The always informative and yet sometimes controversial Bad Christian Podcast caught the attention of Creationist Ken Ham when he was informed of their interview with Tyler Francke. The Christian scientist provided a rebuttal toward some of Francke's thoughts on the origins of life.

Francke is a Christian who believes in evolution as mankind's origin. He is the founder of the website, GodOfEvolution.com.

Ham's biggest gripes on what Francke said, is that having Creation/Evolution debates hurts the chances of spreading the gospel, and it's not an important issue concerning salvation.

The creationist famously debated Bill Nye the Science Guy in February, and the event was highly publicized. Secular media portrayed Ham as "crazy" or detrimental to science because of his belief in the Bible and the book of Genesis being our history of how we got here.

"Evolution can be everything that the scientific evidence indicates that it is and that Christianity can be everything that the Bible says it is and should be and that those two do not need to come into any kind of conflict," said Francke on the podcast.

(Photo : Facebook: Tyler Francke)

Ham argues that the two do in fact conflict. He feels that believing in evolution completely goes against everything explained in the first book of the Bible.

"Evolution teaches that all life evolved slowly over millions of years; Genesis teaches everything was created in six, literal 24-hour days," he wrote, "Evolution has one kind of organism giving rise to another kind, but Genesis states everything was created to reproduce 'according to its kind.' Evolution requires death and disease being around for millions of years, but according to Genesis death arrived after the Fall as a punishment for sin."

He continued, "Evolution places certain land animals before birds; Genesis has birds before land animals. Evolution describes mankind as the descendant of an ape-like creature, whereas in Genesis man was specially created by God from the dust and woman from his side (as referred to in the New Testament also)."

These are all points that Ham feels Francke did not address in his interview. In the evolutionist's defense, he did not have ample time to dissect and go through everything he believes, but it is much more detailed on his website.

Another quote by Francke, on which Ham jumped, was his thoughts on science proving and disproving things. The podcast guest also claimed science has disproved a young Earth.

"[Science] can't necessarily prove something, but it's very good at disproving things. . . . It's a very difficult thing to say that the earth is only a few thousand years old. There's a lot of evidence that's sort of disproven that idea. And I think that's kind of the perspective that scientists are coming from, where they feel . . . a little irritated that this keeps coming up, that people are challenging them not based on the scientific evidence but based on a religious view," Francke said.

The idea of Christians believing in an old Earth that is millions and billions of years old is becoming more prevalent. Theologians argue that God views time differently as he stated in the Bible of "a day being a thousand years, and a thousand years being a day." The concept of the days of the week is based on the rising and setting of the Sun and the Earth's rotation, a science that was observed later on. A day to God could work on a whole other timeframe. What is to say that God created Earth and waited a thousand years before He did the things in "Day 2."

In this way, Christian scientists have deduced that science does in fact correctly prove the age of the Earth according to rock formations, the continental shifts, and fossil records. There is also macro and micro evolution. Macro is evolving from monkeys to humans. Micro is gradually evolving in the sense of adapting to scenarios. An example would be mosquitoes becoming resistant to insecticides or creatures living in a cave being blind after generations of living in that climate. Again, this is just one way of looking at the creation of the Earth.

Ham counters Francke's statements by saying he fails to know the difference between observational and historical science. "Observational science is the kind of science that we can test, observe, and repeat"”its what gives us space shuttles and medical advancements. Historical science deals with the past and cannot be tested, repeated, or observed. Because of this, your starting point will determine how you see the evidence."

He continued, "We both have the same evidence"”we just have different starting points. My starting point is God's infallible Word; Francke's starting point (in this area at least) is man's opinions. Therefore we are both going to interpret the evidence very differently."

What do you think of both of their thoughts? Do you side more toward Ham, or more toward Francke? Do you have your own set of beliefs that's different from these two perspectives? We would love to hear them. Share it in the comments.

Read Ken Ham's full response here.

To hear the episode with Tyler Francke, click here.