In my corresponding Viewpoint article (Why Evolutionists Fear Debate) I report on how evolutionist Dr. Giberson was critical that Bill Nye “the Science Guy” would publicly debate creationist Ken Ham. Giberson anguished: “[Nye’s] climbing on stage with Ham to debate the credibility of biological evolution [gives] the mistaken impression that there actually is a debate about evolution.”

Dr. Giberson’s criticism was published in a Huffington Post article entitled: “Ham-on-Nye Debate: 'Anti-Science Guy' Automatically Wins.” And in the opinion of some evolutionists, Dr. Giberson’s fears came true at the 2/4/2014 debate: Nye failed to win.

Certainly when discussing Noah’s ark, Nye gaffed when he mocked Ham’s belief that lions were once vegetarians, as he referred to the sharp teeth of lions as his proof. But when Ham responded with a fact that even youngsters know-- that bears have flesh-tearing teeth and yet are primarily vegetarians—the tables turned. But for me, at least, this gaffe is not the point on which the debate hinged. It’s much more than we creationists being able to say “gotcha.”

Creationists like me refuse to be bullied by the peer pressure of public opinion into silently swallowing the evolutionary model when we know how frequently evolutionary theory has made wrong assumptions… and when we know how many of its assumptions are in conflict with each other. What follow are two examples of conflicting assumptions.

No. 1 Ocean Sediment During his debate against Ham, Nye stated that the earth is 13.7 billion years old, referring to the evolutionary model that also claims that the oceans are between 1 to 4 billion years old. While this 13.7 billion / 1-4 billion year timeline may fit into a geological model of evolution, it conflicts with oceanic evolutionary theory. For if the ocean is one billion years old, there should be an enormous quantity of ocean sediments. Instead the evidence discovered by today’s scientific method is the opposite—scientists find a scarcity of sediments causing them to ask, “Where is all the missing salt and sediment?”

In addition, when scientists use this evidence, along with evolution’s assumption that the ocean is in a steady state condition (meaning that the rates of sediment change have been about equal throughout geologic time), and extrapolate these factors into the past, the calculations indicate that the oceans are only 62 million years old. This is quite a conflict with either 4 billion or 1 billion years… take your pick of competing theories.

(Evolutionists do propose theories to solve this conflict. But they are theories that cannot undergo experimentation and that are beyond the observation of the scientific method. Thus these theories are additional assumptions that must be believed by faith.)

Creationists point to the same evidence that the scientific method has discovered, but instead of putting faith into the theories that require the ocean to anywhere from 62 millions to 4 billion years old, we can point to the Bible’s creation account.  It teaches that when God created the earth, he formed a mature, fully-operating world that appears to have been functioning for a long time, when in fact it’s approximately 10,000 years old.

References

The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists @ http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Seas-Missing-Salt.pdf

The Oceans Says No @ http://www.icr.org/article/56/345/

No. 2 The Moon’s Relationship to Earth During the debate, when Nye stated that the earth is 13.7 billion years old, it sounded like scientific fact. Embedded in this irrefutable-sounding theory is the adjoining theory that the moon is 4 billion years old. Is this really so?

The scientific method produces evidence that the moon is moving away from the Earth at about 1.5 inches per year. When scientists use the evolutionary assumption that the moon’s recession from earth is in a steady state condition, and they extrapolate this effect into the past, they find that moon would have been touching the earth 1.4 billion years ago. So how can the moon be 4 billion years old?

We can also state this conflict in the opposite way.  If we factor the moon’s rate of recession from earth by evolution’s theorized age for the moon, the moon “would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth.”

I underlined the phrase, “even if it had started from earth” because that concept introduces yet another conflict. Did you know that the moon cannot survive “a nearness to the earth of less than 11,500 miles… [which] distance is known as the Roche limit.” Why? Because when the moon is within the Roche limit “the tidal forces of the earth on a satellite of the moon's dimensions would break up the [moon] into something like the rings of Saturn.” Yet while evolutionists are not sure how to resolve these conflicts, they still ask us to believe their teachings.

We creationists also ask people to believe—to believe a different explanation for the moon’s relationship to the earth. The Bible says God created the earth and the moon. The moon’s recession from earth is not a problem for us creationists who believe that God created our solar system as a fully functioning entity about 10,000 years. The Biblical model would put the moon only 1,217 feet closer to earth than it is today when God created the universe.

References

The Solar System: Earth and Moon @ http://www.icr.org/article/7691/

Young Age for the Moon and Earth @ http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

So here are but two examples of how the evolutionary model has numerous conflicts within itself.

Furthermore, these examples also demonstrate how evolution’s conflicts disappear within the Biblical model of creation. When the data that’s discovered through observation and experimentation of the scientific method is set within the Bible’s framework of creation, the outcome is reasonable and logical. In fact, this is the unstated reason why I believe that evolutionist Dr. Giberson was critical that Bill Nye would publicly debate Ken Ham. Dr. Giberson was afraid that people would see that what creationists believe in is just as logical and reasonable as what evolutionists believe in—the difference being that evolutionists refuse to admit that their model is a belief system.

We who trust in Jesus as our Savior from sin, and believe that his Word, the Bible is God-breathed and inerrant, praise God for his gift of the scientific method that measures, observes and experiments on what can be experimented upon, measured and observed.

And what falls beyond the reach of the scientific method is where there are assumptions, theories, and beliefs. We creationists admit this. No, we teach it because Scripture teaches: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Hebrews 1:3).

I know it took a gracious act of God to bring me to believe in him (see Ephesians 2:8). But now that I know how he sacrificed himself for me and all people at the cross to bring souls into his forever family, I also see the Biblical creation account to be a more logical and reasonable faith than the beliefs that evolution preaches. This is why I see how evolution’s internal conflicts are resolved in the Bible. ♦♦♦

For further reading, please consider: An Evolutionist Has Problems (Viewpoint 2-1-2014)