Darwin’s Trail of Tears

CGP Grey / Foter / CC BY

Avid evolutionists recently celebrated the 200th birthday of their hero, Charles Darwin, in a manner that promoted his theory as true science. Major museums assisted in this propaganda by displaying Darwinian exhibits that presented evolution as proven fact and praised Darwin for opening the minds of many. Regretfully, they were right in one of these two areas; Darwin did open the minds of many, but what they failed to mention is the trail of tears this legacy left.

Darwin was born into a religious family in the year 1809, yet he was never a true believer. His family attended the Unitarian Church of England, a church whose beliefs had long rejected the authority of God’s Word and essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the fall of man.

This was the false religion Darwin grew up in, and with a lack of genuine faith in his Creator he had no foundation upon which to stand when his young daughter succumbed to the terrible disease of tuberculosis (supposed diagnosis). Having no true relationship with God, and in bitterness of heart, he replaced his Creator and false religion with a new religion, natural selection, thus devising a theory that would become a magnet for those who wished to abandon belief in God. Although Darwin’s abandonment of the Creator doesn’t appear to have been with the desire of “now I can do what I want without consequence,” many have latched on to his theory for that precise reason. After all, natural selection did away with the need for God, and without a God to answer to for your actions, you can do anything you desire; without a God to set the criteria of right and wrong, you can create your own.

That’s what is so dangerous about the theory of “man being a byproduct of random chance.” It does away with God. Thus, it gives a justified foundation for men to create their own standards, and if their newly-devised standards include the murder of 13 or the murder of millions, who are we—a mere product of random chance—to declare them wrong? Thus the dilemma: without an Ultimate Authority (God) who sets the criteria, what makes one man’s ideas superior or more acceptable than another’s?

Yes, beliefs do matter. If a person believes he is nothing more than the byproduct of chance events brought about by random mutations in a pool of primordial slime, he will pattern his life accordingly. His decisions and actions will stem from that belief. A perfect example of this is the Columbine killers. Not many people know that on April 20th, chosen in honor of Hitler’s birthday, one of the two men responsible for this murderous rampage chose to wear a T-shirt that read “Natural Selection”. Authorities later discovered these two young men had created their own website greatly dedicated to evolution. They believed that killing people was nothing more than “scattering molecules” and practicing “survival of the fittest”. Their minds were open to Darwin’s teachings.

Hollywood’s Scopes Trial Lies


beautifulcataya / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

Hollywood seems intent upon rewriting history to destroy belief in the Creator and his creation. For example, if you have not had the opportunity to watch the 1960 version of The Scopes Trial, known as Inherit the Wind, you might want to check this film out from your local library. If the 1960 black and white version isn’t available, perhaps they will have the 1999 version. This movie is watched by students nationwide as an educational film in science, history, and social study classes; and the students watching it are usually led to believe that the film was based on true facts—facts surrounding the infamous Scopes Trial. If you would like a challenge, read the following true facts about the Scopes Trial before watching this movie and try to count the number of outright lies or twisting of truths you find. I promise . . . it will be eye-opening!

Actual history: (All material below taken from Inherit the Wind: a Hollywood History of the Scopes Trial by Dr. David N. Menton.)

Scopes was a physics and math teacher and a football coach, not a biology teacher. He merely substituted for the biology teacher the last two weeks of school when the teacher became sick.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in New York City had advertised for a biology teacher who would be willing to be the pawn in testing the Butler Law, a law that prohibited the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools. So it wasn’t the town’s people who were on the witch hunt, it was the ACLU.

The ACLU and George Rappleyea, a mine operator from Dayton, Tennessee, were responsible for indicting John Scopes for teaching evolution in the classroom. In reality, Scopes never taught on evolution. He even skipped over the topic while reviewing the students for their final exam.

Scopes was never jailed for teaching evolution. Nor was he prosecuted for his courageous stand on behalf of evolution by religious fanatics as the film portrays.

There was no Reverend Brown, so there was obviously no Reverend Brown’s daughter. They were both totally fictitious characters inserted with the seeming intention of making Christians look like foolish, ignorant, and backward people. Yet these are two of the most influential characters in the film where children and youth are concerned. Reverend Brown even goes so far as to curse his own daughter for not “disowning” her boyfriend, John Scopes. Incidentally, Scopes didn’t have a girlfriend at that time in history, so obviously she was never mistreated by Bryan on the witness stand.

The conservative Christians of Dayton, Tennessee are portrayed as greedy, ignorant, closed-minded, and discourteous people. They even behave in a threatening manner towards the defense lawyers, the news media, and outsiders in general. Yet Darrow himself stated, “I don’t know as I was ever in a community in my life where my religious ideas differed as widely from the great mass as I have found them since I have been in Tennessee. Yet I came here a perfect stranger and I can say what I have said before that I have not found upon any body’s part—any citizen here in this town or outside the slightest discourtesy. I have been treated better, kindlier and more hospitably than I fancied would have been the case in the north.”

Bryan was not ignorant of the teaching of evolution. In fact, he had written many well-argued articles which were critical of the scientific evidence used as proof of evolution in his day. He had long carried on a correspondence on the subject with the famous evolutionist, Henry Fairfield Osborn—the same Osborn who made the statement that if a hypothetical unbiased zoologist from Mars visited our planet he would classify people into several distinct groups or species. Osborn taught that the darker the person’s skin, the less evolved to full human status that person was. In contrast, Darrow gave the impression of having a very poor grasp of both the meaning and mechanism of evolution.

The testimony of the evolutionists assembled by the defense was prevented because Darrow adamantly refused to allow them to be cross-examined by Bryan. After Bryan received permission of question them, Darrow never called them to the witness stand.

The definition of the term evolution was constantly muddled by the defense and its witnesses throughout the entire trial, even to the point that it would have been unlikely that the jurors could have understood what it truly meant. Remember, at that point in history it wasn’t as widely taught in the educational system as it is today.

After spending the seventh day of the trial systematically grilling and ridiculing Bryan for his Christian beliefs, including the belief in the miracles of the Bible, Darrow abruptly ended the trial by asking the judge to instruct the jury to find his client guilty. There was a purpose for this. Bryan had only agreed to take the witness stand to answer questions on his Christian beliefs on the condition that he could then, in turn, question Darrow about his own agnostic and evolutionary beliefs. But with Darrow’s conniving move of requesting his client’s guilt, Bryan would never be allowed to examine Darrow. Also, he would not be allowed to give his closing argument, which was a well-supported scientific and religious argument against the theory of evolution.

In Inherit the Wind, when his client is found guilty (as Darrow requested), Darrow is visibly shaken by this great injustice. Bryan, on the other hand, is vindictive and argues bitterly that the $100.00 fine leveled against Scopes wasn’t enough for a crime of such great magnitude. In reality, all of Scopes’ expenses were covered by various interests, as was his tuition for a graduate education in geology after the trial finished. So he never spent time in jail, he wasn’t persecuted, nor did the trial cost him a cent.

The entire purpose for the trial was to (a) declare the Butler Act unconstitutional, (b) expose fundamentalist Christian views on the subject of origins to public ridicule in the press, and (c) focus the attention of the world on evolution.

Never did Bryan lose his senses and begin crazily ranting in the courtroom, nor did he, while trying to recite the books of the Bible, fall dead on the courtroom floor. He died 5 days later while resting in a peaceful sleep.

“The Christian fundamentalists are consistently lampooned throughout the film, while skeptics and agnostics are consistently portrayed as intelligent, kindly and even heroic.”

The writers obviously did not intend to write a historically accurate account of the Scopes trial, yet this is how it is presented in many of our school systems today. Why do you think the world feels it necessary to belittle someone who believes the biblical story of creation?

Two Great Men

Believe Creative / Foter.com / CC BY

Two babies, both destined to be great by worldly standards, were born that day.  It was February 12, 1809.  One was born into poverty, the other into wealth; one into a family of lowly status, the other into society’s elite; one into true faith in the Creator, one into pretense of faith.  These two babies would grow into men separated by far more than the vast distance between their continents; they would be separated by the enormity of their differing world views.

Foter.com / Public Domain Mark 1.0

One would become such a man of faith that his knees would callus from bending in prayer to his Maker; the other would devise a theory to sway millions away from the Creator.  The man with callused knees would lead a nation with the concept of equality to all men and would push hard for that belief; the other, although himself against slavery, would popularize a world view that would enslave multitudes and cause the deaths of millions.  While one wrote a proclamation declaring equality for all men, the other wrote a book titled On the Origin of Species, with the subtitle of The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.  As one was fighting a war to free men of “dark skin” from slavery, the other called those with dark skin “degraded,” and declared he would rather have descended from a monkey than such a “savage.”  The first man would give his life to reunite a divided nation; the other would cause division not only in his own country, but also in all countries for centuries to come.

Two hundred years have now passed since the renowned day of their births. While the first man, President Abraham Lincoln, is celebrated as the leader who led a nation to abolish slavery because “all men are created equal”, the second man, Charles Darwin, is celebrated as the man who abolished the need for a Creator.

Ideas are not without consequences!   Abraham Lincoln’s ideas led to free men from slavery, while Darwin’s assumption that men evolved by random chance led Josef Stalin, a mass murderer of multitudes, to become an atheist as a young man while reading Darin’s works in seminary. Darwin’s ideas inspired Karl Marx, who offered to dedicate his book Das Kapital to Darwin, to state that Darwin’s theory “contains the basis in natural history for our view . . .”; and it influenced Hitler, a devout evolutionist who instructed his troops in evolution by providing them books by Darwin and Friedrich Nietzsche, to the idea of inferior races and thus the slaughter of millions in an effort to speed the evolutionary process.  These Darwinian enthusiasts, some of the world’s most notorious and depraved leaders, along with Mao, Pol Pot, and other communist leaders, have murdered close to 100 million people, and all compliments of a theory which lessened the value of human life to an accident of random chance, thus no greater than that of any animal¹.

These two men, President Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, great by worldly standards, left two vastly differing legacies.  How is it that the first, Abraham Lincoln, is briefly mentioned in many public classroom settings, while the other, Charles Darwin, a racist man who promoted racist ideas that led to and justified horrific, mass genocide, is frequently praised for “opening the minds of many”?

FREE . . . for a limited time! My Creation Versus Evolution: A Biblical and Scientific Study is now available FREE of charge beginning November 29th through December 3rd through Kindle e-books at http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Versus-Evolution-Biblical-Scientific-ebook/dp/B00GVGJQ4S/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1385321536&sr=8-6&keywords=rockie+fordham

This course gives 5 biblical CEU’s for Christian school teachers and will soon be available for home school students.

¹Tom DeRosa, Evolution’s Fatal Fruit (Florida: Coral Ridge Ministries, 2006).
²Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States (Penguin Group, New York 2004).

©copyright 2009

Sample material available through Amazon.com. Available SOON as 11 x 8.5 paperback book.

Are “Prehistoric” Dates Absolute?

Al_HikesAZ / Foter.com / CC BY-NC

Many people believe that the existence of dinosaurs is a problem for Bible believing creationists, but that’s only because they don’t realize the dating of dinosaurs is within the realm of historical science—meaning it is based upon man’s opinions and biases and not provable, operational science.

For example, Dr. John D. Morris in his book The Young Earth, gives an excellent illustration of the method many scientists use to date rocks and fossils.  He uses the classroom setting where a student brings a sedimentary rock (limestone) containing a fossil to his professor and requests the professor date it.  The professor indicates that it is entirely possible to date this specific rock because of a fossil that is preserved in it.  He then goes over and picks up a huge invertebrate paleontology book, locates the fossil in the book that closest resembles the fossil in the rock and proceeds to give the rock a date—640 million years.  Did he use some extremely accurate scientific method or experiment to arrive at this date?  No, he didn’t.  Actually, he didn’t date the rock at all.  He dated the fossil, and he dated the fossil by the chart contained in the invertebrate paleontology text.  So the question to ask is, “Where did the author of the paleontology book get this prehistoric date of 640 million years for that specific fossil that dated the rock?”  The answer: Darwin’s theory.  The invertebrate paleontology text, which was written using Darwin’s theory, is considered the expert source in dating the fossil.  Then the fossil dates the rock, which is then used to “prove” Darwin’s theory true (Morris 13).

Do you see the circular reasoning here?  Any time you start with a specific theory as being true, and then date an object according to that theory, the date obtained would have to fit into the framework of that theory.  There’s no other option.  You guaranteed the outcome before you ever started by using that specific theory.

Now let’s suppose that the rock was organic material instead of sedimentary.  How would the professor date a piece of organic material such as hardened lava?  In today’s laboratory organic material is dated by measuring the ratios of radioactive isotopes in the rocks.  Once known, these ratios can be plugged into a set of mathematical equations which will supposedly give the absolute age of that material.  The problem is, if you date the organic material with all four of the current methods (uranium-lead method, potassium-argon method, rubidium-strontium model test, samarium-neodymium test), you will likely come back with four extremely different ages.  The results of these four tests can vary by hundreds of millions of years.  So which of the four ages is the absolute age?  It will depend upon where the rock was dug up and what fossils were found nearby.  If there are any fossils found near it, once again the invertebrate paleontology book (Darwin’s theory) is used to date that fossil.  The organic test that fits the closest to the date recorded in the paleontology text is called the absolute age.  The other three test results are thrown out due to “some kind of unknown contamination.” So how do we know the fourth test was not also contaminated?

“But what about carbon-14 dating?” you ask. Isn’t that a proven method of dating historical objects? Dr. John Morris also tells the story of once talking with a famous archeologist from the University of Pennsylvania who had discovered an ancient tomb with wooden timbers in the country of Turkey.  When Morris asked if he had sent some timber samples off for dating through the carbon-14 method, he was shocked by his reply.  The famous archeologist said of course, but then claimed he would “never believe anything that came back from a carbon-14 lab.  Nor was he aware of any archeologist in the world who would accept such dates.  If the date happened to agree with what he knew was historically accurate, then the data would be published; if not, it would be ignored.  He was obliged to carbon-date artifacts to keep his grant money coming in, and so he always did, but he did not trust the method or its results” (Morris 65).

In both instances, with the sedimentary and organic rock, it was a theory that gave the supposed absolute age of the object or seriously flawed testing methods. Therefore, the dating of these great creatures by no means fits into the realm of true, operational, testable science, and by placing them into their proper setting (historical science) there is no longer a problem between the Bible, early man and dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs and the Biblical Account of Creation

Mark Witton / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

Genesis 1 teaches that God created the heavens and earth and all that was contained within them during the first week of creation—dinosaurs included. Yet evolutionists teach that life came about by accident, and that dinosaurs existed millions upon millions of years prior to the age of man. So which of these two accounts is true? Did man and dinosaurs coexist as the Bible teaches, or did they live millions of years apart as taught by evolution? For someone who does not take God’s Word at face value, the only means to answer this question is through physical evidence. Therefore, let’s take a look at which of these two beliefs is supported by physical evidence.

First, we need to recognize that most of what is taught about dinosaurs and their skeletal remains is contained within the realm of historical science—not operational science—meaning it involves interpreting evidence from the past, and when you realize that everyone has presupposed philosophical ideas and beliefs that bias their interpretations, you understand that their conclusions may or may not be accurate because they include speculation, personal bias and assumptions. For instance, if a paleontologist believes that Darwin’s Tree of Life is accurate, he will place the date of a discovered bone within that theory. If he does not agree with Darwin’s theory of evolution, he will usually place the evidence within a different timeframe. That’s what is wrong with the claim that there are “thousands of bones” supporting Darwin’s evolutionary theory. When bones are discovered and then dated according to a specific theory, of course they are going to support that theory. It’s called circular reasoning.

So where does all of this leave us according to dinosaurs, evolution and the Bible? If evolution is true there will never be any operational scientific evidence to verify it because it happened “before the age of man.” Yet if the biblical account is accurate and God created every living creature during the first six days of creation, man included, then we should see evidence within ancient writings that indicate man and dinosaurs did indeed coexist. But does this evidence exist? Is there proof that man and dinosaurs simultaneously roamed planet earth? Let’s take a look and see.

The modern word dinosaur (terrible lizard) wasn’t coined until 1842 by a creationist scientist named Richard Owen. Before 1842 dinosaurs were often referred to as dragons, and there are multiple civilizations that have some type of record, whether drawings or writings, of great dinosaur-like creatures coexisting with man. These ancient records include a hero named Gilgamesh from the land of Sumer in Babylon who slew a dragon, an ancient Indian carving that remarkably resembles an Edmontosaurus, and old legends of dinosaur-like creatures from Scandinavia, Italy, China, Ireland, Africa, Arabia and other areas of the world. The city of Nerluc, France was even renamed in honor of the killing of a horned dragon, and the old European science book, Historia Animalium, presents dragons as still being present during the 1500’s.

Also, biblically speaking, Job, the oldest book of the Bible—probably written around 2000 years prior to the birth of Christ—records two creatures whose descriptions remarkably resemble that of the ancient dragons. These creatures were referred to as Behemoth (meaning kingly, gigantic beast) and Leviathan (meaning dragon-like or great sea creature). Some of the newer Bible versions do the Word of God a disservice by changing the word Behemoth to hippopotamus or elephant. Yet Job 40:15-19 includes the description of Behemoth, and in this description we discover that Behemoth’s tail, “sways like a cedar.” Have you ever thought of a hippo or elephant’s tail as “swaying like a cedar”? Of course not. If this creature was a hippo or elephant the description would more likely have read, “swaying like a twig.” These versions have also changed the word Leviathan to alligator or crocodile, yet the biblical description of Leviathan (Job 41) presents him as a terrifying sea creature that no man would ever dare challenge. Let’s ignore the major detail that very little in this biblical description actually fits that of an alligator or crocodile, and just consider the fact that we have men who wrestle alligators with their bare hands!

Two final bits of evidence: First, near Glen Rose, Texas, you will find a human footprint fossilized inside a fossilized dinosaur track. The only way a human print could have been fossilized inside this dinosaur track is if the soil was still wet when both walked through the mud. Some have tried to claim that the human print is not human at all, but some type of dinosaur or other creature. Yet this theory is laid to rest by simply following the set of footprints for just a short distance, for no other creature makes the exact same footprint as that of a human. The only adequate explanation for these footprints is that man and dinosaurs coexisted.

Second, paleontologists have recently discovered what appears to be soft tissue from the exposing blood vessels in the skeletal remains of a Tyrannosaurus. This indicates that this specific T-Rex’s bones are only a few thousand years old. Even if this date is off by many thousands of years, it certainly does not fit into Darwin’s timeframe of evolution.

So where does this evidence lead…straight to the Word of God!

For more on Creation Versus Evolution go to http://www.rocklanpublications.com.

Darwin’s “Trail of Tears” Continues

ニコール / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

When you read Darwin’s autobiography, it is easy to see that he would never have supported men like the Columbine kill­ers; nor would he have given his stamp of approval to murderous tyrants like Hitler. He seems an everyday, loving husband and father. So where did he go wrong? How did this everyday man devise a theory that would influence two young men to go on a shooting rampage and godless world leaders to slaughter millions? The answer to this question stems directly from Darwin’s blatant denial of the existence of a Supreme Being, which then caused a dilemma. If “in the beginning” God didn’t create, then where did life come from? Darwin knew the only way to justify his atheism was to devise another means by which life came into existence—a means that left God out. Natural selection was the answer to both dilemmas; it allowed the abandonment of God and gave an alternative means for the creation of life. Once developed, his theory not only helped to settle his own atheistic mindset, it gave those who wished to denounce a divine Creator the intellec­tual means to justify their unbelief, and it provided the foundation for tyrants like Hitler to slaughter millions—thus Darwin’s Trail of Tears.

Yes, beliefs do have consequences! Regretfully, Hitler was a prime example of the consequences of Darwin’s teaching. He was totally indoctrinated in evolution, even to the point of providing his troops with books by Darwin and Friedrich Nietzsche in hopes of influencing them toward his belief of inferior races. But why? Why would he care what his troops believed? Well, how else do you brainwash hundreds and thousands of soldiers, many husbands and fathers themselves, into believing the mass murder of millions—women, children and babies included—is moral? It is impor­tant to note here that Hitler’s extreme prejudice toward certain races wasn’t merely an innocent byproduct of Darwin’s theory that others pinned to Darwin’s name; it originated with Darwin himself when he drew his tree of life and theorized that good would come from death by way of natural selection, it was promoted by Darwin when he classified black Africans, Australian Aborigines, and Tasmanians on the lower limbs of his evo­lutionary tree, and it was practiced by Darwin when he referred to those with dark skin as “degraded,” saying he would rather have descended from a monkey than such a “savage.” Darwin even pre­dicted that one day the “civilized” races would rise up and exterminate the “sav­age” races. Sound familiar?

Darwin’s assumption that men evolved by random chance also led Josef Stalin, the mass murderer of multitudes, to become an atheist as a young man while reading his works in seminary. It inspired Karl Marx, who offered to dedicate his book Das Kapital to Darwin, to state that Darwin’s theory “contains the basis in natural history for our view . . .” These Darwinian enthusiasts, some of the world’s most notorious and depraved leaders, along with Mao, Pol Pot and other communist leaders, have murdered close to 100 million people, and all compliments of a theory which lessened the value of human life to an accident of random chance, thus no greater than that of any animal (Tom DeRose, Evolution’s Fatal Fruit, 2006).

For more information on Creation Versus Evolution visit www.rocklanpublications.com.

Is There Evidence of Noah’s Catastrophic Flood?

elmada / Foter / CC BY-NC-SA

Second Peter 3:3-6 teaches that in the end time man would intentionally deny special creation by the spoken Word of God, as well as Noah’s global flood. Why? Why would man feel the need to deny there having once been a global flood? I can easily understand why he would deny special creation, but why would he deny the story of Noah’s deluge? Why would it matter whether or not there was once a global catastrophic flood that destroyed the whole face of the earth?

Really, the answer is quite simple. If such an awesome catastrophic event is history, then billions of plants and animals would have been rapidly and randomly buried with water, mud, and pressure, immediately beneath the earth’s surface, causing billions and billions of fossils mixed without order or cause. And that’s the problem. If a global flood did produce these enormous amounts of randomly placed fossils, then Darwin’s theory of millions of years didn’t. Also, Darwin taught that the oldest of all living creatures would be fossilized in the lowest levels of the earth; while the newest and most recent of creatures would appear in the upper most levels. But what do we find beneath the earth’s surface? Remember the Cambrian Explosion? It counters Darwin’s theory because it reveals billions of creatures fossilized in a random, confusing manner, just as you would expect had they been caused by a global flood. Thus the Cambrian Explosion literally turns Darwin’s tree of life upside-down, yet amazingly enough it fits perfectly with the evidence of there having once been a great catastrophic flood.

In Encounters with the Unexplained, a video produced by Grizzly Adams Productions Inc., the following statement is recorded by a government scientific organization: We see over 22 unique features on our planet which can now be systematically explained as the result of a cataclysmic global flood whose waters erupted from subterranean chambers (Genesis 7:11) with an energy release exceeding the explosion of 10,000,000,000 hydrogen bombs.  Some of these features include the mid-oceanic ridge, the continental shelves and slopes, the ocean trenches and rings of fire, the oil and coal deposits, the Ice Age, herds of frozen Mammoths (result of sudden ice age), the major mountain ranges paralleling oceanic ridges, strata and layered fossil, earthquakes, magnetic variations on the ocean floor, submarine canyons, methane hydrates, overthrusts, volcanoes and lava, geothermal heat, limestone, metamorphic rock, plateaus, the Moho, salt domes, changing axis tilt, and the jigsaw puzzle fit of the continents. 

Additional Evidence:
1) There are at least 272 stories from every culture around the world that speak of a global flood, and although the details often vary, these stories always refer to a man named Noah (or similar name) who was saved from the flood to repopulate the earth. If it were a local or “calm” event, its occurrence would have faded away into history without much notice. Instead, these stories have been passed down as actual history for millennium.
2) The flood account is found on Babylonian, Acadian, and Samarian tablets now housed in the British museum. These tablets date back to 700 B.C.
3) Ancient Chinese accounts that date back even further than the tablets in the British museum.
4) In the mid 1800’s, George Smith began piecing together some 25,000 pieces of clay tablets unearthed in the city of Nineveh and dating back to the 6th century B.C. In 1872 Smith came upon the account of an ancient ship paralleling the biblical account of Noah’s Ark. These tablets became known as the Gilgamesh Tablets.
5) There have been over 100 sightings of Noah’s art on Mt. Ararat dating from the 5th century B.C. to 1990 A.D. These sightings include such historians and explorers as Josephus, Eusebius, Marco Polo, and a good number of U.S. military personal. B.J. Corbin’s book titled The Explorers of Ararat record and detail these sightings.
6) The genealogical records of many European kings can be traced back to Japheth, one of Noah’s three sons.
7) Analysis of population growth confirms a zero population at the estimated time of the flood.
8) Civilization seems to have originated in the Ararat/Babylon region, exactly where the Bible story places Noah and his family when they left the ark.
9) The Ice Age started very quickly, and this would have required a cataclysmic event such as a global flood to trigger such rapid climatic change. A slow, gradual decrease in temperature as evolutionists teach would have produced a very cold earth, but not an icy earth. (Herds of frozen Mammoth)
10) Fossil graveyards are found worldwide, and in rocks of all ages. Only a catastrophic global flood could have achieved this.
11) Marine fossils can be found on the crests of mountains alongside land animals.
12) The sudden dying out of dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. Herds of adult dinosaurs fossilized, but no young or babies. Why? The young couldn’t keep up with the adults when they were fleeing from the rising waters.

Additional information can be found through Amazon by ordering Creation Versus Evolution: A Biblical and Scientific Study and Creation Versus Evolution: A Biblical and Scientific Study for Youth.

Written by Rockie Fordham, author of It’s Hard to Drain the Swamp When Yer up to Yer Ears in Alligators! also available on Amazon.