O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Michael Miano, Jeff Vaughn, and Tim Martin Follow Up on Ham/Nye Debate

Just thought I should pass this on.

Michael Miano spent two shows following up on the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate.

Jeff and Tim offer a biblical alternative to Ken Ham's "creation model" composed of young-earth creationism and a global flood in Noah's day. Tucked into the discussion are some recent observations related to the Covenant Creation model. 

Here is the link:

I look forward to any comments or suggestions.


Tim Martin

Views: 736

Comment by Doug on February 13, 2014 at 10:54pm


I haven't had time to view all these links, but I will. I respect you and Jeff very much, but it is disheartening that I have to keep my views to myself. There is real hostility in mainstream circles to anything that challenges the traditional evangelical view.

I am actually angry at Ken Ham types who misrepresent the bible. It is confusing to non-christians who believe that Ken Ham speaks for all evangelicals. And then, since it is so easy to poke holes in Ham's interpretations, Christianity itself and indeed, the entire gospel message, is slandered. That's what makes me angry.

Plus, because most American Christians don't look deeply into the bible themselves but instead take the word of self-appointed preachers as truth, the church is in disarray and is weak and ineffective. Either that or they listen to just snippets of truth and make the minors the majors of their particular denominations. Its all pretty disheartening.

But keep up the good work you are doing. It's refreshing and I appreciate it.

Comment by Tim Martin on February 13, 2014 at 11:29pm


Boy, do I understand your frustration! It one of the main things that motivates me forward in my studies and responsibilities.

I do think that things are changing for the better on this topic. Give it time, my friend.

Tim Martin

Comment by John on February 14, 2014 at 3:10am


Think Jeff did an excellent job of presenting a primer or just a good introduction for those interested in Covenant Creation.

I was unable to fine the link for your discussion,could you please post it.



Comment by Eohn Rhodes on February 14, 2014 at 7:21am


Things are changing

Pat Robertson: Ken Ham Needs to Stop Interpreting Bible Literally

Read Latest Breaking News from 

Thanks for the link.

The most disturbing thing as I watched the entire debate was to see the gospel presented to the whole world shrouded in such a denial of reality. Bill said to Ken, "your world view is a literal interpretation of most of the Bible"

I still don't get evolution though. To me Ken's best point was that there in no new genetic information entering the system. (Yet the fossil layers begin with simpler life forms) I have been stumped there for a long time.

Comment by Tim Martin on February 14, 2014 at 10:10am


It's the second link on that blog. It's there, just below the link to Jeff's show.


Comment by Doug on February 15, 2014 at 2:48pm


You said:

"I still don't get evolution though. To me Ken's best point was that there in no new genetic information entering the system. (Yet the fossil layers begin with simpler life forms) I have been stumped there for a long time."

Here's how I see that issue. I believe that God entered all the variables possible for life in the original genetic coding of the universe. That is, He wrote the code for life to exist in pools of hot water, and also in frozen glaciers. And, such simpler life is absolutely necessary for complex life forms, such as us, to exist. In our slice of time, we need, for example, gut bacteria to flourish in our intestines that balance each other out. there is a constant balancing act going on in our bodies with these organisms, and without them, we would die.

If you can imagine a time in the distant past when such organisms were not needed (because there was no higher form of life that could host them), then you can begin to understand evolution from a God perspective, and why it was necessary for life as we know it today. 

If you believe the fossil records, just looking at geological history, you can see the microorganisms that were needed for sedimentary organic rocks to form. Two rocks of this type are calcite and coal. Calcite was formed by time and pressure acting on the skeletal remains for tiny animals. Coal came from plants compressed over time so that only the carbon remains. 

But the sheer abundance of these rocks shows without a doubt that it took enormous time for them to form. The evidence that they are composed of plants and animals is irrefutable. The only thing young earth proponents have to argue is a presupposition that the earth is young, and therefore, all these rocks formed in a short span of time. 

But really? Evidence upon evidence shows it took enormous amounts of time to make these rocks. I believe therefore, that God wants us to believe our eyes and put the clues together reasonably to explain such mysteries. 

The trouble with Ham is that he starts from the presupposition that HIS interpretation of Genesis is correct, and therefore evolution is wrong. But being stubborn about what is right in front of our eyes is wrong, I believe, and is NOT real faith. 

Real faith is based on seeing the world and making sense of it according to the scriptures. If the two conflict, then just sticking with scripture WITHOUT reconciling the mysteries isn't really faith, its stubborness!

So, back to where I started.

The small life that the fossil record shows happened was NECESSARY for life as it was then to flourish. But, as time went on, the chemical compositions of the seas changed simply BECAUSE those organisms did their jobs. They basically did what they were programmed to do, and then they died out because their habitats changed. 

But you said that "no new information has been introduced" I can agree with that  because I believe ALL the instructions for life as we know it now and also as it was then existed at the initial creation of the universe. 


Just look at how its possible to breed dogs. The many "breeds" we have now existed in the original DNA of the original dogs that they were bred from. Therefore, the "information" about how to make a poodle and a great dane existed in the original dog genome.

Is it not possible to believe that all the existing bacteria today had their origin in bacteria that is no longer living and existed millions of years ago, but died out because their habitats changed as they did their God-appointed jobs?

Furthermore, can one not believe that horses as we see them today descended from the eohippus animals we see in fossils?

Or how about wooly mammoths. Can you not see the elephant in that creature?

Or what about tigers? The saber-toothed tiger is no longer alive, but its descendants are obvious today.

So, if you can believe it happens in animals, why can't you believe it happened in the human creature? I suppose you can't if you believe that the human form as we see it today was the "special" form that God created in Adam. But if you understand Genesis as NOT talking about the outward form of the man-animal, but instead is talking about being in God's image in spiritual terms, then it is much easier to see the man-animal as something that could have easily descended from creatures that existed long ago, without the need for "extra information" to be injected into the equation.


Comment by jjkratt on February 15, 2014 at 4:28pm

Good post Doug, thanks for writing it.

Comment by Eohn Rhodes on February 15, 2014 at 8:24pm


I appreciate your post and just read it twice. Are you saying the genetic code for man was in the simpler life forms already or did God create more complex life when the world was sufficiently primed for more complex life?


Comment by Doug on February 15, 2014 at 8:36pm


I am saying that I don't know HOW that happened over time. No one does. What I am saying is that it isn't necessary, given what we DO know, to inject more "information" into the creation in order to explain more complexity over time. That's why I showed that horses as we know them today were in existence in "primitive' horses of the past.

What makes us think anyway that those creatures were more "primitive" anyway? Just because their genes didn't express themselves to look like creatures today doesn't mean they were more complex than ones today. They are just different, not more complex necessarily. 

the creatures of today are suited to the environments of today, just like those creatures were suited to their environments. Does that mean they were less "evolved"? Not really.

Does any scientist know how life may exist in all its possible permutations? Only God knows what hidden secrets are contained within life forms DNA. Can new forms of life spontaneously spring forth from nothing? Certainly not!

But, can what LOOKS LIKE new life forms to us come out of existing creatures, given the right conditions, and the necessities of their environments? Certainly yes!. We see it all over our planet.

So, lets quit trying to explain science from the bible. It isn't a science textbook, it is a book of explanations for our existence in our creator and how we will end up. Injecting science that isn't there is a big mistake and shouldn't be practiced by any sincere student of the bible.

Comment by Eohn Rhodes on February 15, 2014 at 8:59pm


 I wasn't referring to the Bible at all. Bill Nye said there are no life forms in the fossil record swimming up from the bottom to cross the layers which proves that they are laid down over long time periods. Only simpler life forms are in the lower layers. I also have no problem with all modern dog breeds coming from an ancient dog breed. But the ancient dog breed wasn't there in the beginning according to the fossil record. So there are only three ways dogs could have come about the way I see it.

One: God added genetic info to the system at a particular point in time.

Two: the info was already there hidden in the simpler forms or

Three: new and more complex info generated itself from already existing simpler life forms. 


You need to be a member of Deathisdefeated to add comments!

Join Deathisdefeated

Olivet Discourse Movie

How the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century.
Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21
Riley O'Brien Powell


Isaiah 2:2-4 Used to refute preterism

Started by Steve G. in Eschatology. Last reply by Patricia Watkins Aug 13, 2018. 1 Reply

This Site Active?

Started by Doug in Eschatology. Last reply by Patricia Watkins Jul 29, 2018. 28 Replies

Gen 1 vs Isa 51

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 3, 2018. 4 Replies

The sin of the Gentiles

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Brother Les Jan 18, 2018. 3 Replies

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Nov 5, 2017. 9 Replies

Though he dies yet shall he live

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll Apr 25, 2017. 8 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Joseph Rehby Jul 6, 2017. 16 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by Judy Peterson Apr 8, 2018. 21 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Judith Ann Maness Aug 4, 2018. 10 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

Marriage and Divorce Motif Between God and Israel

Started by Andrew Reish in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Jul 5, 2015. 5 Replies

© 2019   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service