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.

The charge is often made that Christians were always soft on slavery, but that is a slander. Slavery was practiced in Old Testament times; however, it was worldwide, mainly because of almost constant wars. What few know is that slavery in Israel was not severe; it fact, it was illegal to mistreat a “slave.” The slave was really an indentured servant who was to be treated like one of the family! Any mistreatment and the servant would go free. In fact, a “slave” could walk over to a neighbor’s property and leave his slavery! However, many American Christians, especially in the South, taught that slavery was permitted and sanctioned in the Bible. They were wrong and it is a blight, especially on Methodist and Baptist slaveholders of that era, because of that sin.

Moreover, as early as the first century, the Essenes (one of the three major Jewish sects of that period) prohibited slavery according to A Manual of Church History. Josephus records that Essenes existed in large numbers and thousands lived throughout Judea.

The Greek philosopher, Aristotle, thought that slavery was a natural thing and that human beings came in two types: slaves and non-slaves. Therefore, it was natural for some to rule and others to be ruled. Slaves were simply property to be used as advantageously as possible. That was in the “golden age” of Greece when pederasty, infanticide, and discerning the future by looking at the entrails of a chicken were popular! Golden age indeed!

Christianity began to change all that as it influenced a broad spectrum of the world: princes and  paupers; educated and ignorant; lords and serfs; and Christians and heathen.

Christians have often been accused of being anti-science; however, such claims are made by ignorant or bigoted men. Dr. Rodney Stark, a professor of sociology and comparative religion, states in his For the Glory of God, “The leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries overwhelmingly were devout Christians who believed it was their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork.” Without the work of Bible-believing scientists such as Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestly, and others the world would not be nearly what it is today.

Michael Faraday was a scientist and evangelical Christian whose pioneering work changed the modern world in that he helped give us electricity and was the founder of the Greenwich Observatory.

Johann Kepler, an active Christian and creationist was best known for his laws of planetary motion. He was a mathematical genius who made contributions to the Copernican concepts and for his own additions to astronomy. His work provided a foundation for Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation.

Isaac Newton was reared in a Christian home and went to the university primarily with the purpose of entering the Christian ministry. Instead, he discovered universal gravity.

Joseph Priestly was an 18th-century English theologian, natural philosopher, chemist, and author of 150 books. He was identified with the English dissenters during the religious confrontations. He has historically been credited with the discovery of oxygen.

John Locke was reared in a Puritan home, a fact reflected in his writing and political positions and Emmanuel Kant had his roots deep in the pietist foundations.

Kenneth Latourette in his classic A History of the Expansion of Christianity, reveals, “From it (the Christian church) sprang peace societies, societies for the abolition of slavery, organizations for the betterment of the condition of the laboring classes, temperance societies, hospitals, orphanages, societies for the distribution of wholesome literature, and thousands of schools.”

Christian leaders started and helped fund schools for infants and cripples, rescue homes, help for the poor, the sick, and the mentally abnormal, service for discharged prisoners and the families of prisoners, lodging houses, clubs for apprentices, and campaigns against beggary, drunkenness, and prostitution.

Pastor Theodore Fliedner in Kaiserswerth inaugurated a home for discharged women convicts and influenced Florence Nightingale who went on to create the modern nursing profession.

Anthony Ashley Cooper grew up in a moderately religious home but became a Christian because of his childhood nurse. As a member of the English Parliament, he strongly advocated better treatment of the insane, legislation that improved working conditions in mills and factories, and limiting the working day to ten hours. His work led to the barring of boys under thirteen and women from the mines, protection for chimney sweeps, and an act which brought improved housing conditions.

Missionary followers of Jesus are credited with stopping cannibalism and head hunting in many primitive societies.

The influence of Jesus on society via music, art, architecture, and literature is impossible to quantify.

Because Christ was born, we have literature by such Christian writers as Bunyan, Dante, Chaucer, Donne, Dostoevsky, Dickens, Milton, and Shakespeare. Regarding Shakespeare, William Burgess in his The Bible in Shakespeare wrote, “it is seen that Shakespeare drank so deeply from the wells of Scripture that one may say, without any straining of the evidence, without the Bible Shakespeare could not be.”

Had Jesus never been born, music would not be comparable to what we experience. Handel, Vivaldi, and Bach were professing Christians who worked to honor God with their work. Bach, for example, signed all his works with Soli Deo Gloria or “Solely to the glory of God.”

Many of the art productions would be absent without the Christian-themed artistry of da Vinci, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, and countless others.

And think of all the incredible architecture through the years. Especially noteworthy are the beautiful cathedrals in Europe. I am not an advocate of Roman Catholicism but they built the most incredible cathedrals in the world.

Christians don’t claim that the U.S. Constitution is overtly Christian, but no informed person doubts that its basis comes from biblical teaching. Our civil laws are obviously based on the Ten Commandments. Also, the incredible principle of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches is taken directly from Isaiah 33:22. Requiring at least two witnesses to a crime comes directly from the Bible. At least 50 of the 55 signers of the U.S. Constitution were orthodox Christians.

Private property rights are sourced in the commandments, “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet.”

Cynics and critics can criticize Christianity that has failed at times to live what it professes, but they have no valid complaint against Christ. His life, death, and resurrection have made a greater impact on the world than any other person who ever lived. He sure has changed the world and made it infinitely better.

Has He changed you?

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

R.R. Palmer, a major historian from Yale, wrote, “It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the coming of Christianity. It brought with it, for one thing, an altogether new sense of human life. For the Greeks had shown man his mind; but the Christians showed him his soul. They taught that in the sight of God, all souls were equal, that every human life was sacrosanct and inviolate. Where the Greeks had identified the beautiful and the good, had thought ugliness to be bad, had shrunk from disease and imperfection and from everything misshapen, horrible, and repulsive, the Christian sought out the diseased, the crippled, the mutilated, to give them help. Love, for the ancient Greek, was never quite distinguished from Venus. For the Christians held that God was love, it took on deep overtones of sacrifice and compassion.”

Christmas is obviously more about changing lives (and society) than toys, trees, and tinsel.

Following Constantine’s “conversion” in A.D. 325, the churches especially in the West, built and maintained hospitals, hospices for travelers, and houses for orphans, widows, and the indigent. The churches were the only group that the poor could look to as the Empire was crumbling. In fact, the Church in Rome supported fifteen hundred widows and virgins, as well as those ill in inns, prisoners, and many of the poor. A number of hospitals were founded by rich Christians in various cities.

At the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, the bishops were told to establish hospices (a place for travelers to rest) in every city that had a cathedral–which was the major town in a parish where the bishop lived and ruled! The first hospital was built by St. Basil in Caesarea in A.D. 369. Christian hospitals (the only kind) covered all of Europe and even beyond by the Middle Ages. In fact, it is said that Christian hospitals were the world’s first voluntary charitable institutions. Note that the atheists and agnostics did not build hospitals and other charitable organizations.

Historians note that charitable organizations are almost unknown in the ancient world until after the time of Christ.

Monasteries in the early days of Christianity generated the copying of Scripture and other literature, especially from Greece, and their libraries provided the inspiration for the first universities in the twelfth and thirteenth century.

Kenneth Latourette declared in his classic seven volumes A History of the Expansion of Christianity, “After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Church, impelled by its Christian purpose, had become the schoolmaster of Western Europe and the tutor of the barbarian of the North. Under its auspices most of the universities of the Middle Ages had arisen.”

The notion of public education first came from the Protestant Reformers who taught male and female of all classes. In America, the first law to require education of the masses was passed by the Puritans. The law was called The Old Deluder Satan Act. Furthermore, the rise of the modern university is largely the result of Christian educational endeavors. And in 1910, America had 403 educational institutions of college grade under Protestant or Baptist sponsorship. All but one of the first 123 colleges in colonial America were Christian institutions. America’s university system emerged from the American seminaries: Princeton headed by John Witherspoon and Yale headed by Timothy Dwight.

Christianity changed the rules of behavior and produced a middle class not known to mankind. It had always been the rich and poor, the elite and the serfs. But with Christ who was a carpenter and Paul who was a tent-maker, physical labor was now respectable and no longer limited to slaves and serfs. There was honor in all work and workers were to be treated fairly. All ethnic groups would be respected since all people were created by God. Laziness and idleness were seen as sinful. “If any would not work, neither should he eat” was an admonition by the Apostle Paul. Thus, work was seen as an honorable and God-given calling. That helped produce a vibrant middle class.

The free world owes much to non-conformist Christianity with its emphasis on freedom of thought and liberty for everyone. It taught people to question the established church and legal systems. One of the first mass leaders of men was John Ball, a free preacher without a parish or pulpit but with plenty of pull. He was the first leader of a mass revolt in 1381 and had great influence preaching the doctrines of Bible translator John Wycliffe.

John Wesley (died 1790) was not only a great Methodist preacher but fought against bribery, smuggling, the plundering of wrecked vessels, and general corruption of politics. He worked hard to relieve poverty and started missions to prisoners. He was a pioneer in prison reform. Before 1500, very few had attempted any prison reform. He was called, “the best loved man in England.”

James Oglethorpe, John Howard, Robert Raikes, John Oberlin, William Wilberforce, and scores of other Christian leaders made an astounding impact on Europe and the world.

Without a doubt, this carpenter from a hick town in Galilee changed the world as no other person who ever lived.

He also changed me.

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.

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.)

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.)

“But,” say some sincere Christians, “everyone knows the Earth is billions of years old.” How do we know that? Genesis surely does not indicate an old age for the Earth, and neither does science. We have been brainwashed through our education, the media, and our associates and have purchased another gold brick sold by thumb-sucking liberals.

“Well,” says another “isn’t it possible that God could have created the world over a long period of time?” Of course it is possible, and even if one admitted it was also probable, that wouldn’t make it true. God could have done it any way He wanted, but the evidence and the Bible clearly indicate a young Earth.

According to a group of mathematicians, all of whom were evolutionists, it would have taken not five billion years for man to evolve but billions of times longer! So they need even more time for their myth. Of course, the age of the Earth has been increased by scientists for many years to mold current thinking to fit their implausible story. In Darwin’s day, the Earth was only 100 million years old, but now we are told it is at least 4.5 billion years old!

The estimated ages for an ancient Earth are usually based on “clocks” that are unreliable, uncalibrated, and unknowable. A good example is the coral growth rates that were thought to require hundreds of thousands of years, but now it is believed that no coral formation need be over 3,500 years old! There are many such proofs of a young Earth, yet blind evolutionists keep demanding an old Earth.

Similar to coral formations, stalactite and stalagmite formations in caves are said to take long ages to form proving the Earth is ancient; but now we know that the evidence is specious, and such growth can form in only a few years. The cave guides can prate on and on about the “ancient” formations, but the evidence refutes their canned spiel.

A curtain of stalactites, some five feet in length, grows from the foundation ceiling beneath the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. The memorial was built in 1923, so those stalactites have been produced in less than a hundred years!

Further evidence of non-uniformitarianism relating to stalagmites is found in the Carlsbad (NM) Caverns where a bat was found encased inside a stalagmite! That is impossible if many years are necessary to form stalagmites and stalactites because the bat would have decayed or been eaten by predators in a very short period of time. Looks as if we have to discard another “clock” used by evolutionists to prove an ancient Earth.

The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old and that 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 show no signs of erosion as they were 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 stratums 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 through several rock layers vertically) that could not have stood upright for millions of years without rotting while they were slowly buried. These polystrate fossils were buried during the Flood.

Thick layers of “rock” bent without fracturing, indicate that the rock was soft when bent and no doubt happened following the Flood of Noah. Firm strata will break but it will not bend except in the evolutionary textbooks.

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bones but that’s impossible. Not even the most fanatical evolutionist declares that bones can lie in strata for 65 million years and still be “fresh.” So, obviously those dinosaur bones were not millions of years old.

Moreover, evolutionists told us that it takes thousands or maybe millions of years for wood to petrify but now we know that wood can petrify in less than a hundred years!

We have been taught that oil was produced deep in the Earth about 25,000,000 years ago; however, high grade oil has been produced out of cow manure in a laboratory in twenty minutes! And there goes another one!

The Earth can’t be almost five billion years old because the rivers of the world have been constantly carrying sodium to the ocean, and if the world were 4.5 billion years old, there would be much more sodium in the ocean than there is!

Studies have been done to chart the volume and rate of sediment accumulation in the Mississippi delta, and that area could not be much older than 4,000 years! The age is found by dividing the weight of sediments deposited yearly into the total weight of the delta. If the Earth were only a few million years old, the Gulf of Mexico would be full of sediment!

The oldest living things on Earth, according to the American Forestry Association, are the bristlecone pines that grow on the White Mountains of California. They are at least 4,600 years old, no doubt having sprung up from seeds soon after the Flood. Again, an indication of a young Earth. And if the world is ancient, there should be trees much older than 5,000 years.

There is an average 7 or 8 inches of top soil that sustains all of life on the Earth, while the Earth beneath the top soil is as dead as the moon. Scientists tell us that the combination of plants, bacterial decay and erosion will produce six inches of top soil in 5,000 to 20,000 years. If the Earth had been here for 5 billion years, we should have much more top soil than the 7 or 8 inches.

Newspapers in March of 1980 reported that the sun’s diameter appears to have been decreasing by about one-tenth percent per century. That means the sun is shrinking about five feet per hour, and that’s no problem if you are a Creationist. But, you have big trouble if you are an evolutionist!

Dennis Petersen aptly addressed this problem: “If the sun existed only 100,000 years ago it would have been double its present diameter. And only twenty million years ago the surface of the sun would be touching the Earth.” (Emphasis his.) But then we know that didn’t happen, don’t we? Obviously the Earth and the universe are very young.

We are told that man has been on the Earth one million years, but the population does not reflect that age. There would not be enough room for people to stand if the population grew at the same rate as the Jewish people, a reasonable standard. The Jews started with Jacob about 3,700 years ago, and there are 14,000,000 Jews in the world today. So, assuming 2.4 children per family, and a life-span of 43 years, the world would be packed with people if man had been on the Earth only one million years. That is considering the almost perpetual malice, mistreatment and murder of Jews.

Make no mistake, evolutionists must have an ancient Earth or their house of cards comes
tumbling down, so they have influenced, inculcated, and indoctrinated many people with their “billions of years.” They made an assumption and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Assumptions are necessary in science; however, facts must be added to support or refute an assumption. Evolution is a belief system; in fact, it is a very religious system!

While evolutionists prate on and on about the ages of the rocks, we Creationists will stand firmly on the Rock of Ages.

It’s a young world after all!

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!”

Most evolutionists teach that the planet is about 4.5 billion years old based on radiometric dating. However, that is not reliable. The problem is that scientists now believe that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought; moreover, they are not immune to environmental influences. So, as 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 is a myth.

Yet, most people think that “scientific” dating methods have definitely established an age for the Earth as being at least 4.5 billion years old. These methods are supposed to be very sophisticated and reliable. Yet, 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 means to disagree! That’s about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti–almost!

Moreover, when a fossil is dated by different radiometric dating methods, it is common to get vastly different results! Radiocarbon [Carbon-14] is the best known dating method but scientists admit it can’t be reliable past 50,000 years and it can only date items that were alive in the past. If you ever see a scientist on a television program holding an igneous rock in his hand saying, “We know by carbon-14 dating that this rock is four and a half billion years old,” you can be sure that he has in his head what he’s holding in his hand.

Dating expert Robert E. Lee further warned about radiocarbon dating in the Anthropological Journal of Canada when he admitted: “The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radio-carbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation….It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. …No matter how ‘useful’ it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.” (Emphasis added.) It seems evolutionists have made a guessing game out of the dating game.

Note that half of the dates are rejected and there are “gross discrepancies.” Question: how could any evolutionist speak with authority regarding dating without blushing? Should you believe him? Surely some healthy skepticism is required!

Science magazine declared, “Although it was hailed as the answer to the prehistorians’ prayer when it was first announced, there has been increasing disillusion with the [radiocarbon] method because of the chronological uncertainties, in some cases absurdities, that follow strict adherence to the published Carbon 14 dates.” My, my, “uncertainties” and “absurdities”!

Here is a devastating fact from a meeting of Nobel Prize winners in Uppsala, Sweden. They admitted, “If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out-of-date,’ we just drop it.” I could rest my case (but I won’t) on the new “reliable” methods of dating and the dishonesty of many evolutionists who talk endlessly of “billions of years.”

The same dishonesty happens in America as R. L. Mauger of East Carolina University wrote about modern dating in Contributions To Geology: “In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are the discrepancies fully explained.” Hummm.

William D. Stansfield, Professor of Biological Sciences at the California Polytechnic State University, believes that the Earth is billions of years old but acknowledges the dating problems. He wrote in The Science of Evolution: “It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’” What an admission!

We laughed at the Queen in Alice in Wonderland who declared that she “sometimes believed in six impossible things before breakfast.” Evolutionists “outbelieve” her easily regarding impossible things. They are using a broken clock to support their broken theory of Goo-to-You evolution.

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!”

All creationists and all thinking people (but then I repeat myself) have always believed that “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” That is settled; however, when the universe and Earth were created has not been settled for many people. Was it billions of years ago or less than 10,000 years ago? That is the question and it is a fact that most Americans believe in a young universe and Earth but almost half do not.

In Matt. 19 Christ said that man was made at “the beginning.” So, no matter what the myth-makers in their ivory towers declare, whenever the beginning was, man was there. That fact alone negates all kinds of evolution! That settles the origins issue for believers but now we must convince the weak, the wavering, and the wrong souls that the Earth is young.

A recent column by one of my favorite columnists, Lord Monckton at World Net Daily declared, “One should no longer believe that a bishop [Archbishop Ussher] was correct in calculating that the world began 6,000 years ago.” (Famous historian Josephus believed the same as Ussher!) Even some creationists accept the columnist’s erroneous conclusion. What about the science to support an ancient Earth? It is not sufficient to say, “But every sane person knows that the Earth is billions of years old.” After all, in ancient times some men said, “Everyone believes that the world rests on the back of a giant elephant,” (some said a giant turtle) or “Any fool can see that the Earth is flat.”

It seems that few creationists have taken on the highly qualified scientists with counter arguments to demand some answers about the age of the Earth and Universe. I will do so even though my doctorate is not in science.

When discussing the age of the Earth, the ancient-earther always supports his position with modern dating methods, but that dog won’t hunt and can’t hunt because it is crippled in two legs! Modern dating methods are not reliable! It seems necessary for me to declare that rocks and fossils are not found stamped with a date of origin! Their ages are assumed by using various “clocks,” which I will cover in this series. Some of the “clocks” indicate a young age for the Earth. It depends on what “clock” is being used and what assumptions are being made.

While Archbishop Ussher’s Bible dates are not inspired, they are rather accurate when compared to other “clocks.” The fact is the Earth and the universe are very young–not very ancient–much to the consternation of the evolutionists who must have long periods of time to develop their cockamamie story of macro-evolution.

Dr. Stephen Moorbath, an evolutionist associated with the University of Oxford, wrote: No terrestrial rocks closely approaching an age of 4.6 billion years have yet been discovered. The evidence for the age of the earth is circumstantial, being based upon . . . indirect reasoning.” I can assure you that most evolutionists are astute at “indirect reasoning,” and are experts in circular reasoning. Some evolutionists are Professors of Tautology.

Evolutionist Fredreck B. Jeaneman declared: “The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [dinosaur age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.” Wow, that from an evolutionist!

Criticism of modern dating methods continues to grow and many evolutionists run from confusing, comical, and contradictory decay rates like a mythical vampire flees the morning sun! One reason is that fossil rock may be contaminated. Many other contingencies are possible that might affect the date. Furthermore, a “global disaster” would disturb the status of the rocks. Do you think maybe that a worldwide flood qualifies as a “global disaster”? So the world Flood could reset all the radiometric clocks because of the swirling waters, volcanic eruptions, the atmospheric pressure, vast temperature fluctuations, magnetic reversals at the poles, etc., thus producing the long dates evolutionists must have–or get new jobs that might require them to work.

NASA hired the famous John (Jack) Eddy to write a book which enabled him to do research in the great astronomy libraries such as Harvard and the Naval Observatory. He used those facilities to do research on the Maunder Minimum (unexplained period of drastically reduced sunspot activity between 1645 and 1715) and his findings were published in the journal Science as a cover story. National Geographic also documented his work. That public exposure led to radio and television shows and lectures.

At a scientific conference at Louisiana State University Dr. Eddy, an ancient-earther, shocked the audience when he said, “I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.” Another kick in the teeth for evolutionists by an evolutionist!

So, maybe Archbishop Ussher was not nuttier than a Snicker’s Bar after all, but evolutionists are!

(Four more columns will follow dealing with modern dating methods.)

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!”

I hope to prove to thinking people that scientific creationism has better answers for the questions posited by scientists, be they evolutionists or creationists.

Note that the debate title referred to “origins.” However, evolutionists run from that topic as if their hair was on fire. They want to start the creation/evolution discussion at Darwin’s warm mythical pond and focus on non-life becoming life. That’s slime-to-slug-to-sloth-to-scholar evolution, or, expressed another way, molecules-to-monkeys-to man. But I insist on knowing the origin of the universe and how the little pond arrived when nothing existed!

Evolutionists, not wanting to open that can of worms, tell us that cosmology is different from Darwinian evolution. But if words mean anything, origins must deal with origins so how did we get here?

What’s the origin of the universe? There are only four possibilities that explain our presence in the universe: (1) The universe created itself, but then that is contrary to the First Law of thermodynamics that says no new matter is being created, so a well-established scientific law disqualifies that possibility. (2) The universe has always been here, but that is contrary to the Second Law of thermodynamics that says everything is running down and if the universe had always been here, it would have totally unwound and disintegrated. Evolution requires the universe to run up to complexity not down to death. (3) The old Greek notion that the universe is not here. Everything is an illusion! That is contrary to the law of common sense, a law not known to most evolutionists! (4) God did it! Maybe you can guess which one I chose.

That’s it. Most modern evolutionists hold tenaciously to number one hoping that a pushy creationist will not ask them about the First Law. Creationists have the same four possibilities as to origins but they choose number four–God did it. Ockham’s Razor demands that choice!

Another origin problem is the origination of natural laws. Focus on Earth Science, a high school text, tells students that nothing created everything as the natural laws (where did they come from?) were suspended (by whom?). We are told the Big Bang “…represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle–transcending physical principles….” Hey, here’s a scoop: some evolutionists believe in “true miracles”–just not Bible miracles! Of course, no rational person believes nothing created something, anything, or everything. However, evolutionists must believe that since they can’t believe God did it even if He did it! Which He did!

So, natural laws were suspended so the Big Bang could “kick off” this thing called “life,” but when and how and by whom did the natural laws originate? And what power “suspended” those laws? What about the laws of gravity, inertia, First and Second Laws, Laws of Planetary Motion, etc.? Since we are discussing origins, when and by whom did those laws arise? Those laws are here so there had to be a Cause!

Moreover, maybe some evolutionist will inform us how a massive explosion took place and resulted in an incredible universe that runs like a Swiss clock with planets, stars, and moons. Evolution requires a random, haphazard cosmos; instead the universe is orderly, precise, and functional.

After the evolutionist, who must have enormous faith, explains the origin of the universe and the natural laws that no one disavows, I want to know man’s origin! According to evolutionary scientists this globe was at one time rock, so how did plants originate followed by animal life? How did goo-to-you evolution get started? After we nail down evolution from amoeba-to-aardvark-to- astronaut, we can discuss the fossil record, natural selection, mutations, and adaptations.

When we get an explanation for the origin of the universe, the natural laws, and man; we can then look at the physical condition of the earth and see whether evolution or creationism has the better explanation.

One of the greatest mysteries of life is how life appeared abruptly in the Cambrian strata, the lowest level of the geologic column in which are found an abundance of complex fossils! The lower four-fifths of the rock of the earth’s crust are without any signs of life! Then, all at once, life abruptly appears out of nowhere! Maybe, as if it had been created? Evolution requires ancestors but there aren’t any so their model doesn’t work. The creation model works perfectly since all scientists admit that the Cambrian Explosion seems to indicate that the fossils began without precursors.

The physical condition of the earth screams carnage, cataclysm, and change. The strata all over the earth, the sea creatures on mountaintops, the mass burial of land and sea creatures, elephants and whale fossils on mountains all fit with creationism not evolution. By the way, elephants don’t climb mountains and neither do whales!

In the fossil record we see distinct creatures, not the gradual formation and transition from one creature to another as evolution demands. There are changes but never from one species to another. No new information is ever introduced. A dog is always a dog, a cat is always a cat, and a horse is always a horse–of course. Again, creationism is the best model, not evolution.

How does evolution provide the origin of mind/intelligence, meaning, conscience, altruism and morality? It has no answer; however, the creation model provides a concrete, correct, and complete answer.

The main proof of evolution is based on the assumption that evolution is factual but that assumption is a farce, a fraud, a fake, not a fact. Evolution is a cockamamie religion about which we can dicker, discuss, and debate–but it will never be true.

Evolution is a sacred cow that needs to be butchered and made into hamburger. Ken Ham helped in that process and posterity will credit him with changing the world’s perception of creationism.

Good job, Ken.

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!”

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

There was something for both sides in the Ham/Nye Creation-Evolution debate. Both sides got international exposure for their particular positions but Ham won on points although he did not get a grand slam.  Some evolutionists think Nye “ate a Ham sandwich” but they are living in a dream world. 

Nye did not explain why he perceived a Creation scientist would be somehow less productive at creating new innovation.  He did not provide a single demonstration of how the creation scientist is a lesser scientist. Nye claimed children taught creationism would be stunted (fall behind in the world) and the U.S. would fall behind in scientific advancements, but he said nothing to substantiate his claim.  However, Ken provided impressive evidence that creationism does not restrict scientists from being very productive in scientific achievement.

Nye was a fool to agree to the debate location. He was obviously in hostile territory although the crowd was the most disciplined of any debate I have seen or participated in. Nye came across as a cheerleader for education and seemed to enjoy himself even while he was losing the debate! Maybe he was delighted at being on the same stage with a creation scientist! It gave him some credibility! Or possibly he was delighted in making Ham look like a fool–he thought.   

Nye’s reference to his bow tie and his grandfather was totally unnecessary, unsophisticated and proved him unacquainted with appropriateness. Both Bill and Ken appeared to be as uncom-fortable as a dog in hot ashes. That surprises me since Bill’s television experience should have prepared him for any kind of exposure. Of course, his lack of knowledge and the venue would contribute to his discomfort.

Ken’s unease is understandable. He is thoroughly informed but inexperienced in debate. He also seemed to want to appear as “Mr. Nice Guy,” but there has to be some confrontation, even conflict in a debate.  The early Christians were militant in their beliefs and in their confrontation with Caesar. Historian Will Durant admitted that Christ and Caesar met in the arena and Christ won. Christ won because His disciples were militant–not irresponsible, but militant. However, responsible militancy is abhorrent today even to many Fundamentalists, but at one time it was one of their trademarks.    

The debate was supposed to be “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” Ham permitted Nye to take control and direct the debate into another and less important direction. While the age of the earth is very important, that was not the focus. Same with the Flood. That issue is vital; however, how the Ark was constructed and the astronomical number of animals alleged to be on board were not. Origins were not discussed.

Ham could have scored big by providing evidence of a global flood such as major river basins in the world that display evidence of a much higher waterline. Additionally, billions of sea creatures have been found on the tops of the highest mountains and the fact of millions of various animal fossils found buried in the same location in many places of the world. The fact is elephants and lions, and foxes, and sharks don’t go to the same place to die. However, they do if they are being churned around in a violent, catastrophic flood.

Moreover, Ken did not deal with animals leaving the Ark and ending up in Australia. Even without a possible land bridge, scientists are aware of floating land masses. Remember, it was a massive, convulsive, destructive flood and masses of land with various animals could easily have floated to Australia and New Zealand.

Ken could have hit the ball out of the park with the issue of the Grand Canyon. He should have reminded Nye that there are strata missing and other places where recent layers are far below older rock! How can strata be missing? Where did they go? How did they get there? Moreover, how is it scientifically possible for young rocks to be found much lower and under old rocks?

Ken failed in not responding to Nye’s sarcastic question about fish being sinners since they had tumors. That would have been the ideal place for Ken to inform his opponent that the world was at one time perfect when people and animals lived in harmony and no one got cancer. Then came the Fall and the Curse and the Curse was upon all creation so men and fish were subject to the Curse–not because they had individually rebelled against God as did Adam and Eve.

The biggest mistake Ken made was in not devastating Nye with the hammer that he handed Ham. Nye asked if Ham was sure that life can not arrive from non-living matter? Ken should have aggressively forced Nye to confess that he [Nye] did believe, contrary to true science, in spontaneous generation. Here, Ken should have ridiculed such stupid, anti-science drivel. I would have said, “You evolutionists ridicule the fact that God created man out of dust yet you believe that life arose from a planet of rock.”

Such an encounter would have made Ney look like a mule at the Kentucky Derby!

Nevertheless, I am delighted with the debate. For sure, this was not a Scopes Trial, 2014. Ken Ham was far more informed than William Jennings Bryan and I am proud to be identified with Ken. 

(My column tomorrow will deal with the original intent of the debate: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” My basic premise is that creationism has the answers to many scientific problems rather than evolution.)

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!”

 Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.