Your website and the informatiom presented is irresponsibly fictional. I would first like to note that the first part of the bible, I do believe was written in the 6th century. Fundamentalist christians believe the world is 20 000 years old, your website doesnt seem to hold that into account. you also claim to be scientific. If this is true, then why do you not mention carbon dating and other such things which can date things over 300 million years ago. “Well, fossils dont come with birth certificates” - yes they do, just not in the literal way. I would also like to note that it would be impossible for dinosaurs and humans to co-exist as many dinosaurs were canivorous, therefore they would have eaten any man “drinking from the same water”. the lack of response to my message will just further prove that this website is full of lies. If you wish to disagree please reply promptly and I will take what you have to say into account.

your website merely attacks the idea of evolution, which im sad to say is far more convincing. I have the read the bible, and know of information contained in other scrolls you may not have even heard of. Your website may fool the weak minded, but does not fool the educated. You can not disprove evolution, there is far to much supporting evidence and none for creationism, merely your own thoughts, dinosaurs are never once mentioned in the bible which is your source of “genesis”/the creation of the world. everything on this website has been produced from your own heads. Know your enemy my friends.

Brogan Fraser
New Zealand


Your website and the informatiom presented is irresponsibly fictional. I would first like to note that the first part of the bible, I do believe was written in the 6th century.

I suppose you are entitled to believe that fish have been to Jupiter, but that doesn’t make it right. You might believe that Genesis was written in the 6th century, but you are wrong. You haven’t stated whether you thought Genesis was written in the 6th century AD or BC. If you think it was the 6th century AD, you are well off beam. If you are referring to the old documentary hypothesis, which suggests that Genesis was edited from earlier document in approximately 6th century BC, you are still off beam. You should be aware that the documentary hypothesis is now widely discredited, though still taught in many liberal Bible colleges. For a thorough refutation of the documentary hypothesis, and the dating of authorship, see Did Moses Write Genesis?

Fundamentalist christians believe the world is 20 000 years old, your website doesnt seem to hold that into account.

I don’t know to which Christian group you are referring. Answers in Genesis believes that the world is just 6,000 years old. (I know of a very small group in the UK that stretches the age of the earth to 20,000, but their views are not taken from scripture).

you also claim to be scientific.

Plain Interpretation of Genesis=Good Overall Doctrine?
Not necessarily.

Hi, I’ve been reading and enjoying your materials for about 13 years but I’ve encountered a problem which I feel I should bring to your attention.

There are people who have (wrongly) deducted from your ministry that because a church or group believes in a literal Genesis, then everything else they teach must also be correct.

I have been involved in a cult awareness ministry for quite a few years, and have come across several pseudo-Christian groups who believe in a literal 6 day creation. But their teaching of the Gospel is anything but Biblical.

A few years ago a close relative of mine succumbed to one of these groups. He was attracted to them originally because they were—amongst other things—strict creationists. However he has since turned away from his family; trusts in his own deeds, rather than Jesus Christ, for his salvation; no longer takes Communion; has stated that it was not Bible believers (meaning his group) who put Jesus on the cross; and has even questioned the necessity of believing in the Deity of Christ. Therefore I humbly ask that you warn people that, although not trusting the beginning of the Bible may result in not trusting the Gospels, they cannot extrapolate it to mean that the reverse is also correct.

Yours in Christ,
E. M.,

Australia

Indeed. I hold a Masters in Science Education and Management from a major UK university. Many of my colleagues hold PhDs. You neglected to mention your own scientific qualifications.

If this is true, then why do you not mention carbon dating and other such things which can date things over 300 million years ago. “Well, fossils dont come with birth certificates” - yes they do, just not in the literal way.

You demonstrate your lack of scientific knowledge. If you understood radiometric dating, you would know that it is impossible for carbon dating to date anything as being over 300 million years old. Carbon-14 has a half-life of just less than 6,000 years. It is not usually possible to measure significant quantities of parent isotopes beyond ten half-lives—in the case of carbon-14, this is about 50,000 to 60,000 years. For further information on why carbon-14 dating does not support millions of years, see Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? It is true that other radiometric dating methods give apparent dates of millions of years, but it must be noted that all such dating calculations depend on the assumptions of the scientist doing the calculation. We have many articles on this website on this issue [see Get Answers: Radiometric Dating]. As you accuse us of not being scientific, you need to be aware that radiometric dating is one of our strong suits. The Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth (RATE) group of scientists have studied the issue in depth. Summaries of their findings can be found on this website. See, for example, RATE Research Reveals Remarkable Results—A Fatal Blow to Billions of Years. Moreover, the existence of measurable quantities of carbon-14 in coal deposits and diamonds demonstrates that these deposits must certainly be less than 50,000 years old, and such measurements are completely consistent with a young earth of 6,000 years old. See Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model.

I would also like to note that it would be impossible for dinosaurs and humans to co-exist as many dinosaurs were canivorous, therefore they would have eaten any man “drinking from the same water”. the lack of response to my message will just further prove that this website is full of lies. If you wish to disagree please reply promptly and I will take what you have to say into account.

What an extraordinary statement! Why would it be impossible for carnivorous dinosaurs to coexist with humans? Humans coexist with lions, tigers, crocodiles and white sharks, all of which are carnivorous. Surely, before you make accusations of lies, you ought not to make statements which show you have not done your research. In fact, all the answers to your points have been answered on this website many times in the past. [See Get Answers: Dinosaurs.]

your website merely attacks the idea of evolution, which im sad to say is far more convincing.

I disagree with you. As a scientist, I find the concept of molecules-to-man evolution extremely unconvincing. Your posting does not relate which particular aspects of evolution that you find so convincing.

I have the read the bible, and know of information contained in other scrolls you may not have even heard of.

I doubt that. Do you really suppose that our staff have not researched widely? However, if you know of a piece of “killer evidence,” why not share it with us?

Your website may fool the weak minded, but does not fool the educated. You can not disprove evolution, there is far to much supporting evidence and none for creationism, merely your own thoughts,

Our website is not designed to “fool” anyone. On the contrary, all our statements are backed up by references, which readers can check for themselves. We emphasise that the views of those, like yourself, who believe in molecules-to-man evolution are based, not on evidence, but on your prior evolutionary and materialist prejudices. We find that, when viewed without prejudice, the scientific evidence is entirely consistent with our rational presupposition in the Creator God of the Bible. As many articles on our site show [see Get Answers], the scientific evidence is frequently embarrassing for those who insist on believing evolution. Your last statement shows an even more blinkered view than that of Lewontin, who said “We take the side of science (by which he meant evolution) in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism’ [the italics were in the original]. 1

dinosaurs are never once mentioned in the bible which is your source of “genesis”/the creation of the world.

Of course the word “dinosaur” cannot be found in the Bible. The principal English translation of the Bible is still the King James Version (sometimes referred to as the Authorised Version). This was translated in the early 17th century. The word “dinosaur” was invented in 1841 by Dr Richard Owen—an eminent scientist and creationist. However, there are many passages in the Bible that seem to suggest dinosaurs. The best known example is the description of behemoth in Job 40. Footnotes suggest that this animal may have been an elephant or a hippopotamus, but the description is far more suggestive of a sauropod dinosaur.

everything on this website has been produced from your own heads. Know your enemy my friends.

Brogan Fraser
New Zealand

Your views and criticisms of us are extremely naïve, and you are following what you have been told, rather than thinking for yourself. But you are not my enemy. I shall be praying for you.

Paul Taylor, AiG–UK

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997. Back