New Creationist Research Shows That We Were All Immortal Until Adam Sinned

This isn’t a joke. Well, it is a joke, but it’s a completely serious joke.

You know how Creationists often complain they can’t get published in peer-reviewed journals? Well, Answers in Genesis (the Creation Museum people) began their own “journal” a while back so they could say, “Creationists get published, too!” The idea is that if it looks professional, gullible children (and adults) will think AiG does real science!

And the latest published, peer-reviewed paper is a perfect example of how Creationists approach big questions. Simon Turpin tackles the question we’ve all been wondering: “Did death of any kind exist before the Fall?” (PDF)

This paper will demonstrate that human physical and spiritual death, together with the death of animals, came about through the disobedience of one man by examining nine key passages: Genesis 1, 2, and 3; Acts 3:21; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–22; 1 Corinthians 15:22–55; Colossians 1:15–21 and Revelation 21–22.

Conclusion: Death did not occur before Adam sinned.

Evidence: The Bible said so.

Someone give this man a Nobel Prize now.

Take a look at how he builds his case:

There are three lines of evidence in Genesis 1 that rule out the possibility of any kind of death or disease before Adam’s disobedience: the length of the days of creation, the vegetarian diet prescribed to man and animals in Genesis 1:29–30, and God’s declaration that His completed creation was very good.

Evidence! He actually, seriously used the word “evidence”!

And what does his “evidence” say?

God created the world in six 24-hour days… so there wasn’t enough time for anything to die.

God made all humans and animals vegetarian… so they didn’t eat each other.

And God liked what he made… so he wouldn’t want anything to die.

Therefore… proof.

This is not a cartoon. It’s how Creationists do ‘science’

The paper goes on like this for a while. Find something in the Bible. Back it up with something else in the Bible. Cite the Bible. (And a whole bunch of theologians.) Call yourself a scientist.

And keep in mind: This is one of the papers that got through the vetting process! What the hell got turned down?!

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Jason Sullivan

    I can’t wait to hear some creationist whip out this trash during a debate

  • http://IAmDanMarshall.com/ Dan Marshall

    “Peer review” loses quite a bit of effectiveness when all your peers are fucking idiots.

    • Glasofruix

      Pictures an orgy of creationnists called “the review process”.

      • TheBlackCat13

        “the review process” would be a good band name.

        I picture it more as a conveyer belt with a stamping machine that stamps “passed” on every paper that passes by.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Why would Christians consider death to be “a sad reality” and “an enemy”? From the Christian view, death means graduating into an eternal afterlife in Heaven! O frabjous day!

    • observer

      Maybe, deep down, they are skeptic of heaven, and fear death greatly.

      • invivoMark

        I always suspected this was the case. Otherwise, there would be more grief and sobbing over a family member moving to Europe for a job than over their death.

        Either way, you’re gonna see them again, according to their beliefs. But Heaven is supposedly a lot better than Europe (a prospect I find hard to believe, of course).

        • observer

          Actually, I’ve thought of another reason: they fear they’re going to Hell.

          • invivoMark

            Perhaps this might explain why some Christians cry over the death of loved ones, but it definitely can’t explain why they fear their own death. I don’t know of any Christian who actually believes that he/she is destined to Hell. They all seem to believe in a God whose admission requirements for Heaven just happen to align with their own personal actions and beliefs.

            On the other hand, I’d think that if Christians’ grief over the loss of loved ones indeed stemmed from the belief that those people were going to Hell, that would result in a lot more crises of faith, as people should be getting pissed off at their god for punishing their loved ones for eternity.

            • Alan Bloor

              I don’t know any Christians that believe they’re going to Hell but I know one who believes he’s destined for Purgatory. It’s quite sad because he’s a great guy but his religion has taught him that he’s naturally immoral. I think that’s one of the things I hate about religion.

              • allein

                Agreed. Whenever I see Christians come on here and say things like how they’re sinners, depraved, “like filthy rags,” etc., it makes me sad. Thankfully I don’t know anyone personally who actually talks like this in real life (though I suspect I have some extended family who thinks it).

      • http://twitter.com/spaldingw Alan Mauldin

        A few years ago there was a study that found fundamentalist Christians demand the most intense — and expensive — life-prolonging measures when they have terminal illnesses. Seems they want to delay their trip to Jeebus Land as long as they can.

      • Paolo Russo

        My thought too, before. Than I studied some theology and the more likely reason is:
        They are scared to be a worse piece of sinner than they guess. What if they don’t really believe as it is meant to be?
        They are scaried, because they have faith. And faith means that there are some mystery.

    • Georginafs

      Can you see Ratzinger being promoted upwards? Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

  • A3Kr0n

    How can we all have been immortal until Adam sinned, if Adam was the first human?

    • Conspirator

      The implication is that it was a while before Adam sinned I guess. So he’d had his kids who committed incest and had their kids, etc. Although is that how it goes in the bible? I thought it was just Adam and Eve when Eve ate the apple.

      • trj

        Cain & Abel was born after Adam & Eve were thrown out of Eden. “We were all immortal” is not supposed to include people or animals that were not yet born.

  • jess

    Erm, so how did their god plan on getting people into his fancy life after-party?

    • randomfactor

      I think I can come up with a good assumption.

  • Conspirator

    “This paper will demonstrate that human physical and spiritual death, together with the death of animals, came about through the disobedience of one man” Wow, how petty can one god be? I just don’t understand how anyone can read nonsense like that and take it seriously.

    • randomfactor

      Seriously. If ONLY human beings died, I’d take that as pretty strong evidence that there was something unusual going on.

      • Gus Snarp

        Yeah, so God apparently not only punished all humans ever for the act of one man*, but also punished every other animal ever to live on the face of the earth? OK, the tangents this is taking my brain on. Why is there a generally applicable rule in which lifespan scales to animal size? Why would it go from shrews, cats, humans, and whales all live forever to shrews live a year or two, cats get 10 or twenty, humans get 70 or so, and some whales get 200 years? Does God like big animals more? Shouldn’t we have gotten hosed worse than shrews? What did shrews do to piss God off so much? Why do snakes live around 20 to 30 years? God curses them for starting this whole thing, and they get a relatively long lifespan, especially considering their size?

        *Oh yeah, that asterisk. We’re all being punished for the act of one man? This is like the most bizarre case of patriarchal thinking I’ve ever come across. I mean, if their book is true, one woman was at least as much to blame, right? So we’re torn between marking women as the cause of all man’s suffering from day one, which is pretty awful and misogynist thinking, and saying that women are so inconsequential that God didn’t really care much about the whole thing until the man ate the pomegranate, which is pretty awful and misogynist thinking. There’s really just no interpretation of the Bible that’s not awful and misogynist. I mean, unless you interpret God as the bad guy.

        • Beutelratti

          I’m also curious as to how this fits in with the concept of animals not having a soul.

          Why would god punish animals for one man’s sin even though animals do not have a soul like humans and therefore cannot actually commit any sin and are completely dependent on their natural instincts?

          Or asked differently: Why should beings without an immortal soul and therefore without sin be punished for sinful behaviour of beings with an immortal soul?

          Basically animals die an eternal death because of the sin of humans who become immortal after their death on earth. Does that sound fair?

        • randomfactor

          It’s actually worse than that, Gus. I remember an Isaac Asimov essay from decades back where he worked out that the limiting factor is apparently heartbeat: all animals as a rule live a life span so that the oldest among them reach about the one-billionth beat.

          Except humans…who can, under the best circumstances, reach four billion beats.

          Sounds like we got REWARDED for Eve’s action. Or maybe she snagged one of those tree-of-life fruits when God wasn’t looking.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=540646567 Audball C. Audball

          And then think about the poor mayfly! What the hell did it do???

  • C Peterson

    Tried to skim the paper, but it’s such a load of shit that nobody can really make sense of it.

    In any case, my logic is simpler. Nothing is alive today from before “The Fall”, so it follows that nothing was immortal. And when it comes to people… well, there were only two people who even existed before “The Fall”. Every other human dates afterward. And since those original two aren’t alive, I’d have to say they weren’t immortal, either.

    • Chris B

      Is immortality an attribute that can be revoked? If not, then nothing has ever been granted it. If so, it is meaningless.

      • C Peterson

        That’s my thinking. Anything that ever had the attribute of “immortality” better be alive today, because otherwise it got sold a bill of goods. Makes me think of a product that comes with a lifetime guarantee: “we guarantee it for as long as it works!”

        • Douglas_Einer

          “Lifetime guarantee” means, the ‘lifetime’ of the product.

          Oh, it broke-/-stopped-working-?

          Well, that was the products’ ‘lifetime’.

  • Gus Snarp

    “What the hell got turned down?’

    That’s easy. Anything with actual science in it.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    Dr. Georgia Purdom was probably one of the peer reviewers

    Dr. Purdom’s scientific research focuses on the roles of natural selection and mutation in microbial populations. She seeks to understand the original, created, “very good” roles of bacteria in the pre-Fall world and genetic mechanisms that have led to their adaptations and pathogenicity in a post-Fall world.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/g_purdom.asp

    Fascinating stuff.

  • Peasles

    I would absolutely love to read the papers that didn’t make it into the “journal.” I need some new, hilarious reading material.

  • Edmond

    Very interesting research. I wonder what Turpin’s findings would be on unicorns (Numbers 23:22), satyrs (Isaiah 13:21), dragons (Isaiah 13:22), giants (Genesis 6:4) and the deadly cockatrice (Isaiah 14:29). I just wouldn’t feel safe in the world without his conclusive, peer-reviewed evidence giving me guidance about these dangerous creatures, which are obviously all around us.

    • Gus Snarp

      Obviously these animals all existed and died out sometime after the flood. I’ve yet to figure out the mechanism for all this, but the Ken Ham’s of the world are adamant that all these animals were on the ark, including dinosaurs and the mythological beasts. It would make more sense if they said they missed the boat, but apparently all the animals means all the animals. So what killed them all, and why are the dinosaurs all buried in rock? Shouldn’t we have some non-fossil bone fragments? Seems like something you might keep around, given that they must have been swimming in giant bones. Surely they’d have made things out of them?

      • Edmond

        I have to wonder what God’s purpose was in including animals on the ark that were destined for exctinction. Besides the mythological nonsense of the animals above, the ark would have included the dodo, the thylacine, the moa, the quagga… not to mention the dinosaurs. If these animals had no future, what was the point of saving them from the flood?

  • http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/ James Lindsay

    “Get peer reviewed? Okay. Scientists aren’t our peers, they’re Satan-possessed enemies. We’ll let our cherry-picked peers review our work, and then they can’t say we don’t have peer-reviewed science on our side too.”
    #LiarsForJesus

  • Bender

    “Vegetarian diet”? If there was no death why would they need eating at all? Of course the whole article is retarded, but it never ceases to amaze me how these morons keep misrepresenting their own mythology: Genesis 3.22:

    “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”

    Obviously, if god took the trouble of creating a special tree specifically for not dying, that means there was death before the fall. Duh!

  • Lori F – MN

    But it was only Adam and Eve around when they sinned. Doh.

    • randomfactor

      And apparently no sex until they sinned and gave up immortality.

      Good trade, guys.

      • Bdole

        Wait, was that last part sarcasm or not? I honestly can’t be sure.

  • dats3

    My mom’s friend was talking to my son (a 9 year old skeptic) about how god created the world in 7 days. After she finished telling the story my astute offspring said and I quote: “That’s more ridiculous than Santa Clause.” Creationists, gotta love ‘em.

    • Nicole Youngman

      I had a similar experience recently trying to explain the basic Genesis story to my son who was 8 or 9 at the time. His reponse: “But wait, then why did God put the tree there in the first place….?” Kids ain’t dumb if you don’t raise ‘em in this stuff.

      • Paolo Russo

        There is an answer to that question, quite logic. If you couldn’t give it, doesn’t mean he is smart, but it means you are ignorant of theology.
        Btw, my kid asked me similar question when she was 3, and I answered in a way, we both learned something.

      • Miranda Flemming

        like putting a landmine in a kid’s playground

  • Mihangel apYrs

    So plants DON’T die when they’re munched down. You learn something new every day

    • Pattrsn

      I was wondering that too. What happens when an animal chews and attempts to digest cells that are unable to die? I’m thinking major indigestion.

      • coyotenose

        There was a fairly disturbing part of Anne Rice’s The Mummy novel where the titular character, Ramses the Damned, describes finding and using a formula for true immortality on himself, then coming up with a scheme to feed his people forever by giving the formula to cows and crops. It didn’t go so well. The resulting food would regenerate almost as fast as it was digested, so it poisoned those who ate it. Horrified, he had the animals and plants bundled (thankfully he only did it at an experimental level and the drug also sterilized anything it affected) and thrown into the Nile. Then he had to bear the memory of what he did to those cows in his original horror…

        • Pattrsn

          Sounds like they should have gotten Rice to peer review the paper. She could have pointed out to them the difficulties of immortal food, not to mention immortal bacteria. Which raises the question, did bacteria exist before the fall? And if not, why wasn’t the post fall creation of bacteria, I think by mass the largest kingdom on the planet, mentioned in the bible.

          I’d love to know how bacteria fit intro Turpin’s “hypothesis”.

      • TheBlackCat13

        Plants don’t count. God doesn’t like plants. Do you remember what happened when Cane tried to give God plants?

  • Gaby A.

    I think I just had an aneurysm…

  • http://twitter.com/reboho reboho

    um, fossils…

  • Sue Blue

    For shit’s sake, that’s just ludicrous. They might as well just hold up a bible and say “here’s our peer-reviewed scientific journal!” What did these people do for science homework in high school? “Noah’s Ark” coloring books?

  • Sue Blue

    You can submit a paper on their “science-y” AIG website. Let’s all submit a paper. I’m going to do one on how I know the earth is flat because, well, not only can you line up a level with the Kansas horizon and see that the bubble is perfectly centered, it says so in the Bible! Yeah! In more than one verse and chapter, so it’s peer reviewed!

    • http://profiles.google.com/conticreative Marco Conti

      Careful, plenty of loonies actually believe that.

    • Nicole Youngman

      omg (sorry, figure of speech…:)) that would be perfect. Remember the guy who submitted the fake postmodernist paper full of mumbo jumbo to a real academic journal and it got published? Could we do the same thing to these guys??

  • ORAXX

    Calling an article “peer reviewed” is gonna fool everybody. lol

  • http://www.facebook.com/park.james.102 Park James

    In other breaking news, “Leprechaunology Weekly” just published a peer reviewed paper that makes the radical claim that leprechaun jackets are not forest green, but are, according to several drawings made by preschoolers, pine green.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=540646567 Audball C. Audball

      With extensive references courtesy of Crayola Crayons! LOL!

  • observer

    Here’s the really sad part: this is just the beginning of many “peer-reviewed papers” to come.

  • Renshia

    You didn’t expect anything more complicated from a sheep did you?

  • Lee Miller

    Of course, this discussion does open a whole can of worms about the concept of “peer review” in general. There are many other fields, not just creationism pseudoscience, where the actual science is weak but the peer review is an imprimatur of validity.

  • TheBlackCat13

    “peer reviewed”

    I think there is an extra “r” in there.

  • http://atheistlutheran.blogspot.com/ MargueriteF

    If animals like tigers were always intended to eat plants rather than other animals, why do they have teeth adapted for eating meat? Or are we to assume God only changed their teeth after the Fall?

    • trj

      They probably used those teeth to dig up roots. Or maybe to tear into those difficult pineapples. We already know that T Rex used its teeth to crack coconuts.

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        I was going to point that out, but in an effort to cite AiG, I found that that’s not official AiG doctrine

        In fact, any mention of “T-Rex” with “Coconuts” is considered God mocking.

        • trj

          One has to wonder, then, what those large teeth were for, if not to cut through difficult fruits and plants. Ridiculous as the coconut explanation is it’s at least an attempt at explanation.

  • b s

    “There can be only one”
    I’m really surprised nobody else has said it yet.

  • MartinRC

    I can’t wait for Hogwarts to start their Peer reviewed journal so I can finally get some more publication’s under my belt by only having to read a book (heck I will just watch the movie and verify on wikipedia).

  • Aspieguy

    Damn that Adam! I could have spent eternity as a buck naked vegan.

  • allein

    I wonder how big their pool of reviewers is…I used to work for a publisher of math journals, and each one had an editorial board, and I was the go-between between the authors and editors until a paper got to the point that the editor was able to reveal him/herself, usually either to reject or accept the paper or ask for revisions (and in the case of one journal, only the editor-in-chief contacted the author when the process got that far). The reviewers were from universities, labs, etc. all over the world (I had a pretty cool collection of letterheads and postmarks), and a paper’s editor would send it to at least two others (who may or may not have been on the journal’s editorial board)…in other words, it wasn’t likely an author would be able to guess who was reviewing their paper.
    In short, somehow, I don’t know why, but I don’t think AIG has the kind of network of “scientists” available to do a proper blind peer review…..

  • Carpinions

    On the one hand, this is funny, on the other hand this is depressing, and on the third Total Recall hand, this is sad. Sad because someone is literally wasting his life writing crap like this, “thinking” about it, getting all partisan over it, whatever. Imagine the amount of wasted human effort by creationists just trying to make their beliefs reality. I daresay someone sitting on their duff collecting trust fund checks does more with themselves than someone actively trying to spread millennia-old superstition.

  • onamission5

    Methinks that they misunderstand the word “peer” as much as they misunderstand the word “theory.” Hint: “peer-reviewed” does not mean “read by me and my buddies who agree with me.”

  • Ryan

    Here’s my understanding of the story (because I actually read it): There were two trees in Eden, Knowledge and Life. God tells Adam not to eat from either tree or they will die, and Adam relays the message to Eve. Serpent comes along and tells Eve she won’t die if she eats the tree fruit. She eats from the Tree of Knowledge and doesn’t die, so she shares with Adam. Serpent was right, God lied. God finds the humans making clothes, interrogates, dishes out punishments (especially screwing over the Serpent), makes the humans better clothes, and boots them out of the Garden so they can’t eat from the Tree of Life and become “like the gods” (there was more than one? weird…)

    So eating from the Tree of Life makes you immortal. Adam and Eve never ate from the Tree of Life. Adam and Eve were never immortal. None of the verses cited as “evidence” in the article contradict that. Seems that “Creation Science” doesn’t even stand up to basic middle school reading skills.

  • Maleekwa

    How exactly are two people supposed to know good from evil if they have no knowledge of good and evil?! There is no way for them to know the serpent is evil, or that God is good. They can’t even know what the moral ramifications of disobedience are! So how is it considered “just” to punish them for being.. curious?! Is curiosity evil? How could they know before eating the fruit?! What kind of free will can someone have if they have no idea what the consequences of their actions are? Put a gun in front of someone who has never seen or heard of a gun and if they shoot someone, they get the death penalty. It was clearly their fault. That is the kind of logic and morality we are dealing with.

    • elDragonata

      That’s one of the tenets of Christian practice and belief – to not question or be curious: just accept on faith. Doing the former is apparently an aberration of God’s plan, design and will and thus (to the skewed, polarised mind of some Christians), evil. In reality (and away from the contexts of assumedly Abrahamic religion briefly), not questioning and just blindly accepting the assertions of a person ‘in charge’ provides fertile ground for control, subjugation, manipulation, exploitation and a total dissolution of the independence and agency of the ‘believer’ and anybody who dares to use their senses gets punished in varying degrees. That’s how despotic regimes and ruthlessly patriarchal societies, for instance, have thrived for all these years and as said, that dynamic is what galvanises Christianity: essentially a predatory, scaremongering exploitation of the weak and powerless in society.

    • Douglas_Einer

      To me the whole “moral” (if one could call it that) of the genesis story is that seeking knowledge for Yourself is very-very wrong, better to just blindly accept what You’re TOLD to believe/think than to risk doing what ‘adam and eve’ did-! (sad indeed)

  • Georginafs

    It is really sad that, out of the thousands of books written over the centuries, they had to pick this one as the only one telling it “like it is”.

    If only they has chosen Plato or Homer. Any of the Norse myths and legends would have been preferable. But no, that have to go chose one all about a jealous, petty minded, blood thirty tyrant.

    Read another book people!

  • http://www.facebook.com/terence.mcsweeney.3 Terence Mcsweeney

    Not good if you were a vegetable. What did an eggplant ever do to deserve to be eaten?

  • CultOfReason

    And keep in mind: This is one of the papers that got through the vetting process! What the hell got turned down?!

    Anything that employs real science.

  • http://twitter.com/TychaBrahe TychaBrahe

    I used to work at the California Museum of Science and Industry. In addition to regular exhibits, it was the host for the Los Angeles County and California State science fairs.

    You could always spot the children who attended certain Christian schools. They were required to relate their work to Biblical verses, so they would outline how their work related to a particular verse. It was a significant part of their presentation poster.

    That is, you could spot them at the County level. I don’t remember any of them making it to the state level.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joshua.pierce.75 Joshua Pierce

    “A second reason why Genesis 1 demands that there was no death of any kind before Adam rebelled is the vegetarian diet prescribed both to man and animals in Genesis 1:29–30 ruling out any carnivorous behavior before the Fall” (Page 102)

    The very definition of “no death of any kind” would include the death of plant cells. Premise destroyed, I will take my prize now.

  • Adam

    “And keep in mind: This is one of the papers that got through the vetting process! What the hell got turned down?!”
    I’m too scared to think!

    It’s lucky Adam did sin, else there would be 100,000,000,000,000 (I’ve lost count of how many zero’s are there… but it should be a hundred billion) people walking on this earth!! And people say that Beijing and Tokyo are crowded now!

  • Ricardo Costa

    Interesting hypothesis these gentlemen came up with, according to their own gospels, how many other humans where there on earth before adam and eve commited the original sin, for then to use as sample and proof for their research? :)

  • davewtc

    Do such papers include the statement, “We make the assumption that the Babble is an historical and accurate document” or is that just understood if you publish in this holy journal?

  • kaydenpat

    Well, at least it was peer reviewed, right? Didn’t know that AIG was a recognized scientific organization.

  • jenbo

    at the bottom of page 101 is a comment that highlights their circular logic and complete misunderstanding of what constitutes scientific evidence. This is just sad.
    “Jesus clearly trusted the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Creation account in Genesis and, therefore, there is no reason to not trust them”
    This, my friends – the beliefs of an uneducated, sexist, racist, who spoke to voices in his head – is what their argument really hinges on.

  • Paolo Russo

    If a bird is evaluated on its swimming ability, it will believe to be stupid all its life. That is exactly your “smart” funny evaluation of a not-scientific academic piece.
    If I evaluate a book of math through a different perspective or paradigm, it will sound the same.
    I’m just disappointed how silly can be something on patheos.com, because it has “generally” my respect.

  • http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_babinski/babinski-bio.html EdwardTBabinski

    I used to be a young-earth creationist, but realized I could not defend the idea of “no death before the fall” without piling excuses on excuses. For instance, plants are alive, their cells have a nucleus and cytoplasm, like in animals, and they died per Genesis 1, and not because of sin, just because they were given as food. And the mere fact that “food” had to be given “in the beginning” implies that death by “starvation” was also possible.

    I also realized that many fish and land critters are so small that larger animals probably could not have avoided ingesting them, or stepping on them, not unless creation was finely choreographed via a humongous miracle. No larger fish ingested much smaller fish while feeding on the same seaweed together? Sharks chewed off enormous mouthfuls of seaweed but carefully spit out even the tiniest fish that was also among the seaweed? Large herbivores never bit off a leaf and accidentally ingested a small living thing on that leaf? What about a large mammal galloping about and breathing heavy and accidentally inhaling an insect? I’ve swallowed insects, even while not galloping about. Did Brontosauruses dodge every breathing thing underfoot with each gargantuan step, including ants, beetles, worms, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals? Did spiders assist in the release of any insect that flew haphazardly into their webs?

    And what if NO living things died, at all? A single bacterial cell that divides every twenty minutes would multiply to a mass four thousand times greater than the earth’s in just two days.

    A single oyster, left to its own devices, produces more than one-hundred-twenty-five million eggs in a season. That’s more than enough oysters, if none died in eight years, [10 to the 89th power number of oysters] to crowd the water out of the oceans and make it cover the earth.

    If all the eggs from one mother housefly lived, she would produce more than five trillion offspring in just one season.

    A sunfish sometimes lays three hundred million eggs.

    A female sea turtle lays a hundred or more eggs.

    About one hundred million sperm cells are found in each cubic centimeter of human ejaculate.

    There are equally bountiful numbers from the world of seed-bearing plants.

    What about decay? That goes with death, right? Is decay due to “sin?” That raises the question of whether or not Adam and Eve digested their vegetarian dinners since they had to be broken down inside them! I once read a debate between two young-earth creationists, Henry Morris and Kofahl, in which the latter argued that decay existed in Eden because Adam had to break down his food and that meant that the second law of thermodynamics (breakdown, hence decay) had to have been in effect because without it chemical reactions necessary for breaking down molecules would not follow. In fact not even the existence of “friction” would follow without the second law being in effect. Talk about a slippery world.

    But if Adam and Eve digested their vegetarian dinners didn’t they also fart as vegetarians do today? Didn’t they defecate? Didn’t their feces smell? What about their armpits? Did God feel the least bit obliged to give Adam and Eve the recipe for soap? In other words, wouldn’t Adam and Eve have been “ashamed” of any number of things long before they were “ashamed” to discover they were “naked?”

    So if creationists insist that the original creation was so perfect there was no decay or death, one might retort with, “No decay my ass!” Or should I say, “Adam’s ass?”

  • Denny Imanuel

    I’m not new creationist, but if you read the Bible correctly without refering 1 day is equals to 24 hours, then all the Genesis 1 books are completely true according to modern science, even sequentially true. How could 1 day is referring to human day when even the earth is not even rotating yet. So 1 day in Genesis 1 must be referring to the day of the Lord which can’t be measured with human day!

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Sea and sky creatures were not created on a separate ‘day’ (any kind of day) from land creatures. And humans were not created on a separate ‘day’ from everything else. It is not consistent with modern science, which informs us that humans are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas. We evolved from a common ancestor. We were not ‘created’ on our own day.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X