‘Remember Your Creator’ – The Salvation of the World Depends on It

As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. (Ecclesiastes 11:5)

Not only does our current society in America and the West deny that “God makes everything:” worse, they don’t even acknowledge that God made anything. While there are plenty of frontal attacks that establish this atheistic stance (a HS football coach getting fired for praying on the field, a decorated soldier being demoted and severely threatened because she had a simple bible verse on her desk (?!)), it is just as often furthered by a ground swell which one can sense and feel that instills a kind of fear that says: ‘I’d better stay away from mentioning God here in this part of the report with my child … it’s sort of not allowed, I think, isn’t it?’ Continue reading “‘Remember Your Creator’ – The Salvation of the World Depends on It”

God’s Answer to the World’s Mockery: ‘Behold, He Comes!’

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Peter 3:3)

I have some good news to share with you: God has an answer to the mocking of man.

Have you ever seen so much mocking and ridicule? It is so bad now that after a terrorist attack, the ‘progressive’ side of society ridicules even the statement: “We’ll be praying for you.” Often just the hint that God may have spoken or impressed something on you is met with ridicule. Continue reading “God’s Answer to the World’s Mockery: ‘Behold, He Comes!’”

Earth’s Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field Says the Earth is Young

One of the most powerful evidences for a young earth is its rapidly decaying magnetic field. Measurements taken from 1835 to 1965 reveal that the earth lost a whopping 8% in its magnetic field strength over those 130 years.1) More recent measurements confirm this exponential rate of decrease, at a rate of about 1.5% every 30 years.2) That means if you are 60 years old, in your own lifetime, the earth’s magnetic field decreased in strength by about 3%. Let us be glad the earth is not decreasing in size at such a rate! That is an astounding rate of loss for a planet-wide feature, which the old-earth paradigm requires to be billions of years old. Continue reading “Earth’s Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field Says the Earth is Young”


  1. [1] “Following Gauss, scientists continued to make global measurements of the field. Four decades ago, Keith McDonald and Robert Gunst (1967, 1968) compiled the results of such measurements from 1835 to 1965. They drew a startling conclusion: during those 130 years, the earth’s magnetic dipole moment had steadily decreased by over 8 percent!” (Humphreys, “Earth’s Magnetic Field,” (CRSQ 47, 2011), 194 

  2. [2] “Over those thirty years [1970 to 2000], about half of the energy that was lost from the dipole was transferred into multipole fields (up to ten pairs of magnetic poles of decreasing energy that point in different directions). However, the bottom line is that the overall energy of the entire field, which includes the energy of the dipole and all multi-pole fields, decreased by at least 1.25%, and perhaps as much as 1.57% (Humphreys, 2002)… If this rate of loss holds steady, then the field will lose half of all its energy in approximately 1500 years.” – (EMM, 17-18 

Welcome to the Human Genome: The Most Advanced Computer Operating System in the Universe

How many of you are Mac fans out there? Windows fans? Any die-hard Linux hold outs? Well, before you start fighting with each other, let’s just clear the table: none of these operating systems can hold a candle to the human genome. I have so little space, so most of what follows will be key citations that illustrate this marvel.[link1] Hold on to your seats, ladies and gentlemen: Continue reading “Welcome to the Human Genome: The Most Advanced Computer Operating System in the Universe”

Can random molecular interactions create life? (Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate: Part I)

Many evolutionists are persuaded that the 15 billion years they assume for the age of the cosmos is an abundance of time for random interactions of atoms and molecules to generate life. A simple arithmetic lesson reveals this to be no more than an irrational fantasy.1

This arithmetic lesson is similar to calculating the odds of winning the lottery. The number of possible lottery combinations corresponds to the total number of protein structures (of an appropriate size range) that are possible to assemble from standard building blocks. The winning tickets correspond to the tiny sets of such proteins with the correct special properties from which a living organism, say a simple bacterium, can be successfully built. The maximum number of lottery tickets a person can buy corresponds to the maximum number of protein molecules that could have ever existed in the history of the cosmos.  Continue reading “Can random molecular interactions create life? (Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate: Part I)”


  1. Featured image of the DNA Double Helix Molecule originally from here (now obsolete), from Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: DNA Causes Geneticists, Other Scientists, Join Ranks of Dissenters (April 6, 2009). 

But What About the Geological / Fossil Record? (Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate: Part III)

Just as there has been glaring scientific fraud in things biological for the past century, there has been a similar fraud in things geological. The error, in a word, is uniformitarianism. This outlook assumes and asserts the earth’s past can be correctly understood purely in terms of present day processes acting at more or less present day rates. Just as materialist biologists have erroneously assumed material processes can give rise to life in all its diversity, materialist geologists have assumed the present can fully account for the earth’s past. In so doing, they have been forced to ignore and suppress abundant contrary evidence that the planet has suffered major catastrophe on a global scale.  Continue reading “But What About the Geological / Fossil Record? (Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate: Part III)”

But How Is Geological Time To Be Reckoned? (Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate: Part IV)

With the discovery of radioactivity about a century ago, uniformitarian scientists have assumed they have a reliable and quantitative means for measuring absolute time on scales of billions of years. This is because a number of unstable isotopes exist with half-lives in the billions of year range. Confidence in these methods has been very high for several reasons. The nuclear energy levels involved in radioactive decay are so much greater than the electronic energy levels associated with ordinary temperature, pressure, and chemistry that variations in the latter can have negligible effects on the former.

Furthermore, it has been assumed that the laws of nature are time invariant and that the decay rates we measure today have been constant since the beginning of the cosmos Continue reading “But How Is Geological Time To Be Reckoned? (Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate: Part IV)”

Just How Do Coded Language Structures Arise? (Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate: Part II)

One of the most dramatic discoveries in biology in the 20th century is that living organisms are realizations of coded language structures. All the detailed chemical and structural complexity associated with the metabolism, repair, specialized function, and reproduction of each living cell is a realization of the coded algorithms stored in its DNA. A paramount issue, therefore, is how do such extremely large language structures arise?  Continue reading “Just How Do Coded Language Structures Arise? (Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate: Part II)”

But What About Light From Distant Stars? (Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate: Part V)

An entirely legitimate question then is how we could possibly see stars millions and billions of light years away if the earth is so young. Part of the reason scientists like myself can have confidence that good science will vindicate a face-value understanding of the Bible is because we believe we have at least an outline of the correct answer to this important question.1

This answer draws upon important clues from the Bible while applying standard general relativity. The result is a cosmological model that differs from the standard Big Bang models in two essential respects. First, it does not assume the so-called cosmological principle, and, second, it invokes inflation at a different point in cosmological history.   Continue reading “But What About Light From Distant Stars? (Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate: Part V)”


  1. [18] D. R. Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, Colorado Springs, 1994. 

Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate – Introduction

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D.

Expanded by Nicholas Petersen


  1. Posted originally on globalflood.org. ICR has the original article posted on their website here