Evolutionists have had their knickers in a knot since Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, announced his intention to build a state-of-the-art, 27-million-dollar creation museum in Northern Kentucky near the Cincinnati Airport. It was opened in May of 2007 as knees began jerking in every secular university in America—left ones of course. Those evolutionists (believers in freedom, fairness, equality, and civility) did their best to kill the very ambitious project.

The necessary funds were given by generous Christians and no tax dollars were used to keep their doors open. That can’t be said about thousands of other museums across the nation. The typical U.S. museum derives “just over 24 percent of its operating revenue” from local, state, and federal sources. Most of them are non-profit so they don’t pay any property taxes nor do they pay any taxes on their revenue.

The Creation Museum did get some concessions from the county as a quid pro quo for bringing millions of tourists to the area.

God haters, evolutionists, and general commentators tried to excel each other in their negative comments about the creation museum. One called it “Ken Ham’s fabulous fake museum,” while another dubbed it the “Fred and Wilma Flintstone Museum.” Of course, Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education, had to add her two cents calling it the “Creationist Disneyland.” Eugenie is an avowed atheist whom I debated on the “Pat Buchanan Show” while promoting my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? During that show, Pat and I applied enormous pressure and she reluctantly admitted the slight possibility of a supernatural Being. She may deny her confession but I have it on tape. I hope that revelation doesn’t cause her to lose membership in the American Association of Atheists.

Others were positive in their assessment. Jonathan Gitlin said the museum’s displays were “on a par with the better modern museums I’ve been to.” He added that the museum was “designed for a fundamentalist Christian crowd” and was “no friend to those who do not hold to its creationist tenets,” also containing “what can only be described as a house of horrors about the dangers of abortion and drugs and the devil’s music.”

Ham and his crowd were not fearful that the truth might offend someone. After all, if children are taught that they are only advanced animals then why not act like animals? But some will argue that that is indoctrination but then does anyone suggest that evolution is not indoctrination?

Another critic called the museum “an impressive and sophisticated visual argument on behalf of young Earth creationism and a highly politicized fundamentalism.” Hemant Mehta said that the “layout at the Creation Museum really is beautiful. However, the quality of information is worthless, which makes the ‘museum’ nothing more than an expensive way to confuse and indoctrinate children.” Mehta is a flaming atheist and hater of the Creation Museum.

Whatever the critics may think of the museum, the taxpayers in Northern Kentucky seem to be pleased. In 2015, the Creation Museum and AiG were recognized on the Cincinnati Enquirer’s list of top 100 workplaces in the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky region. The assessment was made based on a confidential survey of employees conducted by an independent research firm.

We visited the museum recently and were delighted at the accuracy of the content and the class with which it was done. That may be the reason for the left’s antagonism, anger, and attacks: evolutionists would not be so belligerent if the museum were done in a shoddy way with mediocre displays, misspelled words, and gaudiness. The critics simply can’t abide Fundamentalists or Evangelicals with class.

Ham and his crew tell the story of life starting with the Seven C’s of History: creation, corruption, catastrophe, confusion, Christ, cross, and consummation. The accompanying displays support that story based on true science and the Bible.

I have not seen any critic attempt to disprove the museum’s message since they cannot do so. They do attack the museum with arrogance, anger, and absurdity since they don’t have the answer to evolution’s major problems.

In various debates, I have asked evolutionists some questions and have not had any answers. Wonder why. It is rather simple. There are some hurdles that evolutionists can’t jump and when they occasionally try, they trip over them. In fact, they usually don’t even try. My simple questions:

• Tell us that you do or do not believe the unsupportable, unscientific, and unlikely—even outrageous teaching that nothing created everything. I promise not to laugh out loud–maybe only a snicker or two. And don’t try to flimflam common people with scientific jargon, but make your points in clear English. Do you really believe that nothing created something and something created everything?

• Tell us how all the natural functions such as gravity, inertia, the First and Second Laws, laws of planetary motion, etc., began. How does a natural function evolve? If they did not evolve, where did they come from?

• Did the formation of those natural functions (now identified as scientific laws) precede or follow the Big Bang? What was the facilitator?

• Can you provide any example of an explosion resulting in order?

• Tell us how life first formed on a planet made up entirely of rock. All atheists want to sit down beside Darwin’s warm, little pond and watch the first forms of life but I demand we go back much further than that.

• Do you, or do you not, believe in spontaneous generation? No honest, informed scientist will agree to that irrational fable!

• Where are the ancestors of insects?

• Explain the Cambrian Explosion: why do all the fossils in the lower level of the Geologic Column appear in their final form with no fossils indicating a transition from lower to higher creatures?

• Why are meteorites not found in ancient rocks? Could it be because the universe is not that old?

• Tell us how men and women evolved at the same time in history at the same location? What if “early man” had been all male?

• Which evolved first, the mouth, the stomach, the digestive system, or the elimination system? What good is a mouth if there is no stomach or a digestive system and what good are the three without an elimination system?

It would be interesting to have an evolutionary “expert” (anyone with a briefcase, a goatee, a cheap suit, and tenure) to provide answers to the above.

But I won’t hold my breath.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Often a person is accused of racism when he appears to be winning an argument with a Liberal or Progressive. A false accusation is easier to make than a factual argument.

A definition of racism is “hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.” Note that one is not a racist because one does not like particular music or movies or humor, or politics. One is not necessarily a racist because he believes forced bussing to other neighborhoods, affirmative action, welfare, and other demonstrative fiascos are a farce, a fallacy, and a failure.

Of course, everyone knows the term is often used by deceived, always desperate, and usually duplicitous people when they are confronted with the truth. However, racism is real and is common for every race and group in the world and for some to declare that only Whites can be racists is surely a joke. No sane person would take such a position since it can be disproved by watching television or reading a newspaper any day. Racists have their own television shows and racist journalists (of all hues) gather around the talking tables all over the channels.

Unpleasant, unnatural, ubiquitous racism is very real and a plague upon the world but what is the basis for racism?

The Scientific American (April 5, 2011) reported on a study that purports to prove that prejudice comes from our evolutionary past based on a study done on Cayo Santiago known as Monkey Island. Well, I’d rather blame bigotry and racism on monkeys than white men; however, the evolutionists must first support their myth of molecules-to-monkeys-to-men (or goo-to-you) evolution before trying to prove the basis of racism.

They have failed to do this.

Racism is not simply disagreeing with a person of another race or even not liking that person, after all, all groups have some unlikeable people. Can I not dislike someone without hating him or thinking he is inferior to me? If people believe that everyone is created in the image of God and is greatly loved by God, then there are no “inferior races” and can be no racism.

Some races appear to have more specific abilities than others as Asians seen to have a natural ability with math and science or could it be they usually work harder at it? Does the overwhelming preponderance of Blacks in professional sports have anything to do with natural ability? With Blacks comprising about 13% of our population, black athletes account for about 75% of players in the National Basketball Association and more than 70% of professional football players. What is the explanation?

Most of the sprinters who run less than 10 seconds are of West African descent. Moreover, it is known that people of West African descent have ACTN3 protein or “speed gene” that is almost always necessary for top level sprinting. Why don’t Whites have that gene?

Some will conclude that minorities excel in physical activities but fail when mental acumen is required. In 2007, Nobel Prize-winning geneticist James Watson ignited controversy when he suggested that Blacks were less intelligent than Whites. I am not qualified to speak on that subject in depth but Watson is not necessarily a racist because of his scientific conclusions. He might be a racist but it is not supported by his scientific deductions.

But, it does take mental ability to learn the game rules and know the plays so lack of mental ability is not reasonable. Moreover, Derek R. Smart’s Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the US 2014, a publication of the American Medical Association revealed there were more black neurologists (411) and black cardiologists (690) than Blacks playing in the NBA which was 350 in 2012. However, while that is good to know, it does not change the fact that far more Blacks than Whites hold lucrative positions in professional sports.

The numbers tell an incredible story proving that there are few Whites in the NBA according to The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. That group reported that the NBA had 81.7% people of color (while being only 13% of our population) during the 2015-2016 season.

Is the huge disproportion in the number of Whites to Blacks in the NBA because of racism or do the minorities work harder at the game? We know it isn’t racism because basketball is a business and the basis of business demands you have the most competent players—whatever race or color. So, if the reason for the few Whites in professional sports is not racism, is it possible it is because some minorities have natural abilities not possessed by most Whites?

If Blacks have a natural ability to be very successful in physical and athletic events is it racist to suggest they have more natural ability to sing and dance?

Is it racist to ask that question?

Theologians of all kinds have taught the Fall of Man as the beginning of all the problems common to all races. Racism is normal, but abhorrent, to the human race. Psychology Today (January 19, 2018) reported that “some evolutionary psychologists” believe that to be true. While most psychologists don’t believe the biblical account, they seem to support the consequences of that account.

The results are about the same: theologians say men are fallen creatures therefore do appalling things but evolutionists and other humanists say men have inherited bad genes therefore do terrible things. Same results but different roots.

Science (Feb. 7, 2012) reports on a study that suggests that prejudice is programmed into our genes and that racism is essentially a holdover from ancient history “when humans lived in tribes and it made sense to view outsiders with hostility and fear.”

We are told that early in man’s history there were groups living in the same area that had to compete for limited resources so they resented other races or groups that posed a threat to their existence. After all, man’s main driving impulse is his will to survive. Evolutionary psychologist, Steven Pinker, has suggested that “chronic raiding and feuding characterize life in a state of nature.”

Some psychologists teach that early man’s genes adapted to protect their future. Of course, the theologians have a much better argument than the psychologists—man is naturally evil and will do evil things, i.e., racial hatred because he is evil. Men are not evil because they do evil things; they do evil things because they are evil. It’s a part of their nature as humans.

This is declaring that people are born defective (not by genes but by inherited sin) therefore there is a need to correct the flawed birth by a second birth. Theologians point to John 3 where Jesus said, “Yet must be born again.” He said that because the normal, first birth is always defective.

Racism, like all undesirable human characteristics, is innate to every person on earth and must be mitigated by biblical teaching such as treating others the way we want to be treated. That would eliminate all racism, all sexual aggression, and all wars.

Modern racism comes from the devotees of evolution—pseudo-scientists and fanatical religious followers of Charles Darwin—an apostate preacher with no scientific education. He failed medical school and ended up in the ministry which was the standard operating procedure for dull or unmotivated middle and upper class English males in the 19th century.

But that’s another column for another day.

The origin of racism goes back to the Garden of Eden when mankind chose to disobey God and that rebellion has been passed to every human heart. That is why redemption is required of everyone.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

They also refused to do a review of my book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! Can’t imagine why.

The same paper permitted a local Muslim to accuse Cal Thomas of bigotry comparing him to Jew-haters in Nazi Germany! What chutzpa! A Muslim “spokesperson” accusing a highly respected and talented Christian journalist of bigotry! That’s like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath! I wrote in defense of Cal but the editors refused to publish it.

Later, they ran a cartoon showing an “Evangelical Zealot” standing on the chest of a hapless and helpless Muslim as the “zealot” crams “Fundamentalist Christian Dogma” down his throat? For those who did not understand the cartoon, the heading informed readers the gist of it was “Converting the Muslims.” Again, I came to the defense of Truth but the editors refused to make a correction.

I called the editors and publishers and challenged them pointing out historical truth but they refused to budge. One editor did admit that the cartoon was a mistake but evidently, they didn’t have enough paper and ink to permit me to write a correction! It was a matter of courage or lack thereof.

ABC News commissioned me to write an article for their website dealing with creation and evolution since there had been much coverage dealing with the subject in various journals. Evolutionists had been hammered and major university professors had begun to ask embarrassing questions making evolutionists uneasy. Consequently, major journals cranked out hysterical propaganda pieces to do damage control for the Americans United for Separation for Church and State (who recently had their annual meeting in a New Jersey telephone booth), PAW, National Center for Science Education, ACLU, and assorted atheists, agnostics, and associates who bow before the idol of evolutionary science.

Galloping to the rescue of beleaguered evolutionists came Time, Newsweek, USA Today, New York Times, and others spouting untrue, unfair, unscientific drivel to con the gullible public into believing the humbuggery of evolution and that those who advocate creationism are Bible thumping fanatics. (I almost never thump my Bible and when I do, it is not really hard.)

Evolutionists trotted out weary accusations against creationists, implying all are “Fundamentalists” (gasp!), always denigrating them, often suggesting a belief in a flat earth! Really desperate evolutionists even suggested that we carry a bag of rattlesnakes to church each Sunday! I am shocked, shocked that educated scientists would stoop so low. This is further proof, if it is needed, that many scientists are asinine, arrogant, and audacious bigots in defending their religious philosophy called evolution. Of course, bigots are as easy to find in a secular university as a bowling ball in a bathtub.

With the above vicious libel of creationists, ABC News, after commissioning me to write an anti-evolution piece for their website, refused to use it because I was “too militant!” No, I was too accurate and had too much sting. They wanted a mild piece so they could point to it and say, “See, we are balanced. We provided a forum for the other side.” But they did not want a challenge to the evolutionary myth.

Evolutionists must never be presented as fools, fanatics, fakers, and frauds but creationists can be presented as inept, incompetent, and insane! That is dishonest and the major media moguls wonder why they have been abandoned by thinking people! Even an Oxford professor can understand the reason.

But the censorship continued.

I wrote the editor of Pulpit Helps, a major Christian publication with which most preachers are familiar. My concern was with a review done by the editor about a book of sermons by Martin Luther King, Jr. I enclosed a column that dealt with King that they could publish providing some fairness and balance. They refused to publish my column. The correspondence was very revealing and by no means unusual:

To the Editor:

I just read your message to me regarding Martin Luther King, Jr., and of course, we can disagree about King. I have fought for that privilege (to disagree) in Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism for 35 years.

However, I am surprised and amazed and somewhat disappointed that Pulpit Helps would be fearful of facing the truth of any matter. It is one thing for secular journals to worship at the shine of political correctness and another for Christian magazines to do so.

You mentioned that you were in high school when King was killed so you have grown up in an atmosphere where King has been idolized and almost beyond scrutiny especially in the public schools and the media.

You wrote, “I wanted to view King’s life in a balanced perspective and have an accurate view of him as a man, civil rights leader, and preacher.” You surely must be kidding! You did not do that in your review. Did you have “balance” in your review when every word was positive? You wanted accuracy when you praised his preaching and never mentioned his heresy! I assume that your reading of King was very limited; maybe only to the book you were reviewing!

You also wrote, “Neither do I agree with those who demonize him.” Is telling the truth demonizing him? You know, I believe between the two of us, I have a much more balanced, fair, and accurate view of King. I think some good came from some of his work while enormous harm also resulted. Unlike many conservatives and many haters, I think King was right in the bus boycott and I believe that because Blacks should have equal rights to public facilities (since they pay taxes) as do Whites. Blacks should not have been subjected to back of the bus status and colored water fountains. However, private businesses are something else altogether! The government has no authority (power yes, authority no) to tell a private businessman how he must run his business. But of course, that is another issue.

You said, “Since the piece in Pulpit Helps was a book review and not an article we will not print your submitted article.” Of course, that is a classic cop-out! Surely, Pulpit Helps is interested in balance, truth, and accuracy.

You did not deal with the various criticisms of King in my article. Please note that your book review dealt with King’s preaching. While you might like the particular book you reviewed, surely you were obligated to reveal to your readers that the book did not reflect King’s preaching and his beliefs. King was a life-long Liberal who rejected the virgin birth, deity, and resurrection of Christ. Do you take the position that one can reject those doctrines and be a Christian? If so, you have removed yourself from mainline, orthodox Christianity!

Remember that the Apostle of Love in his second epistle told us not to even bid one God speed if he did not hold to the doctrine of Christ. Do you disagree with John or do you disregard John? And to disregard means to disobey! It seems you are more impressed with the writings of King than you are of John! At this point, you are defending King and disobeying John! King often spoke publicly to radio and television audiences of Christ and “faith” but never did he challenge men to place faith in the propitiatory work of Christ to experience personal salvation! He did not because he did not believe that was essential for one to have eternal life. I assume you and the folks at Pulpit Helps do believe it.

You did not deal with King’s many adulterous affairs as he admitted to Parade magazine. How can you do a book review of such a man without one word of caution, without one word of suggestion to readers that further research might be helpful? And to emulate his life would be disastrous.

Do you think the fact that King was murdered wipes out the many sins in his life? Do you think that because Blacks were mistreated during that period, that fact somehow excuses his sins? Are you suggesting that because he made some positive contributions, his doctrinal errors and his wicked life should be overlooked?

Does King get special treatment because he was black or because he was murdered or because he was a preacher? What drives you and others to give him the “kid glove” treatment? Why not treat him fairly, honestly, and accurately? Why do you and others seem to have a mission to protect King’s image? Why not tell the truth as you do, I assume, in other matters? Question: If David Duke wrote a book that was true, fantastic, a classic and an incredible contribution to American literature, would you review it without mentioning that he was a former KKK member? I think not.

Another question: Bill Clinton writes a classic bestseller. Not one paragraph in it that any honest, fair, and informed person disagrees with. Would your review be totally positive without mentioning that he had been a moral leper, had been impeached by the House, had lied under oath, and had sold or given valuable information to the Chinese Communists, etc.?

Brother, why not treat people like people, not as white, black, rich, or poor? Just people. Why make decisions based on how you and the magazine will be perceived rather than on the merits of the case? Does truth matter anymore?

You refused to deal with King’s thievery of his Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University and many of his other writings that were plagiarized from others without even a suggestion of giving credit. If you did not know about that, it is inexcusable. If you did know about it and refused to mention it in your review, that too was inexcusable.

You did not even try to deal with King’s love affair with Communist Party functionaries during his very public life. Note that he was not simply involved with Communists but with Party activists! He hired many Communists to run various field offices and even refused to fire them when he was told by his politically sensitive friends that such action would be wise. Your selective quote of his regarding Communism does not cancel his ardor for the Communist Party members with whom he climbed into bed.

King was a Black opportunist who used people: Blacks, Whites, union leaders, the media, etc., to further his own cause. You have helped perpetuate his false image by burning incense to him with your book review. I am disappointed in Pulpit Helps not being willing to stand for Scriptural truth regarding separation from doctrinal error as well as separation from personal immorality.

Sincerely,

Don Boys, Ph.D.

Christ said that He was the Truth so how can anyone, claiming to know Him, be careless with the truth?

Censorship is alive and well in America.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position.

In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is science while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

Science means to know and systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, speculate, etc., but they don’t know. Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted, and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rush to defend Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

World famous scientist G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.” Neither creationism nor evolution can be observed or tested.

Need I remind my readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.

Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it supports evolution. It does not.

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.”

World famous paleontologist Colin Patterson agreed saying, “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Not one.

All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart! Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been discarded and is considered a phantom and illusion because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can’t be counted on being a horse then of course we’ve got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.

Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig’s tooth, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired “ape man.” Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact as compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as some evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden, wrote, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary…thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.” He went on to say, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He also said, “Evolution is ‘anti-science.'” And so it is.

Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism as speculation, based on faith, similar to theories of little green men, dead, effectively dead, very flimsy, incoherent, and a myth. Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don’t need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire. Nevertheless, our public school textbooks and teachers, even up to most colleges and some universities, are not up to date on current thought. Did you get that–current “thought”?

I have assumed that the three college professors are familiar with all the world famous scientists I quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.

So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.

Those college professors were correct in stating that Darwin’s book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. So a book about origins does not deal with the beginning of life!

Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?

And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the nonexistent ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin, and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what’s a few million lives to be concerned about?

I don’t have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.

Evolution is a guess, a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith? And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don’t we? Or do we?

Sorry, professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is taught as well.

Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published this week by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here. An eBook edition is also available.

There are only four possibilities as to how the universe got here: First, it created itself, but surely no sane person believes that. Think that possibility through. How could something that doesn’t exist, create itself? A person who takes that position has not drunk long from the well of learning. In fact, he hasn’t even gargled! One main reason this first suggestion is not true is because it conflicts with the First Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law says that there is no new material or energy being created. It can be redirected but nothing can be added to the existing supply, so the first possibility is an impossibility!

The second possibility is that the universe has always been here! How about that? With that suggestion, the evolutionists wiggled around many problems with the first suggestion. The universe was not created by God or by itself. It has always been here! This second possibility is not possible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law, which no evolutionist argues with, says that everything is running down. The Second Law screams disease, decay, degeneration, and death. So if the universe has always been here, it would repeal the Second Law.

The third possibility is that the universe is not here! Everything is an illusion! This possibility was suggested by ancient Greeks as they sat around their saunas. (Those guys spent too much time in steam rooms and it boiled their brains.) They suggested, “Hey, maybe we are wasting our time discussing how the universe got here. Maybe it isn’t here! We only think it’s here. We only think we’re here.” Of course, that possibility is contrary to the Law of Common Sense.

The fourth and last possibility as to the origin of the universe is–God did it! That’s it. Search out the great thinkers of the present and past and you will not arrive at any other possibility as to the origin of the universe. When sane people reject the first three “possibilities,” they are left with the fourth one: God created it! And if God created the universe, He could have (and did) create man. Evolutionists scream like a stuck pig when we bring God into the discussion, but if that’s how it happened, that’s how it happened. Sorry about that guys, but you are stuck with it.

In every talk show I’ve done on the subject, evolutionists have asserted “creationism is religion and evolution is science.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost. Both evolution and creation are based on faith as informed, honest scientists admit; therefore students should be exposed to both. It’s incredible that Christian parents are taxed to promote a scientific teaching that is contrary to science and their religious beliefs!

It is a fact that thousands of qualified scientists don’t believe Darwin’s gradualism as taught in schools. Many others have many doubts about its validity qualifying for the moniker of, Darwin Doubters. And most evolutionists get apoplexy when we remind them of that fact! I’ll remind them since I like to see evolutionists sweat and squirm, and they don’t sweat and squirm with grace.

Dr. Soren Lovetrup, scientist from Sweden, said, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He added that evolution is “anti-science,” and is “false.” Scientists, who don’t know Lovetrup, should be driving trucks, not defending the farce, fakery, foolishness, and fraud of evolution.

World famous astronomer Fred Hoyle said, “The speculations of the Origin of Species turned out to be wrong,” The most respected French scientist Pierre Grasse called Darwinian evolution, “a pseudo-science.” A. E. Wilder-Smith, with three earned doctorates in science, said evolution is “impossible.” Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creationists.

Dr. H.S. Lipson, an agnostic physicist, admitted, “I think…the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” He further added, “To my mind, the theory [evolution] does not stand up at all.” No, but it’s being propped up at every secular university in America–with taxpayers’ money!

Fossil expert, Stephen Gould wrote: “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.” Darwin even agreed with that! No informed evolutionist appeals to the fossil record to support his philosophy of origins. When he does so, he places himself in the category of flat-earthers, phrenologists, astrologers, and snake handlers.

After evolutionists admit they made fools of themselves with the fossil record, they should admit they cannot explain: the answers to the beginning of life; the Cambrian explosion; design of the universe; the absence of transitional fossils; the anomalies in the geologic column; why evolution suddenly stopped; how males and females evolved at the same location and time in history; where the scientific laws came from (how does a “law” evolve?) and did they come before or after the “big bang”? Furthermore, what was the catalyst for the big bang? And where did the cosmic egg (that allegedly exploded) come from? Maybe the cosmic chicken laid it?

After those answers we’ll discuss how evolution can be true, being in conflict with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and various other scientific laws. We’ll also discuss frauds perpetrated by scientists to prop up their cockamamie theory.

It is a fact that Chuck Darwin, not a trained scientist, but an apostate preacher, fired a blank when he fired a shot heard around the world, and evolutionists are still cocking and firing that same gun.

Evolutionists are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that isn’t there! So sad. No student is educated if he doesn’t know both sides of the issue.

It’s also a fact that my critics always refuse to deal with these facts.

(Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published this week by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here. An eBook edition is also available.)

ABC News commissioned me to write an article for their website on the evolutionary controversy when state school districts were considering a balanced presentation of origins. I wrote the article, and then rewrote it to conform to their space guidelines, but it never showed up on their website. I was told that it was “too militant,” and the readers couldn’t comprehend it! Isn’t that interesting? I pointed out that famous evolutionists have called Creationists “kooky,” “yahoos,” “stupid,” “liars,” “not to be trusted in any way,” “ignorant,” “insane,” and a “gang of ignorant crackpots.” Yet, I’m too militant!

Yes, I am militant, mad, but not malicious; after all, this a war, but the problem is that I put the evolutionists on the spot! And, of course, the media elite are, for the most part, evolutionists, so I am attacking them when I attack evolution. They don’t have answers so they suck their thumbs and whine about creationists being militant and unfair! Their accusing a Creationist of being unfair is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath!

I pointed out that ABC News could have asked me to “tone it down” a bit since they don’t like militancy unless it is from screaming feminists, radical Blacks or homosexual activists. The fact is, as I told my ABC contact, the network is guilty of suppression, if not official censorship! Bigotry! Intolerance! Gasp! Is it possible for ABC to be guilty of such atrocious sins?

About the same time I had my differences with ABC, a letter from a university professor was published in USA Today that had to be dealt with in the interest of fairness, reasonableness, and balance. But the “nation’s newspaper” was not interested in fairness, reasonableness, and balance. They refused to publish my reply. Surprise, surprise, surprise! It is interesting that USA Today paid me for eight years to write columns for them on various subjects but they refused to publish this pro-creation, anti-evolution piece for free! I’m not sure there is a connection but have you noticed that since I refused to write anymore for them, the paper has become almost like one of the weekly give-aways? (OK, just a little self-serving, but an interesting observation.)

Creationists are often called “Bible-thumpers” but I seldom thump my Bible. Well, now and then a few thumps, but not really hard ones. What ABC and USA Today don’t want is to put evolutionists on the spot. The paper did publish an excellent column but it did not deal with the scientific reasons to reject evolution. It could not do so in less than 600 words, but they can say, “Hey, we published a rebuttal to the evolutionist.” That is devious, deceptive, and dishonest; but it is standard operating procedure for the secular media.

The professor’s letter in USA Today seemed to reveal that he had not read anything on the subject of creation/evolution in the last 25 years! The average layman is not expected to be aware of the scientific literature, but it is outrageous for a college professor, who takes it upon himself to speak to the issue, to be so uninformed.

The professor relied on hyperbole to convince the uninformed that his philosophy/religion (not science since it doesn’t meet the definition of science) of evolution is a fact. He compared evolution to gravity, which exposed his desperation. Then he said that evolution is not controversial among mainstream scientists and “among most of the general population.” John must be living in a cave!

Why should creationism be taught in schools? Because that’s the way man arrived on the planet! Creationists believe a sovereign God created everything out of nothing, while most evolutionists and atheists believe nothing created everything out of nothing! Or, nothing became something and something became everything! I choose to believe, “In the beginning, God created….” I choose to believe that because Scripture and science support that fact.

Some facts: The People for the American Way admitted that most Americans want both evolution and creationism taught in public schools. Huffington Post reported that only 15% of Americans believe that man arrived on this planet through evolution without God having any part of the process. The remaining 85% believed in creationism or God-directed evolution. A recent poll asked, “Since the universe has organization, I think there is a Creator who designed it.” More than 72% of Americans agreed!

According to USA Today, scientist Eugenie Scott was appalled that some of our presidential candidates also believe in fairness, reasonableness, and balance. I debated Eugenie at least twice and on Pat Buchanan’s radio show where she admitted that God could have created the universe!

Well, that was a huge concession for an avid evolutionist, and most evolutionists will not willingly go to the origins issue. They have to be pushed there. They want to jump over “billions of years” to Darwin’s mythical “warm, little pond.” Well, I’m ready wade in that pond of which there is not a shred of evidence but I first want to know where the pond came from! Where did the earth come from? What about the universe? Evolutionists stampede away from that issue as if their hair was on fire!

The media think they are sophisticated even scholarly in promoting evolution; however, they are only proving what most people have known for years: they are incompetent, irresponsible, inept, imbalanced, and insincere.

Additionally, they are the most overpaid people east of Hollywood.

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)

However, Dawkins wrote, “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact.” Nothing to debate! What about the origin of everything? How did “nothing” create something that became everything? How did life first begin on Earth that was solid rock? What about the Cambrian Explosion? What about all the frauds perpetrated by fanatic evolutionists in the last 100 years? What about the now discredited “horse series”? What about the absence of transitional fossils? What about peppered moths? What about the scandal of radiometric dating with the vast inaccuracies and discrepancies? What about the origin of the various laws of “nature”? No, nothing to debate!

The New Atheists throw a hissy when Creationists suggest that belief in the Bible is necessary for a foundation of morality. They maintain that an atheist can be as honest, decent, kind, gracious, etc., as a Bible believing Christian. But then those atheists who are kind, gracious, and honest have been influenced by Bible teaching for a lifetime. For those interested in Dawkins’ integrity they should punch in their computers, “Dawkins stumped.” Because of his deception even fellow atheists have broken with Dawkins. My new book, The God Haters deals with that incident.

To accomplish their desired results, a world without religion, New Atheists deny, denigrate, distort, and seek to destroy anyone who believes God “did it” instead of “nothing did it.” After all, if the Bible is not true then Christians are without a story, succor, or a Savior. With the atheists’ farcical attempt, they prove they are disingenuous, deceptive, and dishonest lowlifes.

Richard Dawkins ran off the rails when he wrote, “there is no good historical evidence that he [Jesus] ever thought he was divine.” Dawkins really stepped in deep doo-doo here. He would have non-thinkers believe that highly intelligent Christian believers willingly went to the stake and to the wild beasts of the arena believing that their Leader was a mere human and remained in the grave! Nonsense! Dawkins is brilliant in his field of biology but out of his field he is dumb as a sack of hair from a barbershop floor.

Jesus said in John 14:9, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.” Also, John 5:58, “Before Abraham was, I am.” In John 10 Christ declared, “I and my Father are one.” Moreover, Dawkins is so uninformed that he doesn’t know that Christ was crucified because of His profession of deity! There is no reason to pile on supporting texts in this regard.

Furthermore, only a sovereign, omnipotent God can forgive sins. The Apostle Paul surely taught Christ’s divinity in I Timothy 3:16, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” I think that settles that.

Dawkins declared that the Gospels are not reliable accounts “of what happened in the history of the real world.” He clearly asserts that they were written “long after the death of Jesus.” He tells us that they were written after Paul’s epistles. I have dealt with this elsewhere but will provide one proof that it is Bible haters who are dishonest or uninformed. Dr. John A. T. Robinson launched the “Death of God” movement (taken from Nietzsche), so he was far from being a conservative; yet, even he confessed that the complete New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70: “One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and cli¬mactic event of the period–the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple–is never once mentioned as a past fact.” It is impressive when a major enemy confirms the validity of your belief!

The destruction of Jerusalem and the most magnificent Temple in the world is not mentioned in the New Testament books because they were written before that world-shattering event! Dawkins and his New Atheist comrades are wrong; probably intentionally wrong.

Then Dawkins takes a hatchet to Luke’s Gospel, where he deals with the birth of Christ, claiming that there was a local census but not one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Roman world. Therefore, the Bible is unreliable. No, it is Dawkins who is unreliable. Augustus decreed three empire censuses during his 40-year rule. Dawkins asks, “Do these people never open the book that they believe is the literal truth? Why don’t they notice those glaring contradictions?” Those “contradictions” are not glaring contradictions and Dawkins makes a fool of himself by using anti-biblical arguments that have been answered for hundreds of years.

He says “rapture Christians” yearn for nuclear war since it (“this Armageddon”) will bring on the Second Coming of Christ. In my entire ministry I have never met one per¬son who yearned for Armageddon nor have I met one who believed that that great battle will hasten Christ’s return to rapture His saints. The battle of Armageddon does not precede the Rapture of the saints but the Revelation of Christ; however, Dawkins evidently has never heard of the two aspects of Christ’s coming. Dawkins is much more reliable with bugs than with the Bible. What Dawkins knows about the Bible would fit into the navel of a flea.

I document scores of Dawkins’ and his fellow-atheists’ mistakes in my book, The God Haters: Angry Atheists, Shallow Scholars, Silly Scientists, Embattled Evolutionists, and Pagan Preachers Declare War Against Christians! It is shocking, startling, and surprising that scholars would be so careless, clueless, and crazy to make so many mistakes in their polemic against God. It seems these people who call themselves the “brights” (as opposed to us dims!) are more evangelistic in their hatred of a God “who doesn’t exist” than those of us who believe in Him with all our hearts, minds, and souls!

New Atheists would say that they are trying to set the record straight and correct everyone’s false thinking; however, they don’t believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Peter Pan, and the Tooth Fairy yet they haven’t mounted a crusade against those iconic figures. Dawkins and his buddies know the aforementioned characters don’t exist but they know God does, hence their declaration of war against Him.

Their war is a lost cause.

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here . An eBook edition is also available.)

Evolution, while perhaps being conceivable, has not been confirmed and never will be. But most evolutionists are not interested in testing the gradualism of Darwin but rather in protecting their dubious hypothesis. You can imagine the academic chaos if most scholars would admit that evolution never happened!

World famous scientists Sir Fred Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe admitted, “The general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth.” One chapter in their book is titled, “The evolutionary record leaks like a sieve,” and they provide a long list of biological objections to evolution, then claim, “These conclusions dispose of Darwin.” But not for the fanatics in their ivory towers and news rooms.

What would it do to every secular university science faculty if creationism were accepted and evolution proved a fraud? Evolutionists would finally be recognized as unscholarly, unwanted, and unnecessary. And maybe they would become unemployed! They would fall into the same category as flat-earthers, phrenologists, astrologers and snake handlers! (That is exactly my attitude toward the soothsayers of science.)

The museums of the world would have to make some major changes in their displays and propaganda. Their pitchmen would have to memorize new “facts” for their canned speeches.

Public schools would have to retrain their science teachers, and most of their science films and textbooks would have to be destroyed.

Bigoted judges who have ruled in favor of the myth-tellers would feel the sting of public embarrassment and join the ranks of the unemployed. Most likely, they would simply open up shop as attorneys and that’s what we really need–more attorneys!

With evolution in disfavor, scientists would no longer seek to confirm the theory of evolution (now presumed to be a fact before beginning an investigation!), and they could get on with the business of true science. Scientists would no longer see only what is “respectable and acceptable,” and would look at the evidence, making judgments based on that evidence even if it contradicted popular theory. They would decide that truth is more important than denigrating, denying, and denouncing Creationists.

Clergymen and theologians would sheepishly have to apologize to their followers for leading them into the swamps of theistic evolution, day-age theory, gap theory, and other unscriptural nonsense. Such religious leaders might once again preach that the Bible is reliable in toto as Creationists have been saying for many years.

Publishers of evolutionary tripe would, well, go out of business or start publishing New Age ranting, oriental religious musings, or the sexual fantasies of the latest pop star. Or, better yet, Barack Obama’s Things I Did to Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize qualifying as the shortest book in literary history.

I can see an assortment of prestigious scientists, clergymen, professors, publishers, film makers, media personalities, and others holding a televised news conference where they apologize profusely to the youth of the world for teaching fraud, falsehood, fakery, and foolishness while calling it fact. Many of the mainline media would have to apologize to Carson and other Christians who declare that “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

Now, a word of advice: Don’t hold your breath for that news conference to take place. It won’t, because many evolutionists are vain, venal, and venomous people. They are especially venomous when dealing with or discussing Creationists. If you don’t think so then read what the number one atheist/evolutionist in the free world Richard Dawkins declares. He foams at the mouth in his hatred for God and wiping away the foam he wrote, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homo-phobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” He adds that the God of the Old Testament was “an evil monster.”

Dawkins is so acrimonious, angry, and abhorrent that some honest atheists are ashamed to be identified with him as I document in my just published book, The God Haters.

Dawkins is dishonest in that he misstates and mischaracterizes Christian beliefs in order to take a shot, but then he usually fires a blank as when he declared that if you really take the Bible seriously, you will “strictly observe the Sabbath and think it just and proper to execute anyone who chose not to.” He knows that is an outrageous lie but he continues to parrot it and is too lazy or incompetent to correct it. Or he is too dishonest to admit his lie. Take your choice: lazy, incompetent, or dishonest. Has to be one of the three.

Dawkins, like most New Atheists and many evolutionists, is a brash, boastful, bully who needs to find a new way to make a living–confusing young minds is not a principled thing but it is profitable.

Dawkins and most evolutionists will not admit that evolution is a fraud since that is their claim to fame and their meal ticket. The demise of evolution would move them from their ivory towers to the unemployment lines and a repudiation of their life’s work. They are interested in promoting myths, not correcting them. They won’t even try to correct the enduring myth (started by Washington Irving’s best seller about Columbus in 1828) that almost everyone believed the Earth was flat until Galileo. Scholars and the general public knew the world was a sphere long before the birth of Christ! However, most schools, public and Christian, still teach Irving’s myth today!

Principle would also require atheists to refuse any further book royalties and that they will not do. When evolution is dead the gravy train stops and evolutionists will have to look for work!

(Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published Oct. 14 by Barbwire Books and to get your copy click here.  An eBook edition is also available.)

Dawkins appears to be an immature child who must have public exposure even if it means walking around without any trousers. You know, everyone knows that he can’t help himself. So he comes up with senseless statements now and then so the media will turn the spotlight on him. He gets another brief 15 minutes of fame then runs back to his ivory tower where he rolls up in a ball, sucks his thumb and whines about those evil young earth Creationists.

Dawkins took to Twitter last week to declare that, though he makes it a habit not to hate ideological opponents, there’s an exception when it comes to young earth creationists. He opined, “I said I’d never despise individuals, just their views,” Dawkins added, “But there are limits, and YE Creationists who refuse to look at evidence pass mine.”

Richard, while professing to be a scientist willing to look at every side of an issue, refuses to look at the case for a young earth! But then, even if one is convinced of an ancient earth, that in no way supports the silly molecules-to-mollusks-to moles-to monkeys-to man evolution. Or irreverently put: goo-to-you evolution.

Evolutionists pretend that they are the “experts.” That’s anyone with a briefcase, slicked down hair, a goatee, and tenure. However, there are thousands of highly trained scientists who believe evolution is a farce, a fraud, and a falsehood while others voice major concern about it being a fact. But that embarrasses evolutionists and makes them uncomfortable. How can an education person not believe in evolution?

One does not have to believe in a young Earth to be a Christian but Christians should take the biblical position on everything. Origins of the Universe and the Earth are very important. We don’t need to trust in radiometric dating or even natural “clocks” to determine whether the Earth is young or old. The Bible is very clear on that issue but that’s another column.

Some thoughts concerning a young earth:

Rabid evolutionists have determined the earth is about 4.5 billion years old as supported, according to the myth, by fossils and radiometric dating. However, in my new eBook, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? I dealt with the mistakes, uncertainties, ambiguities, contradictions, and general unreliability of radiometric dating of fossils. The dates produced by many modern methods are often dates that are called “scientifically correct” but are embarrassingly inaccurate!

It is a fact that the radioactive ages of lava beds laid down within a few weeks of each other differ by millions of years for which evolutionists have no answer.

Geologist Dr. Henry Faul (who specialized in dating rocks) wrote concerning one of those “reliable” dating methods–uranium dating: “…widely diverging ages can be measured on samples from the same spot.” Different dates from the same spot! That fact was confirmed by Joan C. Engels, in the Journal of Geology: “It is now well known that K-Ar [potassium-argon] ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant.” That’s about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost!

Fredreck B. Jeaneman declared in Industrial Research and Development, “this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [the dinosaur age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” Oops, that means a major segment of evolutionary teaching could be an error.

Curt Teichert admitted in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, “At present, no coherent picture of the history of the earth could be built on the basis of radioactive datings.” But inflexible, incoherent, and insecure evolutionists keep trying–without success.

The Great Barrier Reef is not millions of years old but less than 4,200 years old. That later date is ascertained because we know the growth rate for the last 25 years.

Geologists know that each stratum of sedimentary rock laid on top of each other shows no signs of erosion as they were allegedly laid down over “millions” of years. Everyone knows that exposure of stratum over millions of years would have resulted in massive erosion. However, the record shows the opposite. That is because “millions of years” is a myth. The strata were laid during and after the Flood so there was no time for erosion.

Another indication of a young Earth are large trees (which pass vertically through several rock layers) that could not have stood upright for millions of years without rotting while they were slowly buried. Those polystrate fossils were buried during and following the Flood.

Massive, thick layers of “rock” bent almost double without fracturing, indicate that the rock was soft when bent and no doubt happened following the Flood of Noah. Firm strata will break but they will never bend except in the evolutionary textbooks.

There are many other natural proofs of a young earth such as rather quick stalactite and stalagmite formation; red blood cells found in dinosaur fossils that are allegedly more than 65 million years old; the petrification of wood in a few years; the small amount of sodium in the ocean; the small amount of sediment in the Gulf of Mexico; the small amount of top soil all over the earth; the shrinking of the Sun indicates that if the Earth were ancient, it would have touched the Earth in only twenty million years; the number of people on Earth indicate a young Earth; and on and on and on.

Evolution is founded, not on science, but on distortions, myths, poor scholarship, circular reasoning, faulty premises, and a generous dose of wishful thinking. In plain English, it is pure quackery but none dare call it quackery!

You can stand with the atheists/evolutionists if you want as they belch their kooky, pseudo-scientific nonsense but I plan to continue standing with the One who created the Earth “in the beginning.”

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY  Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”

Leakey’s Skull 1470 was initially dated at Cambridge Laboratory (England) with the potassium-argon method. The first date was 221 million years, but it was rejected because it didn’t fit the evolutionary scenario. Further testing produced dates from 2.4 to 2.6 million years. Leakey could accept that date since it was closer to his evolutionary teaching although he preferred a younger date. (Many millions of years difference in those dates and the first date!) After more tests they got another date of 1.8 million years from the University of California, Berkeley. Now, that’s more like it. That date fits their fairy tale! Isn’t it interesting how they can adjust their “science” to fit their philosophy? And did you notice that a bone finder can “shop around” at various testing agencies to get the date he wants? Leakey now accepts a date of about 2 million years.

The testing on Skull 1470 produced dates ranging from 290,000 years to 221 million years. Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe. You take your choice. Now you can understand why some have described the potassium-argon clock as being a clock without hands–without even a face.

It is interesting that radiometric dating laboratories require that all samples to be “dated” must be identified as to their location in the geological column! After all, the testers need to know what date the “finder” will accept. Approximately 8 out of 10 specimens (“dates”) are discarded by radiometric dating labs because they are well out of range of age they “ought to be” considering their location in the geological column. The geological strata date always has priority over any modern dating system. The testers have even asked, “What date do you think is reasonable?” Isn’t science grand? But none dare call it quackery.

I’m thrilled that Creationists don’t have to depend on such dubious, distorted, dishonest nonsense to know about our world. One does not have to believe in a young Earth to be a Christian but Christians should take the biblical position on everything. Origins of the Universe and the Earth are very important. We don’t need to trust in radiometric dating or even natural “clocks” to determine whether the Earth is young or old. The Bible is very clear on that issue.

Bible expositors tell us that the word “day” in Genesis can also mean a long period of time. They are right and they are wrong. The first meaning of “day” is the time between the rising and setting of the sun. The days in Mesopotamia were not named but numbered except for the 7th day, the Sabbath. The word for day is used 2355 times in the Old Testament and when used figuratively it always is defined by an associated term such as the day of judgment, the day of adversity, etc.

Whenever “evening” and “morning” are used in the Old Testament, they always refer to normal, 24-hour days; however critics triumphantly sneer that there could be no day and night without the sun! But day and night don’t depend on the sun but upon the existence of light. Gen. 1:3 reveals that God created the light. So there was light in addition to and preceding the creation of the sun. So, with light and the newly created Earth, there would be a “day” and a “night” as the Earth rotated. How could God have made it any clearer?

Hebrew scholars agree with creationists concerning the literal days of Genesis. Professor James Barr, a renowned Hebrew scholar and Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University, said in a personal letter, “So far as I know there is no Professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1 through 11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story; (c) Noah’s flood [not the movie Noah] was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.” So Hebrew experts stand with Creationists, not evolutionists!

Genesis 2:13 tells us that God “rested” on the seventh day after concluding His six days of creation. Now, did God “rest” a day or a billion years? And if it was a billion years, then how does that become a legitimate symbol for the Hebrews taking the seventh day as their Sabbath as God instructed them in Exodus 20:10-11? No sane person suggests that the Jews rested an “age” but a single day. If God rested an indeterminate age then maybe God is still resting; however, John 5:17 tells us that God is still working! Twisting the Bible like a pretzel is not wise or productive or safe.

Furthermore, Adam was created on the sixth day, and lived in the garden the remainder of that day, then he lived through the seventh day, and was driven out of the garden days or months later. Did he live through parts of three or more different geological ages? If so, he would have lived at least five hundred thousand years! Now they lived a long time in those days, but not that long!

But there are other reasons the days in Genesis 1 were literal 24-hour days. On the third day God created grass, herbs, and trees, and every student knows that plants discharge life-giving oxygen and absorb poisonous carbon dioxide. The oxygen discharged by the plants is used by animals and people who then throw off carbon dioxide that is used by the plants! Did that symbiotic relationship happen accidently?

However, if the days were really ages, the plants could not have lived without carbon dioxide since animals were not created until the fifth day. Furthermore, grass and trees (created on the third day) could not grow without the sun, and the sun did not shine until the fourth day. Did the world spin millions of years without sunlight? There is the additional problem of flowers that were created on day three having to wait long ages until insects were created so the flowers could be pollinated. If the day was an age, the flowers, grass, and trees could not have lived, so the days must have been literal 24-hour days.

In Mark 10:6, Jesus was discussing marriage and divorce with the Pharisees when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” Here Christ makes it clear that men have been on the earth “from the beginning.” Since Christ declared that Adam was “from the beginning” it must mean that the Earth is about 6,000 years old since the Bible genealogies support that fact. It’s a matter of math. So Bible believers need nothing else to support a young Earth.

You can stand with the atheist/evolutionists if you want as they belch their kooky nonsense but I plan to continue standing with the One who made the Earth “in the beginning.”

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”