The Best Free Book About God Answers Many Questions About God

After clicking on any of the Chapter  or Synopsis tabs below, scroll  down past the tabs to view the new content selection. Click Here to read the important introduction to this book

Best Free Book About God "Old and Getting Better?" Pt 2 Ch 2




The Lie: The longer that evolution continues, systems become more complex


According to the theory of evolution, the earth and all of its complex life systems are the remarkable result of unharnessed energy, random physical processes (and of course, pure luck itself) all working together throughout eons of time.  For, without vast epochs of time, the folly of evolution would be apparent to even its most militant advocates because the natural transformation of one species to another "kind" or order has never been observed in human history.  Thus, mankind has been led to believe that, because of enough time and energy, our cosmos has arisen from the ash heap of eternity to its present state.

It all sounds so mystical and intellectual until it is put under the microscope of unbiased observation.  However, finding an unbiased observer is a little difficult these days because most people are convinced that evolution is a fact, not a theory, by the time they graduate from grammar school. Students would laugh if they were told that the Empire State Building was produced by  random explosions that occurred in a nearby building supply yard; yet, they seriously believe an idea called evolution that is far more ludicrous because living systems are far more complex than the Empire State Building. Why then do they believe so strongly in evolution? It is because they have been denied access to the growing wealth of information that would expose the folly of evolution. How have they been denied?  Through an insidious educational network that has become more political and more humanistic than scientific. It has taken a considerable amount of time, planning and energy to erect the tangled web of evolutionary thought; but, if common sense is allowed to raise its head, it shouldn’t take long to break free from evolution’s sticky snare.




Two of the most basic laws of science are known as the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  These are the two most irrefutable and irrevocable laws of science and nature.  Everything that has been observed in our universe is governed by these two principles.1

The First Law of Thermodynamics is also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter.  Basically this law states that the total amount of matter or energy never changes within a closed system.  In other words, energy may change from one form to another, but the total amount will always remain the same.  Matter, likewise may be changed from one form to another, but the total mass must always remain the same.  Since this is true, there is no new matter or energy being created or destroyed anywhere in the world today.  It is simply changing from one form to another while the total quantity remains the same.  Once again, this is the most basic law of science and the creationist is in complete agreement with this law.

In the second chapter of Genesis, the first and second verses say:  “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.  And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made.”  Therefore, the Bible tells us that the creation of the world and universe, with all of their special physical processes were completed.  And, that this world is a finished product that is subject to various natural laws that were built right into the system.  In the New Testament, the fourth chapter of the book of Hebrews also states that God’s “works were finished from the foundation of the earth.” (KJV)

The original creative processes have ended.  Therefore, there is no new energy or matter being created or destroyed anywhere in the universe.  All we witness is a change from one form into another while the total quantity remains the same.  This is one of the most certain laws of all physical science; yet, the evolutionist believes that new worlds are constantly being created from random particles and that “creation” is continuing on a daily basis, going from lower levels of complexity to higher levels of complexity.  At this point, some might argue that any new “creation” of matter does not necessarily violate the first law of thermodynamics because matter is technically nothing more than energy in motion.  Therefore, this “eternal” energy could have merely changed form and manifested itself as matter while its total quantity remained the same.  However, such an assumption violates yet another basic principle of science known as the “Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also known as the Law of Increasing Entropy or disorder.  This law states that any system that is left by itself will, in time, change from a complex state to a simple state, from an orderly state to a disorderly state, and in the case of energy; from efficient energy to non-efficient energy.

We observe this law in action throughout our daily lives.  For example, we know that new clothing will eventually become worn and faded; we also know that our various foods will eventually spoil or lose their nutritional value as time continues.  We see that all things grow old and eventually turn to dust if left to the elements of nature.  It is because of this principle that it is impossible to build a perpetual motion machine because machinery requires a constant outside energy source and continual maintenance in order to operate and, even then, it eventually wears out and becomes nothing more than a pile of rust.

This law of deterioration not only applies to our earth, but, to our entire universe as well.  We know that our sun will burn out someday and that our earth cannot last forever.  The whole universe is running down like a giant clock and if present processes continue, our earth will eventually die a low level “heat death.”  All useful energy will have been reduced to non-efficient, low level heat energy and the universe will have grown cold.

Nothing escapes the Second Law of Thermodynamics although some things appear to contradict it.  For example, a building may be constructed of random bricks into a complex structure.  But, that is only because there is a designer, a blue print and energy from outside sources.  In other words, the building cannot construct itself.  And, even though this complex structure is “created,” it is still subject to the second law of thermodynamics because it will eventually crumble and be reduced to dust as it is exposed to the elements of nature.

This principle is applicable to living systems.  Living systems can only grow and develop because there is a definite organized blue print contained in the genetic code.  (A blue print far more complex than any human architect could conceive of).  Plus, outside energy sources must be utilized constantly or the organism will die.  Even then, living systems still don’t escape the second law of thermodynamics no matter how much outside energy and planning is utilized because they all eventually succumb to this principle and become dust.

The creationist theory encounters no difficulty with this law because it is another scientific truth that was contained in scripture long before it was discovered.  The tenth and eleventh verses of the first chapter of Hebrews states this principle by saying:  “And thou O Lord in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; They will perish but thou remainest; And they will become old as a garment…” (KJV)  Jesus Himself said; “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall never go away.”  This law of deterioration is expressed throughout the Bible and the creationist believes that it is the result of God’s judgment upon sin as recorded in Genesis chapter three.

The evolutionist has great difficulty with this firmly established law of science because evolution infers that matter is continually changing from lower orders of complexity to higher orders of complexity.  Evolutionists believe that new worlds are continually being formed from random particles; that life has evolved from non-living matter; that “simple” living organisms evolved into complex human beings; and that all of this has been accomplished without a designer or creator.  This kind of reasoning defies the two most basic laws of science.

Cause and Effect


The law of Cause and Effect is another basic and universally accepted law of science.  This law states that every known phenomenon is an effect from a cause.  And, that the cause must always be greater or superior to the effect.  In other words, there is always a cause behind everything that exists and this cause is always quantitatively greater or superior to its effect.2 According to this law, it is impossible to “effect’ something from nothing.  Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that there is a “first cause” responsible for our vast, complex universe and all that it contains.

If we apply this principle of Cause and Effect to the creation or “evolution” of man, it is logical to assume that the first cause of human intelligence must at least be intelligent; the first cause of spiritual values must at least be spiritual; the first cause of biological complexity must at least be complex and orderly; the first cause of creativity must be creative,…  Could random matter be a sufficient first cause for even the simplest of living cells?  If one considers the first cause of our complex universe and all it contains; and takes into consideration such entities as endless time, space, and energy, it would be reasonable to assume that this “first cause” could be the Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Eternal, Personal and Living God who the creationist believes to be the source of all things.




Charles Darwin is the most famous evolutionist of all time because he is the person most responsible for the development of our modern theory of evolution.  His book, Origin of the Species, was the evolutionist’s “bible” for many decades.  Darwin believed that life evolved from simpler to more complex forms because of chance mutations that were caused by ionizing radiation, in conjunction with a process called “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest.”

The problem with this theory is that whenever mutations occur due to radiation, or any other cause, the net result is inferiority, disability, or death.  Evolutionists have been trying for years to “create” beneficial mutations from radiation under laboratory conditions, yet without success.  The fruit fly has been bombarded with radiation under laboratory conditions for thousands of successive generations without producing anything but changes that resulted in deformed fruit flies.3 Ironically, these fervent efforts to prove the theory of evolution have produced more reasons to doubt its reliability.

Fossil Dating 


Most of our modern scientific procedures for determining the ages of various materials involve the measurement of natural physical processes.  These measurements are all based upon the uniformitarian assumption that all processes are occurring at the same rate now as they have in the past.  There are numerous physical processes that could be used to determine ages; however, modern science seems to favor only those processes (and their respective formulas) that will render long ages of time in order to satisfy popular evolutionary assumptions.

However, in spite of the selective prejudice that is employed in determining ages, even the results obtained from these biased dating procedures are often erroneous and embarrassing for those who rely so heavily upon them.  Oftentimes, materials that are known to be very young will give test results that indicate they are extremely old, while other materials that are historically known to be very old are calculated to be relatively new.  In fact, modern radioactive dating methods can be so erratic and unreliable that they are not considered to be the most preferential method for determining correct ages of rocks and fossils.  Indeed, they are used very often but their results are considered to be meaningless by scientists if they do not correspond with the assigned ages of index fossils in the strata of the geological column.4

Fossil dating is the ultimate scientifically accepted method for determining the ages of rocks and fossils.  If the other dating methods give different ages than the fossil record indicates, the fossil record determination is usually preferred and all other results are discounted.  Now, what is really amazing is that the entire process for dating in accordance with the fossil record is built entirely upon circular reasoning.  Ironically, the one method that is accepted by the scientific community is based upon unscientific development.

The entire process of fossil dating was built upon the theory of evolution and it was initially developed when the patriarchs of evolution examined the strata of a few select geographical locations.  At these locations, the different layers of sedimentary rock contained numerous fossils of many different types and species.  And, as far as animal life is concerned, the simpler, less mobile sea animals were contained in the bottom layers, while the more complex and mobile land creatures were found in the upper layers.  Because of this finding a specific order of evolutionary progression was established from the order contained in the layers of sedimentary rock.  Some layers contained an abundance of certain extinct species; therefore, these fossilized species were called index fossils and, it is the index fossils that are most frequently used for establishing the ages of rocks.5

The theory of evolution needed vast epochs of time in order to be feasible; therefore, the evolutionists surmised that the fossil record showed a progressive upward development of life that may have taken billions of years to achieve.  The different species were then arbitrarily assigned to a particular era based upon their position in the geological column.

With our modern techniques of excavating, it is now known that the geologic column is not in the same order all over the world.  (This fact will be elaborated upon a little later in this section).  However, in spite of the discrepancies in the fossil order around the world, modern evolutionists and geologists still use the same basic order of index fossil dating that was established by the early evolutionists.

This brings us to the great circle of reasoning that is employed when dating rocks and fossils.  Here is an illustration of how it works:  If an evolutionist discovers a rock containing the fossil of a dinosaur bone, he might give the specimen to a geologist for further analysis.  Then, if the evolutionist is asked to prove that his dinosaur bone is at least 70 million years old (as he claims it is) he will say that the age of the rock that contained the bone was determined to be at least 70 million years old by a competent geologist.  Now, if the geologist is later asked how he determined the rock to be at least 70 million years old, he will probably state that since it contains a dinosaur bone, it has to be at least 70 million years old because dinosaurs became extinct about 70 million years ago. It sounds absurd but this practice has actually occurred when rocks and fossils are dated6 because modern geology incorporates the assumed ages of index fossils into its system for dating rocks

Radioactive Clocks 


Rocks cannot accurately be dated by any physical characteristic or appearance because rocks of all types are found in different orders or “ages” of the geologic column.7 There are many young rocks that have the outward appearance of being very old, just as there are many old rocks that appear to be young.  Therefore, the only other means for dating rocks and fossils involves using the radiometric methods and these are considered to be inferior to the fossil dating method described above.  Some of the radiometric methods include carbon 14 dating, potassium argon, rubidium strontium, and various uranium methods.

Of these, carbon 14 is probably the most widely known.  Carbon 14 is the radioactive isotope of natural carbon (C-12).  It is formed in the upper atmosphere through reactions between nitrogen 14 and cosmic radiation. Few people realize that the carbon 14 dating method can only be used for dating materials that were once living organisms because all living things contain various amounts of carbon and theoretically there is a balance between natural carbon and carbon 14 within plants and animals.  Now, whenever an organism dies, it ceases to exchange carbon and this theoretical balance between C-l2 and C-14 slowly begins to change because the carbon 14 begins to decay after it is formed; while the amount of natural carbon remains the same.  Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 years which means that if a plant or animal dies today, in 5,730 years it will have one half the amount of carbon 14 that was present at death.  Then, in an additional 5,730 years, it will have 1/2 of the 1/2 or 1/4 of the original amount.  This steady rate of decay continues and the ratio of carbon 14 to natural carbon continues to change as time goes on.8 Therefore, by determining the ratio of carbon 14 to natural carbon, the approximate age of the once-living material can be calculated.

There are several problems with radio carbon dating that most people are unaware of.  One of these problems is that carbon 14 dating cannot accurately be used for establishing ages of more than 50,000 years.9 This is because after 50,000 years of decay, there is only about 1/400th of the original amount of carbon 14 and smaller amounts cannot be measured with any consistent degree of reliability. Therefore, whenever an evolutionist states that a bone of some type has been dated at 70 million years, he has not arrived at this date through the carbon 14 dating process, but rather through fossil dating or one of the other inferior methods for dating the actual rocks that contained the bone.

Another problem with carbon 14 dating is that the whole mathematical equation is based upon the assumption that the rate of formation of carbon 14 in the upper atmosphere is equal to the rate of decay.  This assumption is made because it would only take about 30,000 years for this equilibrium between production and decay to be established.  And, since the originator of this dating method based his formula upon the evolutionary assumption that the earth is much older than 30,000 years, it was naturally assumed that the production and decay rates must be at a steady state.

However, recent measurements have indicated that the natural production rate exceeds the rate of decay by as much as 25%.10 Evolutionists claim that this discrepancy must be due to inaccurate measurements because the earth is “obviously older than 30,000 years.”  However, repeated measurements have indicated that the production rate exceeds the rate of decay by, in some cases, as much as 38%.  Therefore, based upon these findings, our atmosphere would be calculated to be no more than 10,000 years old.11 So, the standard equilibrium formula for determining carbon 14 ages needs to be revised to accommodate this non-equilibrium state of carbon 14 formation and decay.  When this is done, we find that both the equilibrium and the new non-equilibrium equations will render almost identical ages for materials that date back to 3000 years old.12 However, from this point on, the ages start to vary drastically between the two equations.  This is interesting to note because the reliability of the standard carbon 14 dating method has been historically checked with a considerable degree of accuracy only within the past 3,000 years or so.

Another problem with carbon 14 dating is that all living systems are not in equilibrium for carbon 14 exchange.  Because of this, the tissues from living animals have been known to indicate ages up to 3,000 years old.  For example, the shells of living Mollusks have been dated at 2,300 years old by this method; live penguins have rendered ages of 3,000 years old; and recently killed seals have given ages of 1,000 years old.13

The other common dating methods, such as uranium-lead, rubidium strontium, and potassium-argon, are used for determining the ages of rocks rather than organic materials.  However, their track record is even worse than that of carbon 14 because these methods will, more often than not, each render different results when used to date the exact same material. All of these other radiometric methods are based upon the fact that certain substances will slowly decay and change into other substances known as “daughter products,” at steady measurable rates.  In other words, uranium decays into various isotopes of lead, potassium decays into argon 40, and rubidium 87 into strontium 87 at determinable rates.

Unfortunately, all of these methods are based upon some very unscientific assumptions.  The first erroneous assumption in testing a rock for age is to assume that all of the daughter products present in a given sample were, at one time, parent products within the same sample.  In other words, all of the lead present in a system is presumed to have come from the original uranium within the rock specimen when it was first formed.  Likewise, all of the argon present in a particular sample is assumed to have once been potassium; and all of the strontium is assumed to have been rubidium.  However, there is absolutely no scientific way to determine if this is actually the case because it is a fact that all six products (parent and daughter products) of these three methods can be added to, or taken out of a system through natural processes.  In fact, these products can even be leached in and out of a system by common ground water.14 This makes it virtually impossible to accurately determine an age of a specimen because the ratios between parent and daughter products can be affected by common natural processes.

Of the three methods mentioned, potassium-argon is the most commonly used.  How reliable is the potassium-argon method?  Consider this:  In one experiment, 80% of the potassium found in some meteorite samples was removed by distilled water in just 4½ hours.  Prior to this experiment, the potassium-argon method was used to determine the age of these samples and had revealed that they were more than 50 billion years old.15 This experiment and others like it demonstrate how easy it is to alter the ratio between parent and daughter products which, in turn, will alter the tested age of a material.  Not only does potassium move in and out of a system rather easily (as demonstrated by the meteorite experiment) so does its daughter product argon 40.  Argon 40 is a gas, so it obviously can move out of rock formations without a great amount of difficulty.  This susceptibility to natural alteration is true of all the parent and daughter products of the radiometric dating methods.

There is no such thing as a “closed system” in nature.  And, all of these methods can only be valid if they have been in a closed system - unaffected by any outside sources since they were first formed.  Even if it was somehow possible to know that a rock had been in a completely closed system (which it isn’t) there would still be no way of proving that some of the daughter products were not present when the rock was originally formed.  Why?  Because the scientists were not there when a “5 billion” year old rock was formed; so, they have no way of knowing for sure that there were no daughter products present in the beginning.  Is this an unreasonable qualification?  Not really, because there is evidence which indicates that all daughter products could not have been formed by their parent products.  For example, all of the argon 40 in the world could not have originally been potassium because there is too much of it available.  In fact, even if the earth were 5 billion years old, only l% of the available argon could have possibly been formed from potassium.16

There are also numerous documented cases in which rocks that were known to have been recently formed were calculated to be billions of years old by these radiometric testing methods.  In one case, the Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics conducted a study of submarine basaltic rocks in Hawaii.  The potassium argon dates that were obtained from the lavas of one active volcano indicated a variety of ages that ranged as high as 22 million years old.  The problem with these test results was that the rocks were known to have been formed less than 200 years ago.17 Another volcanic flow which was formed near Hualalai, Hawaii in 1801 gave potassium argon ages that ranged from 160 million years old to 3 billion years old.18 A study was also made of rock samples from 12 volcanoes in Russia and 10 others from around the world, using the conventional radiometric dating methods.  The various ages from these tests ranged from 100 million to 10 billion years old.  However, in each case the rocks were known to have been formed within the past 200 years.19 Obviously, there must have been daughter products already present when these rocks were first formed, otherwise they wouldn’t have indicated such enormous ages.

Another problem with the radioactive dating methods is that they are based upon the uniformitarian assumption that all processes occur at the same rate today as they have in the past.  It is assumed that radioactive decay rates have always been the same throughout history; however, this is not necessarily true, because it is known that radioactive decay rates can be altered by such phenomenon as super nova explosions (exploding stars) and the reversal of the earth’s magnetic field.20 And, it is believed by most scientists that these phenomenon have indeed occurred in the past and thus would have caused radioactive decay rates to change.  If this is the case, then radioactive test results would be meaningless since these methods must assume that decay rates have always been the same.

UPDATE:  The following paragraph was also added to the original work.   

A further piece of damaging evidence to this uniformitarian logic is the recent data that seems to indicate that the speed of light itself has been gradually slowing down.21 These findings are being strongly opposed by evolutionists because, if they are substantiated, the evolutionary scenarios regarding the age of the universe will have to be “thrown out the window.”  Why?  Because projections based upon measurements that have been made during the present and past decades seem to indicate that the speed of light could have been “10 billion times faster at time zero”.22

The radioactive methods are used so frequently to determine ages because their results often indicate great ages of millions and billions of years.  The theory of evolution needs great periods of time to explain the “origin of the species,” which is one reason why these test methods are used in spite of their unreliability.  But, remember, if there is any major discrepancy between a radioactive date and an index fossil date, the radioactive date is discarded, and the circular reasoning of fossil dating remains the final authority for determining age.

There are numerous other natural physical processes that could be used for determining the age of the earth, but, these are often ignored because they do not yield the vast periods of time that the evolutionist so desperately needs.  If uniformitarianism is correct (which it isn’t), and all processes continue at the same rates today as they have in the past, then why not consider a host of other natural processes that could be used for calculating the age of the earth?

A Magnetic Attraction


Consider for example, the earth’s magnet.  The magnetic field of the earth has been carefully observed by scientists for the past 140 years23 and tests revealed that the earth’s magnet has been deteriorating at a relatively rapid rate.  It is known that the magnetic field of the earth has a half-life of 1400 years, which means that 1400 years ago it would have been twice as strong as it is today; 2,800 years ago it would have been four times stronger; 4,200 years ago, eight times stronger; 5,600 years ago, sixteen times stronger; and 7,000 years ago, thirty-two times stronger.  Now, if all processes are occurring today at the same rate as they have in the past, then 10,000 years ago, the earth’s magnet would have been as strong as that of a magnetic star and metallic objects would have been virtually impossible to move.24 Therefore, according to magnetic field measurements, it would be unlikely for the earth to be more than 7,000 years old. 

Does this young age seem improbable? Remember, the same uniformitarian logic was used to arrive at this figure as that which is used in radiometric dating to arrive at the opposite extremes.

Sea Rain


The oceans contain tiny plants called diatoms which form a type of plankton.  These diatoms form protective shells that settle to the bottom of the ocean after these organisms die.  The shells are then mixed with other materials that have been carried to the oceans by our river systems and together they form a sediment known as “sea rain.”

Approximately 27.5 billion tons of sediments are being transported to the ocean each year.25 It has been estimated that the ocean already contains about 820 million billion tons of these sediments.26 Therefore, by dividing the total amount of sediments already present in the ocean by the annual transport rate, the age of the ocean is calculated to be about 30 million years old.

Thirty million years is definitely a long time, but it is not even close to the three to five billion year age that evolutionists claim the ocean to be.  This calculation of course, is based upon the evolutionary assumption that all processes are occurring at the same rate now as they have in the past.  However, the creationist believes that the Noahic flood would have been responsible for depositing most of the ocean’s sediments in a very short time because of its catastrophic nature.  Indeed, core samples from the deep ocean sediments indicate that their deposition was rapid and violent rather than gradual.27 Besides, even if the oceans were actually thirty million years old, according to the evolutionary framework, dinosaurs would have already been extinct for 40 million years before the first sediments were deposited on the ocean floor.

Cosmic Dust


There is a constant influx of cosmic dust particles that fall to the earth from outer space and it has been estimated that 14 million tons of this meteoritic material fall to earth each year.28 At this rate, it can be calculated that in five billion years there should be a 182 ft. thick layer of this cosmic dust all over the entire surface of the earth.  Is this the case?  Obviously not; therefore, some evolutionists have tried to explain the absence of this layer by theorizing that this dust could have been mixed into the crust of the earth throughout this long time period.  However, this speculation is highly improbable because cosmic dust contains a proportion of nickel that is about 300 times greater than that of earth’s crust.29 This means that all of the nickel present in the earth’s crust today would have had to come from outer space if the earth really is five billion years old and this is not only improbable, but ludicrous.

Oceanic Elements


The influx of chemical elements into the ocean represents another constant measurable process that could be used to indicate age.  For example, the rivers of the world carry about 750 million pounds of nickel into the ocean each year30 and it is estimated that the ocean contains approximately 7,000 billion total pounds of nickel.  This means that all of the nickel content of the ocean could have been accumulated from the river systems in just 9,000 years according to annual transport rates.31 Furthermore; this figure is also based upon the assumption that the oceans never had any nickel to begin with.

If the earth is five billion years old, then according to annual transport rates, the ocean should contain 555,000 times the amount of nickel that it contains today.  What’s the evolutionary excuse this time?  Some speculate that this nickel may have been precipitated and returned to land through the atmosphere.  However, this idea represents a poor excuse because any precipitated amounts would be relatively small and incapable of accounting for the vast quantities of missing nickel.  Other evolutionists claim that the nickel may have been precipitated out on the ocean bottom.  However, if this were true, there would be 960 pounds of nickel on every square foot of the ocean floor if transportation rates have been the same for five billion years.32

The influx of nickel into the ocean from rivers is not the only process of this type that indicates a relatively young earth.  The influx of many other chemical elements such as uranium, lead, tin, mercury, gold, copper, aluminum, potassium, magnesium, sodium, etc., all indicate a much younger earth than the theory of evolution portrays.

Yes, there are many other measurable processes that yield relatively young ages for our earth.  In fact, the vast majority of all measurable physical processes indicate a relatively young age for planet earth.  And even though the creationist does not totally agree with the evolutionist doctrine of uniformitarianism, it is ironic that the creationist can use that very doctrine to show evidence for a relatively young earth by calculating measurements based upon the classic uniformitarian assumption that the “present is the key to the past." (By Robert Linkey)

NOTE: It is important to remember that the few examples cited above were written about 30 years ago. They were cited to show examples of how “uniformitarian” assumptions can be used to also show that the earth is relatively young by calculating observable and measureable physical processes. Since the time of this writing, the theory of evolution has been “evolving” and now includes more catastrophic events to explain many anomalies with some convincing scientific data. However, for every creationist viewpoint of the past that is now called into question and mocked by the scientific community, there are a dozen others that cannot be reasonably explained by the evolutionist.


One of the best books available that concisely, and yet thoroughly, explains and illustrates the “mountains" of evidence supporting creation- while exposing the many fallacies that are believed by most evolutionists - is a book called: “In the Beginning – Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood.” This book was written by Dr. Walt Brown (mentioned previously in this chapter) and it is consistently updated and revised to address recent arguments and evaluate recent discoveries. Dr Brown is brilliant and he has presented an ongoing offer to debate any person or team of evolutionists in writing over this issue: “Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution?” To participate, the lead evolutionist must hold a doctorate in either applied or basic science and the debate must be in writing and publishable. The debate also has to be strictly scientific and must avoid religion.33


To date, Dr. Brown has had no takers even though this has become one of the most controversial topics in many of our school systems. The excuses that have been made to avoid such a debate are very weak and shallow (Dr. Brown documents some of them in his book.) In one case he had an evolutionist agree to the debate and then the person later decided not to participate if he couldn’t bring up religion in the debate.34 There are occasionally a few derogatory comments made about Dr. Brown on the internet and accusations that he is the one who refuses to debate. These comments are lies. He will only refuse to debate if his opponent wants religion to become part of the debate. (Imagine that, wanting a scientific debate based upon scientific facts only and not religion?)


Dr. Brown will also agree to a recorded phone debate in classrooms as long as the debate can be heard by the class. In this case, the student or teacher does not have to hold a doctorate in basic or applied science to participate. A link to Dr. Brown’s website and book will be provided at the end of this book.  


The Truth:



“Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.” (Genesis 2:1,2)


The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.” (Psalm 19:1)




Proverb of the Week

Watch over your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life. (Proverbs 4:23 NASB)

Psalm of the Week

I will lift up my eyes to the mountains; from where shall my help come?My help comes from the Lord, Who made heaven and earth.He will not allow your foot to slip; He who keeps you will not slumber.Behold, He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade on your right hand.The sun will not smite you by day, nor the moon by night.The Lord will protect you from all evil; He will keep your soul.The Lord will guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and forever. (Psalm 121 NASB)

Thank You for Visiting This Page. Please Share the "Good News" with Others!

Best Free Book about God Navigation 

Is the Bible Truth or Myth?       Is Jesus God, Man or Both?         Is Jesus Dead or Alive?
Is Jesus Coming Back Again?      Is God Cruel or Loving?             Is the Gospel even Real?
Is Heaven Attained by Works?   Many Pathways to Heaven?      Is the Bible Against Science?
Evolution Improves with Time?    Fossils Prove Evolution?           Missing Link Ape-Men?
Origin of Life by Chance?           Reference & Note Section     Bible Truth or Myth? Synopsis
Jesus God Man Both? Synopsis  Jesus Dead or Alive? Synopsis  Jesus Coming Again? Synopsis
Is God Cruel or Loving? Synopsis    Is the Gospel Real? Synopsis  Heaven by Works? Synopsis
Many Paths to Heaven? Synopsis Bible v Science? Synopsis Evolution Improves Life?Synopsis
Fossils Prove Evolution? Synopsis  Missing Link Ape-Men? Synopsis Life by Chance? Synopsis

Table of Contents         Contact the Author          Other Recommended Study Resources
"Lies & Deception" Main Website 

Website Builder