Last update: November 15, 2009

Site Map

Check Out Our Bookstore. Buy Science and Creation Books On-Line. No risk - We are associated with

I created this page to help make Christians more aware of the vast amount of scientific evidence that exists in support of the account of creation in scripture. Too many Christians seem to be willing to too rapidly discard the account in Genesis because they have been taught and understand that there is a conflict between science and the Bible, and believe that the theories of man have answered all the key questions. The result is that Christians begin to interpret scripture based upon the teachings of man.

The truth is that the manmade theories of the creation of the earth have many many holes in them, and many many unresolved problems, and the evidence in science for creation is very strong.

I will be adding to this page as time permits. My hope is not so much to convince people of what I believe to be the truth of Biblical creation as to open the door to resources that I hope will allow the reader to see both sides of the issue, and thus come to a knowledgeable decision based upon the facts.

Your feedback as to how well this page achieves this goal would be appreciated. I would also appreciate receiving any additional links or information that might enhance the quality of the page.

Great Detective Work - by Moxie, from The Creation Dialogue

Recommend download and zoom in to get comfortable size for font (GIF Format, 420K)

A examination of the research into mitochondrial DNA, and what the evidence that this research gives with respect to the time that the human race has been around. An excellent and highly recommended article.

What About the Mammoths?

The following document on mammoths (located at provide some interesting information regarding these extinct animals.

Frozen Mammoths

Re-examination of the Evidence for Big Bang?

A Nando News article (May 20, 1998)raises some questions about the big bang, and the creation of the universe. In this project, even the lead scientist is pessimistic about finding the evidence required to support the theory of the big bang. Rather we see that they have hopes that somehow antimatter and matter strangely avoided contact with each other in the big bang and neatly went off and formed two separate disassociated parts of the universe.

Of course there is a backup theory. Dark matter. Something that cannot not seen or detected and for which no evidence exists other than that it must for their theory to have any hope whatsoever of surviving.

A quote from the Nando News article starts off by saying "If the Big Bang did what physicists say it should have done when the universe formed roughly 15 billion years ago, we wouldn't be here at all. Physicists believe the blast should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Because matter and antimatter annihilate each other on contact, there should have been nothing left."

Quoted in the article, Utah Physics professor Michael Salmon says

"If there were not a slight imbalance of matter over antimatter, we would not be around to talk about it," said University of Utah physics professor Michael Salamon. "This is fundamental to existence. We need to understand it if we want to understand our origins."

The article goes on to describe an international experiment, led by 200 scientists that plan to begin a search for the cosmic antimatter that is required to support the big bang theory. To do this, they will use a AMS (Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer), worth U$20 Million. It will be placed on the Space Shuttle Discovery, to have been launched June 2, and later in the ISS (International Space Station).

The article goes on to say that despite Dr. Salmon's participation, he doubts that the experiment will find the cosmic antimatter for which it is searching, because such a discovery would overturn fundamental physics theories that explain why the observable universe is made of matter.

New Finding in Alberta Raises Questions About the Flood

We heard on the news in the first week of June 1998 that a mystery has been uncovered not far from here. The world famous Tyrell Museum, located near here will be investigating to try to sort out the mystery.

Evolutionists believe that this area of the prairies was a vast inland sea many many millions of years ago. But the mystery involves a duck-billed dinosaur that was found where the sea would have covered the land at that time (according to the theory).

The problem is that duck-billed dinosaurs are believed not to have been able to swim, and where this one was found causes all sorts of difficulties for theories (other than young earth/creationism).

The evolutionists, who admit that this is an intriguing mystery, are guessing that the immature dinosaur was washed out to sea, but that leaves the problem of why it wouldn't just bloat and rot like any other animal. Yet this one died so rapidly as to leave an imprint of the skin that has very much impressed the palentologists examining the remains. They describe the quality of the skin imprints as rare. For that to happen, the body would have had to have been buried extremely rapidly, such as would happen in a catastrophic flood (i.e. Genesis).

The palentologists say that if their guess that the animal was washed out to sea doesn't hold, they will have to try to come up with another explanation.

New Planet Causes Scientists to Significantly Shorten Estimates for Creation of Planets

The following is a quote from a NASA news release dated May 28, 1998 issued by Don Savage Headquarters, Washington, DC, Bill Steigerwald Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, and Ray Villard Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore (RELEASE: 98-91).

"The discovery also challenges conventional theories that predict gas giant planets take millions of years to coagulate from dust in space. Instead, it favors more recent ideas that large, low-density planets may condense out of gas very quickly, at the same time their parent star does."

"This observation pushes back the clock on planet formation and offers short time scales which allow us to see how things form. This provides valuable new clues to the origin of our Solar System," says Terebey."

The interesting thing that the news release tells us is that the currently accepted theories of planet creation are being thoroughly challenged by this discovery, much the same way that star creation was challenged by NASA discoveries just a few short years ago. The release suggests that planets may form in as little as 10% of the time that they previously believed possible (previously they believed 10 Millions years or more, now they say that this may have been formed in only a few hundreds of thousands of years - that timeframe is of course based upon assumptions).

Yes, they are still talking longer timeframes than creationists believe based upon scripture, but it is interesting that NASA are now having to reconsider all their planetary formation theories to consider much much younger dates. It is only 48 hours since the discovery, so we need to give them time to nalyze all the data. Now that these particular scientists realize that creation may be much much younger than they previously believed, they have the opportunity to consider new ideas based upon more reliable data.

Did Plesiosaurs Survive Extinction? - Implications for the Fossil Record

Have a look at this picture (click here) of an animal which was picked up by a Japanese fishing trawler in the 1977 timeframe. This finding perplexed the scientists who saw the evidence. The rotted carcas had to be thrown overboard by the fishermen who were concerned about contamination of their catch.

Is this, as those who try to discredit the photo claim, a basking shark or does it in fact bear more resemblance to a Plesiosaurus?

Judge for yourself.

If it did indeed survive to present day, then like the coelacanth which was declared to have been extinct for 70 million years, a problem with the interpretation of the fossil record exists. Many people accept evolution on the basis of presence or absence of fossils over what have been deemed to be timescales shown in rock layers. Yet the coelacanth has no prsence in the fossils layers identified by paleontologists as representing the last 70 million years. The absence of the fossils therefore does not prove that the animal existed or did not exist in a specified timeframe, it only says that when and where that animal died, the very special and specific conditions existed that permits animal remains to be fossilized rather than rot away.

An Ancient beach - Millions? or Thousands of years Old?

Have a look at this picture of an ancient fossilized beach. I was provided a copy of this picture by a gentleman who presented it as proof of an old earth. He advised that the beach had risen an average of 1.5 cm per year, and is now 45 meters above the sea level, thus must be millions of years old.

Simple calculations come to a different answer. At a rate of 1.5 cm/yr, to reach 45 meters, the beach would be only 3000 years old. At the time, I was given more information on the maximum and minimum heght of the beach, and using those calculations, the maximum and minimum ages worked out to be 1000-4000 years old.

The counter argument was that the rocks behind the beach were smooth, and that must takes millions of years. Niagara falls loses about 5-10 feet of rock every year. Now, it is under far more stress than these rocks would ever see, but to smooth the rough edges off a rock only requires a removal of an inch or two of rock, and rocks pounded by waves from the ocean for years would certainly lose an inch or so in far less than millions of years, indeed likely in less than a hundred.

I show this just to encourage the reader to check out what is said. Appearance of age does not mean that it is millions of years old. We, having lived for at most a few decades, have difficulty in getting a perspective on how fast or slow aging occurs over several hundred or thousand years.

Does Antarctica Hold Evidence of a Global Flood?

Scientists have been researching what lies beneath the ice pack of Anarctica recently, and have found evidence that life existed one time, very deep under the ice. Nando News ( reported that the scientists found diatoms under the ice. These lifeforms require sunlight and water to exist, therefore they conclude that at one time, far more recently in the past than previously believed, Antarctica must have been ice-free, and covered by water.

This is and of itself doesn't prove the flood, nor is it close to doing so. But this discovery has forced scientists to re-think their view of the history of Antarctica, and they now speculate that the land was ice-free as little as 400,000 years ago instead of the 8-10 millions ago that they previously had thought.

Does the "Mars" Metoerite Hold Evidence of Ancient Life?

Back several months before I write this (early July 1998), NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced a remarkable discovery (Nasa Article). Original news release. They had found evidence of bacterial type life in a metoreite that came from Mars. This was based on some squiggly lines in the rock that looked like extremely tiny worms. They concluded that the meteorite came from Mars based upon the composition of the rock being idnetical to the mineral content of rocks Mars.

A few problems are croping up now that cause further questions to be raised. The first is why would a rock from Mars be here on earth? How often do rocks lift from a surface of a planet, reach escape velocity (from earth, this would be 25,000 miles per hours), and find their way to another planet? The answer that we are given is that very large metoerites or asteroids hit the planet and the debris was expelled with such velocity that it was able to escape the planet's gravitational pull. I see three issues with that:

1) The escape velocity to get away from earth's gravitational pull is about 25,000 miles per hours. Mars, being smaller, would have a lower escape velocity, but still it would be quite a substantial speed required, a speed that must be sustained or exceeded until the rock has escaped the gravitational pull of the planet. The amount of force to cause this occur would have to immense. The next two items provide additional reasons to further exacrbate the problems of this occurring.

2) The rock would have to maintain this speed while going upwards against the gravitational pull of the planet until it got through the atmospheric resistance. Now, when an object comes down into the atmosphere, it burns because it heats up as a result of the interaction with the atmosphere with the rock going at hundreds of miles per hour. In this case, the rock is going at thousands of miles per hours, and would be burning up on the way out. A very large rock would be required at the start to survive the burning in the atmosphere, thus compounding the problem in item #1.

3) Building upon #2, if there were life in the rock, here is a rock that would be heated to the point of buring on the way out of the atmosphere of Mars, spent thousanads of years in space (presumably) where there is no food, water or air for the living organism, and then it comes back to earth where the rock is again heated to the point of burning. This second burn in earth's atmosphere, of course, significantly increases yet again the size of rock that would have to make it out of Mars atmosphere, and the larger the rock, the larger the air resistance that would try to keep it from attaining escape velocity in the first place.

I am not sure that I have the faith to believe that a single rock could make it out of Mars atmosphere, let alone make it out with life on it.

The second problem is that NASA has also announced that the rocks found during the recent pathfinder mission bear no resemblance to metoerities found on earth that are believed to have come from Mars. (Click here for the NASA news release)

Third is that a group of scientists have come forward disputing the findings, and have indicated that their research shows that the lines are actually evidence of minerlization process - The following is a short quote from

"This process is an ordered growth of one mineral on top of another," the Georgia Institute of Technology said in a statement.

They said the way crystals in the rock grew mean the structures, which include magnetites and carbonates, must have grown simultaneously at temperatures much greater than 120 degrees Celsius (250 degrees F).

See also the article from Earth Sky News.


Institute for Creation Research

Center for Scientific Creation

Creation Science Association of Alberta - Dialogue Magazine Articles

Some Relevant Selections from Our Bookstore

Associated with - Same discount prices, same security for your on-line purchases.

To view the rest of our bookstore, click here.


Michael J. Behe addresses evolution as a biochemist. It is my understanding that Michael J. Behe is not a Creationist, but is concerned about the lack of scientific basis for evolution.


Michael Denton addresses evolution directly from a scientific perspective.


This book is a good book for younger readers, but informative enough to be enjoyed by adults as well.

Another excellent resource book - well documented.

This book that preceeded the book listed above, and is basically an earlier edition.


Philip Johnson looks at the science and creation debate in much the same way as lawyer reviews the evidence in favour and opposed. Considered to be one of the best defenses of creationism.



This book is an incredible resource for anyone who wants to understand and research the truth about evolution and creation. Essentially two books in one, with a examination of evolution at the front, and the entire back half of the book is an extensive resource/reference book. Very highly recommended. I use it a lot.


Amazon Logo

Search the Internet - The Mother of All Search Engines

(Searches most other major search engines with a single submission)

Summaries Phrase SearchTitle Search   Search Tips