric dating.

The planetarium inspired awe at the vastness of the universe, bringing to mind the Psalmist’s question “What is man that you are mindful of him?” while answering it as the New Testament does: with the Incarnation and atonement of the Redeemer-Ruler of the cosmos. I was pleasantly surprised that the planetarium exhibit acknowledges problems caused for any biblical historical timeline by the time it takes starlight to reach our field of vision. I was furthermore surprised that the exhibit didn’t take a dogmatic stance on any one of the possible creationist answers to the problem: whether the concept of starlight created already in transit or Russell Humphreys’ theory of the question resolved by relativity of space and time or any of the others.

And it seems that the museum presented both sides of the debate:

Speaking of Darwinism, it was everywhere, and fairly presented. In virtually every exhibit, on the “Lucy” fossil or on carbon-14 dating or on the fossil record or on the Big Bang, the information included both the Darwinist-materialist explanation for the scientific data along with how the same data are interpreted by the Museum’s biblical creationist grid.

You won’t find that anywhere else. And I love the conclusions Russell came to near the end of the article.

Inside the Museum, I was asked by a reporter to respond to the Darwinist protesters’ charge that I was “confusing” my children by bringing them into a museum that presents a markedly different view of cosmic history than that found in secular science textbooks. I am dumbfounded that groups with names such as “Free Inquiry” could believe that seeing viewpoints at variance with approved orthodoxy, whether religious or materialist, is “confusing.” After all, weren’t the Big Bang and natural selection “confusing” to a previous generation of schoolchildren?

It is remarkable that no Christian has ever asked me if I am “confusing” my children by taking them, as I did later this weekend, to the Cincinnati-area aquarium with exhibits everywhere assuming only a Darwinist/naturalist understanding of the origins of aquatic life. Most conservative Christians I know want their children to understand Darwin’s account of human evolution, and a fair representation of it, precisely so they will not be mystified by it later.

One would think the secularist free-thinkers would want everyone to see the creationist account of origins, for the very sake of the contrast with what they would see as a more viable model. I can even understand Darwinist ridicule of a narrative that is so strikingly at odds with the current scientific consensus. What I cannot understand is the attempt to suppress the debate itself, whether through attempted zoning regulation mischief or through noisy planes overhead on opening day. Whatever happened to postmodernism?

Whatever happened to postmodernism, indeed!

Some previous generations of creationists have spoken in ways that made it seem that the scientific data is on our side, that the debate can be won using the very same playing field as naturalism itself with an appeal to raw general revelation. The Creation Museum exhibits offer very little triumphalism of this sort. The exhibits quite often ask the questions “what if” and “could it be.” The exhibits honestly acknowledge that every viewpoint rests on some authority, with this viewpoint interpreting the data through the authority of divine revelation. The Museum designers also seem to understand that the debate with Darwinism will not be won ultimately with brute facts, but with an alternative narrative, a narrative that rings truer than the Darwinist story of a nature accidentally but perpetually red in tooth and claw.

I definitely want to go to this museum.

I didn’t watch the whole thing (Matt’s got the youtube links), because I got very frustrated very early in. I didn’t even see the atheist responses. I got frustrated with Ray, who was preaching, and Kirk, who gave his testimony as “proof.”

Don’t get me wrong. I think what both of them had to say was worth hearing–just not in the context that they were in. They told everyone that they could scientifically prove the existence of God apart from faith, and then spoke of faith and feelings.

I think they deliberately mislead people in order to get a large audience to get their message heard.

Perhaps that’s harsh, but that’s what it seemed like from watching them. I will, however, agree with Matt’s closing statements:

I have a feeling it will strengthen the beliefs on both sides. I hope that people will listen to the petition of Comfort: just open your heart up a bit and honestly and earnestly search for God (a rough paraphrase). I don’t think the two sides were represented very well. No offense to Comfort and Cameron, but they aren’t scientists and couldn’t hope to actually scientifically prove God’s existence. Brian and Kelly (who didn’t want to give out their last names… I don’t really understand that) of The Rational Response Squad are also poor choices. Quite frankly “Rational” is somewhat of a misnomer in my opinion. Kelly was extremely condescending and Brian didn’t really listen I don’t think. The be blunt, they were asses. I think there are a number of atheists that could have been chosen to debate that would have been more eloquent and knowledgeable. Just poor choices all around. But I have a feeling that “legitimate” (I know it is somewhat dangerous to throw that word around) scientists on both sides wouldn’t bother to debate this. That being said, overall, I wasn’t completely disappointed in Comfort and Cameron. I really was quite worried initially about what they would say. And while I think they did say some silly things that I don’t agree with and could have hurt the “cause” they did ok.

It may not be the most Christlike thing for me to say, but the man drives me nuts. I believe his heart and desire for God are absolutely sincere, but have you seen this? How can you take this man seriously after that?

Now he’s going to debate God’s existence with the founders of The Blasphemy Challenge website. (HT: Matt)

I encourage you to read what Matt says about this debate. Here’s a sample:

If God could have been proven, Jesus probably would have done that, and if not Jesus, the disciples or the early church. If God was able to be proven without a doubt, it removes our ability to choose. God wants us to accept His gift of salvation freely, if it was known to be a fact that He was there, we lose our freedom because He is the only option. The Bible never speaks of the necessity of proof, it speaks of the actions and the faith of God’s followers. Now, as suggested in the previous paragraph, I want to make it extremely clear that I don’t think this is a blind faith. There is plenty of reason behind faith, but it is faith none the less. And moreover, the Bible speaks of faith in a positive light and not something that we should be sad about “only” having; I don’t need certitude to be convinced (and any scientist should be completely on board with that because how often is something entirely certain?). Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

He also touches on the website previously mentioned, and wonders what the merits of this kind of debate are. In all honesty, I think this is going to end up as one more thing that atheists can use to laugh at theists. It will be entertaining, for sure, but I think it may do more harm than good.

But we’ll see.

Excerpts from the debate:

Time: When would [God designing nature] have occured?

Collins: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

Time: The book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Collins: There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe’s age or of how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically is it not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God. Augustine explicitly warns against a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous. If you step back from that one narrow interpretation, what the Bible describes is very consistent with the Big Bang.

This next one will get long because I want to include what both Collins and Dawkins said. It’s an interesting exchange, though I found myself completely flabbergasted at what Dawkins suggested.

Time: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity’s moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.

Collins: There is a whole field of inquiry that has come up in the last 30 or 40 years–some call it sociobiology or evolutionary psychology–relating to where we get our moral sense and why we value the idea of altruism, and locating both answers in behavioral adaptations for the preservation of our genes. But if you believe, and Richard has been articulate in this, that natural selection operates on the individual, not on a group, then why would the individual risk his own DNA doing something selfless to help somebody in a way that might diminish his chance of reproducing? Granted, we may try to help our own family members because they share our DNA. Or help someone else in expectation that they may help us later. But when you look at what we admire as the most generous manifestations of altruism, they are not based on kin selection or reciprocity. An extreme example might be Oskar Schindler risking his life to save more than a thousand Jews from the gas chamers. That’s the opposite of saving his genes. Many of us think these qualities may come from God–especially since justice and morality are two of the attributes we most readily identify with God.

Dawkins: Can I begin with an analogy? Most people understand that sexual lust has to do with propogating genes. Copulation in nature tends to lead to reproduction and so to more genetic copies. But in modern society, most copulations involve contraception, designed precisely to avoid reproduction. Altruism probably has its origins like those of lust. In our prehistoric past, we would have lived in extended families, surrounded by kin whose interests we might have wanted to promote because they shared our genes. Now we live in big cities. We are not among kin nore people who will ever reciprocate our good deeds. It doesn’t matter. Just people engaged in sex with contraception are not aware of being motivated by a drive to have babies, it doesn’t cross our mind that the reason for do-gooding is based in the fact that our primitive ancestors lived in small groups. But that seems to me to be a highly plausible account for where the desire for morality, the desire for goodness, comes from.

Collins: For you to argue that our noblest acts are a misfiring of Darwinian behavior does not do justice to the sense we all have about the absolutes that are involved here of good and evil. Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can’t explain why it should have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such thing as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. Themoral law is a reason to think of God as plausible–not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. What you’ve said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?

Dawkins: Even the question you’re asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil–I don’t believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil. I think that there are good things that happen and bad things that happen.

Collins: I think that is a fundamental difference between us. I’m glad we identified it.

Am I the only one who noticed that Dawkins said he doesn’t believe that there is something called good, but in the next breath said that good things happen? How can good things happen if there is no good?

Time: But to the extent that a person argues on the basis of Scripture rather than reason, how can scientists respond?

Collins: Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation. So such discussions between scientists and believers happen quite readily. But neither scientists nor believers always embody the principles precisely. Scientists can have their judgment clouded by their professional aspirations. And the pure truth of faith, which you can think of as this clear spiritual water, is poured into rusty vessels called human beings, and so sometimes the benevolent principles of faith can get distorted as positions are hardened.

That is the best analogy I’ve ever seen for faith and the fallibility of humans.

Time: Do the two of you have any concluding thoughts?

Collins: I just would like to say that over more than a quarter-century as a scientist and a believer, I find absolutely nothing in conflict between agreeing with Richard in practically all of his conclusions about the natural world, and also saying that I am still able to accept and embrace the possibility that there are answers that science isn’t able to provide about the natural world–the questions about why instead of the questions about how. I’m interested in the whys. I find many of those answers in the spiritual realm. That in no way compromises my ability to think rigorously as a scientist.

Dawkins: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot event dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constans, I provide what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable–but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don’t see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

Yes! Dawkins got something right! "If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."

Here are a few Scriptures that Dawkins may be interested in:

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when the perfect thing comes, then that which is in part will be caused to cease." (1Co 13:9-10)

"And the peace of God which passes all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (Phi 4:7)

"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways My ways, says Jehovah. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa 55:8-9)

This was an incredible debate to read and I would encourage you to read the whole thing. It’s refreshing to read such extreme differences of opinion without the mudslinging.

Update: Jim Jordan has a great post on Dawkin’s concluding comments.

Tags: Christianity, Faith, God, Evolution, Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins

For starters, my own opinion of Hovind has changed a lot over the last few weeks. I think he is probably one of the most unChrist-like men on the planet. One of the things I got so upset about the last time I posted on this video series was that the majority of the response was evolutionists calling me stupid. I realized that when I watched the last video that Hovind does the exact same thing. He is continually calling evolutionists stupid, dumb, or my favorite, dumb on purpose. And he does it in the name of Christ!

I am not okay with that.

Then I realized that, while I still believe in a young earth and the literal account of Creation given in Genesis, using Dr. Hovind’s videos is not going to get anyone in the evolutionist circles to take me seriously. Even if his information is solid (as I believe some of it is), no one would listen simply because it came out of Hovind’s mouth.

And finally, I realized that in the general scheme of things, whether or not you believe in an old earth or a young earth, it doesn’t matter. These beliefs are not central to the Christian faith and they do not determine whether or not you are a follower of Christ. Bickering and fighting about it does more harm than good!

So, I will not be continuing to write up the video series, although I do welcome opinion and discussion on the topic.

Blogs who link here: Conservative Cat

Tags: Christianity, Evolution, Young Earth, Old Earth, Dr. Hovind

One thing I want to make sure everybody understands. The purpose of my post was not to “defend Creation.” It wasn’t meant to change anyone’s mind. I was attempting to start a dialogue between two groups of people who are polar opposites. I’m tired of the banter back and forth that goes something like this:

Athiest: You’re wrong and you’re stupid for being wrong.
Christian: No, you’re wrong and you’re going to hell for being wrong.

Everybody is so intent on proving the other side wrong that nothing really gets accomplished.

And I’d say it worked to some degree. There was a fair amount of rudeness, but there were a few people who saw my sincerity and were willing to talk with me. In an email to one, I wrote:

I’m not a scientist. I don’t have a PhD. Heck, I’ve only done 1 semester towards a MA. Before recently, I’d never even thought about why I believe in Creation other than the Bible says so. Now that I’m studying it, I see a lot of things that make sense (obviously you disagree). But I can’t really get anybody to give me a straight answer about what’s wrong with it. I get a lot of “you’re stupid” or “you need a brain” but that isn’t going to change anything (not that I think my mind can be changed, but at least I’m willing to listen).

And I am willing to listen. I will also be continuing my series, when I have time to write up the other sessions.

And to the people who are critical of Dr. Hovind because of his personal life: That has no bearing on whether or not creation is true or false. Don’t tell me that his theories must be false because he was charged with a felony (or 50). If his theories are false, tell me why. You would take me through the wringer if I tried to tell you that Darwinian evolution must be false because Darwin frequented establishments of ill repute.

Tags: Christianity, Dr. Hovind, Evolution

Our textbooks start teaching our children in 1st grade that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. 1st graders will believe anything you tell them! Dr. Hovind gives a humorous account of how he wouldn’t eat bananas for 3 years because his brothers told him when he was 6 that they were moldy spider legs. Then the textbooks keep reinforcing this idea that the earth is billions of years old. You’ll find that science textbooks for each grade teach this idea.

Now evolutionists believe in 6 different kinds of evolution:

1. Cosmic Evolution – the origin of time, space, and matter. This is the big bang.

2. Chemical Evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. (If the Big Bang produced hydrogen and some helium, how did we get the others?

3. Stellar and planetary Evolution – the origin of stars and planets. (No one has ever seen a star form. What you see is a spot getting brighter and you assume a star is forming. It could be the dust is clearing and there’s a star behind it. No one has ever proven the formation of a single star. Yet it’s estimated that there are enough stars for every person on earth to own 2 trillion stars.)

4. Organic Evolution – the origin of life. Somehow life has to get started from non-living material. (But spontaneous generation was proven wrong 200 years ago.)

5. Macro Evolution – Changing from one kind of animal into another. (Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog. Big or small it’s still a dog. Dog, wolf, and coyote may have had a common ancestor, but they’re still the same kind of animal.)

6. Micro Evolution – Variations within kinds (big dogs and little dogs). Only this one has been observed.

Science is things that you can observe, test, demonstrate, study, etc.

For example: The 1st law of Thermodynamics states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Now everything is made out of matter–so then how did the world get here? There are two options:

1. Somebody made the world (In the beginning God…)
2. The world made itself.

Those are the only two options. If the world made itself, how did it get here?

Big Bang Theory: An actual textbook (Holt Science Book, 1992) says, “18-20 million years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than the period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded.” Another textbook (HBJ Science, 1989) says, “Nothing really means nothing,” and “From this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion.”

So…nothing exploded and here we all are. And they call this science!

In Discover Magazine, April 2002, we read, “The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing – zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.”

Well in Scientific American Magazine, Alan Guth said, “…the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.”

So…we all came from a dot and the dot came from nothing. This is what they teach in schools. All of the dirt in the universe was in the little dot and it started spinning faster and faster until one day it exploded. The pieces became galaxies and stars.

Where did the dirt come from? The scientists can’t tell you that. So if I tell you that I believe that 6000 years ago God created everything, you’ll probably ask me where God came from. I don’t know. But the scientists say 20 million years ago the dirt came together and there was a big bang.

I believe In the beginning God… (Gen. 1:1)
You believe In the beginning dirt…

Don’t tell me my theory is religion and yours is science. They’re both religious. The difference is that evolution is tax supported!

Just to be clear: I believe that 6000 years ago God created the heaven and the earth. 4400 years ago there was a flood. 2000 years ago Jesus was born.

So where did the laws come from? Gravity, centrifugal force, intertia, etc.
Where did the energy come from? It takes energy to make something move.
And what about the conservation of angular momentum? That means that if a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment (like the big bang) the pieces that fly off are going to spin in the same direction as the original object because the outside is moving faster than the inside. If the universe began as a spinning dot, shouldn’t everything be spinning the same way? Venus and Uranus spin in different directions than the other planets. 8 of the 91 known moons are spinning backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. Some galaxies spin backwards.

That’s kind of hard on the big bang theory, isn’t it?

Dr. Hovind believes things are spinning backwards because God created everything and He did it on purpose to make the big bang theory look stupid. Also, if the big bang theory were true, the matter would be evenly distributed. Instead, it is “lumpy.” There are clusters of stars then great voids.

So what about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Everything tends to disorder. If you leave something alone long enough it will rot, rust, die, or fall apart. Nothing gets better by itself. But the textbooks say we’re getting better! From HBJ Earth Science, 1989, “Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than 4 billion years ago.” Evolutionists say that you can overcome the 2nd law by adding energy. They say the earth is an open system; it receives energy from the sun.

There are several problems with that. By definition, the universe is a closed system. And adding energy is destructive without a complex mechanism to harness the energy. The Japanese added lots of energy to Pearl Harbor in 1941 and nothing organized itself! We added lots of energy to Japan to end WWII and did not organize anything! Adding energy is destructive unless there’s something to use it. The sun adds energy to your roof all day every day. It will destroy your roof if you don’t do anything to fix it. It will destroy the roof of your car or the paint job on your car. There’s only one thing that can actually use the sun’s energy–chlorophyll. And chlorophyll is a very complex molecule.

Clearly, the sun’s energy does not overcome the 2nd law.

The schools are teaching our children that they’re animals! No wonder they act that way!

In Holt Earth Science, 1989 there’s a picture of a fossil starfish. The book says that it is 3.4 billion years old and is the remains of the early ancestors of human beings. HBJ General Science says, “About 30 million years ago, larger primates…evolved. The earliest fossil apes that may be ancestral to both humans and modern apes date from about 15-20 million years ago.”

Holt’s Biology: Visualizing Life, 1994 states, “You’re an animal and share a common heritage with earthworms.”

In the 50′s, textbooks had very little to say about evolution. On average there was about 2000-3000 words on the subject. Then in 1957 the Russians beat us in the space race when they launched Sputnik. Americans panicked. Someone said the reason the Russians were ahead in science was because they taught evolution in their schools. (What does evolution have to do with putting a satellite in space?) 1959 was the 100 year anniversary of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species. So Congress was lobbied to get more evolution into the textbooks. The first time the government got involved with textbooks was during this time. The number of words teaching about evolution jumped from 2000-3000 to 33,000 in just a few years (from 1959-1963).

By 1963 prayer was taken out of schools. Since 1963 STD’s among 10-14 year olds has skyrocketed. Unwed pregnancies went up. Premarital sex rates went up. Divorce rates went up. Violent crimes have gone up 1000%! SAT scores have plummeted since 1963. In 1995 they had to dumb down the SATs so the scores would be higher. Teen suicide rates have skyrocketed.

Now, if I told you that you could kiss a frog and get a prince you’d tell me that’s a fairy tale. But that’s what the textbooks are teaching! You start off as an amoeba, slowly evolve into a frog, and very slowly become a prince. The only difference is that if the frog turns into a prince quickly, it’s a fairy tale and if the frog turns into a prince slowly, it’s modern science. Billions of years ago…

So the next time someone says “Millions of years ago…” ask them if they were there. Is it something they know? Or believe? Is it really science? They will undoubtedly ask you if you were there when God created the earth 6000 years ago. Of course not. But I already admit mine is a religion. Why don’t you admit yours is a religion?

On August 31, 1998, the Washington Times reported that slightly more than half (55%) of US natural scientists believe in Darwinian evolution. But just because most scientists believe something doesn’t make it truth. Scientists used to teach that the planets revolved around the earth. They taught that a big rock falls faster than a small rock. They taught that for 2000 years. But it isn’t true. They used to teach that if you were sick you had bad blood. We know that isn’t true either.

If you went scuba diving and found a treasure chest full of coins, could you tell me when the boat sank? First you’d look at the date on the coins. If there’s a coin in there from 1750 you know the boat had to have sunk after 1750. That’s called a limiting factor.

So how old is the earth? There are some factors that limit the age of the earth. Dr. Hovind goes into this in more detail in the next session, so I’ll write about it then.

If you find a dinosaur bone there are two things you should notice immediately.
1. It does not talk.
2. There is no date stamped on it.
So how would you tell the age of a fossil? How would you tell the age of the earth? The only way to find out for sure how old something is is to ask the guy who made it.

The Bible says God created the heaven and the earth (Gen 1:1). In Matt. 19:4 it says that he made them (Adam and Eve) in the beginning, made them male and female. And again in Mark 10:6. Well if that was the beginning, we can figure out the age of the earth. You can go through the Bible and add up the dates.

The Bible says that death came by sin and sin by one man (Romans 5:12). Adam brought death into this world. There was no death before Adam sinned. Adam was the first man (1 Cor. 15:45) and his wife, Eve, was the mother of all living things (Gen. 3:20). Adam was 130 when he had his son Seth, Seth was 105 when he had Enos, and Enos was 90 when he had his son (Gen 5:3-9). If you look through the Bible you can add up everything and make a graph like this one. If you add up the dates it comes out to roughly 4000 BC.

The textbooks say the earth is billions of years old. Jesus said Adam was the beginning. Was Jesus lying? Did he not understand modern science? Or was he right?

I encourage your comments and will be posting more in this series.

Blogs who link here: Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Cat

Tags: Christianity, Evolution, Creation Science, God, Darwin, Dr. Hovind