The Layman’s Guide to

The Amazing but Totally True . . . Scientific

Facts of Creation

By Wendy S. Scott

Updated 7/27/09


Introductory Table of Contents Links



The Challenge of Truth. 9

The Creation Model 12

The Biblical Account 13

Bias Dispensed. 15

Un-Discovered. 18


Links to other Units with the subject table of contents.  Each begins with a Brief List of Facts:









back to top  PHYSICS        BIOLOGY      FOSSILS         GEOLOGY     CHALLENGE INFO




The author of this guide is not a research scientist.  This information has been compiled from an abundance of easily accessible and confirmed scientific authorities.  The majority of the information is common knowledge in the scientific realm, while lesser known facts are cited.  Do not quote the author as a scientific authority.  This guide is intended to systematically build the case for Biblical Creation through the logical alignment and application of the abundance of established scientific facts.








A Layman’s Guide to the

Amazing but Totally True Scientific

Facts of Creation

By Wendy S. Scott

Dedication: Most of this guide, in one way or another, has sprung from the tireless work of Creation scientists like those of the Institute for Creation Research, where such marvelous ongoing research continuously reveals the true facts behind Creation.  For greater depth and original research resources, visit the ICR website. God, of course, is the Author of Creation, and the Originator of all wisdom, to whom I owe all praise.


True Blue

All undisputed facts in this guide are in bright blue. 


Is there a God?  This is the one imperative question that abides before every one of us regardless of who or where we are.  What we ultimately conclude from our experiences and observations will influence every aspect of our life, and subsequently, our after-life.  We must therefore give the most serious attention to our inquiry, and diligently search with the heart of wisdom.

No one, with genuine authority, can prove that there is no God.  There is a truth, and by definition, there can be only one truth on this matter: either there is, or there is not a God.  The existence of God is not affected by our opinion.  If we are wrong, God doesn’t appear or disappear subject to our beliefs.  While science is striving to dethrone this mighty king with its own god of evolution, most people profess a sense that there is something more beyond what we see.  We have a powerful awareness of eternity stamped on our hearts, compelling us to believe in a life beyond this world, and a mind behind it. 

Some people assume that any god will do, or that all roads lead to the same God, despite the glaring contrasts between them.  But can my idea of God and your idea of God both be true if they are fundamentally opposed?  Our grasp of the purpose of this world, and this life is arbitrary without a true understanding.  Everything we think and do and hope for balances on the perspective we choose to live by.  Eventually, we must all make that choice because indecision is not open to us.  This God expects us to decide.

But who is God?

If God is real, there ought to be some indication of who this Being is, what this Being’s role is in the world, and whether or not this Being can be trusted.  A real God, not one of our devising, would necessarily exist before time and outside of matter because as a God, He could not be the product of time and matter.  He must be the originator of all things, or he is the God of nothing.  If this is a God of reality, and not of imagination, there ought to be real, tangible evidence of His existence, supreme power and His intent. 

Given the consequences bound to the question of the existence of God, we are compelled to embark on a genuine investigation, void of all prejudices and baseless standards.  As the reader, you must answer this one question honestly, in order to come to a reasoned conclusion about the matter.  Are you willing to earnestly examine the evidence in search for the truth, and are you willing to accept that truth, no matter what it is? 

          Your first reaction to this challenge will reveal your heart, and your true position on the issue.  The question was not, “Will you believe what I tell you,” but “Will you accept the truth, whatever it is, when it is made plain to you?”  If your heart, already knowing the topic of this book, says “no,” then you are falling into the same trap as a lot of people and scientists who are willing to ignore actual evidence in order to hold onto their own beliefs.  In this case your “truth” is held in ignorance.  But perhaps you were not aware of this preconception that you held, and now being aware, you are willing to listen a little more openly.  That’s good, because then you cannot be fooled.  Your understanding will be based on knowledge, and not opinion, or current world views. 

Perhaps you are someone who has been undecided about the whole matter, or you already believe in God, but have always accepted that your faith was based on feelings instead of real intellectual and scientific evidence.  You think that your religious convictions need to bend to scientific claims, but then you are left without much substance in reality for your faith to stand on.  Your God has been whittled down into an ambiguous icon.  If evolution is true, then faith is in vain.  However, it most assuredly is NOT in vain. 

Before authoring this guide, I had the same concerns about my faith.  Although I knew that God was true, and the world was marvelous, I did not know how to reconcile my faith with popular science.  Wanting to know the truth, whichever way it went, I began to test everything that I heard on both sides, against the absolute, unmovable facts that had been determined, and accepted by all scientists.  What I discovered through my diligent journey as a layman is that the scientific truth was both alive and accessible to the common person.  The truth, I have discovered, is founded on unshakable facts and logic—unlike the edicts of the reigning scientific dynasty. 

Be encouraged because this text will lay out these facts, and breach the sanctity of evolution, liberating the truth from its captors.  These facts reveal that the only God to claim that He made the universe, the planets, all life, and our very souls, did so not in secret.  This same God that created everything and the natural laws that govern them, is wise and good, and He has firmly secured His claim through the very scientific evidence that people profess to tear Him down with.  



back to top  PHYSICS        BIOLOGY      FOSSILS         GEOLOGY     CHALLENGE INFO



The Challenge of Truth


There is a great deal of discussion over the factuality of the theory of evolution.  At this point to entertain any other possibility for the origin of the universe is not only considered scientific folly, but those who do so are treading on dangerous grounds in our sophisticated, technological society.  Because of this, many people make the error of viewing the topic the way they have been taught to view the popular concept of separation of church and state—that science and faith are mutually exclusive, and should not associate with one another. 

In reality though, if God created the universe, and all that is in it, that makes Him, undeniably scientific.  In fact, He would be the most brilliant, scientific mind to ever exist.  Evolutionists would like us to believe, however, that the persistence of these Creation fables is interesting for cultural variety only. To foist these archaic notions onto the rest of the world as the truth is ridiculously shameful and absurd in the face of “true science” and scientific reasoning.  This is the dichotomy that society holds now, and as the “scientific” reader sighs deeply, possibly rolling his or her eyes, (not this garbage again) we can perhaps settle this matter quickly.  The entirety of this book can be dismissed by successfully answering one fundamental question:


Name one scientifically undisputed fact of evolution. 


You may not be aware of all the nuances of the scientific fields, and have only a casual understanding of the theories of the origins of the universe based on our public school education.  To an open and intrigued mind, this is likely to be an interesting challenge, and I urge you to thoughtfully consider the many variables of this scientific riddle.  But for those of you who might be more familiar with the multitudinous details of particular sciences, I would caution you to take your time in answering this question. 

Sift through all of the vast knowledge that is available.  We are told that the unshakable, unmitigated scientific evidence for evolution is so powerful as to risk ridicule at the mere question of doubt.  We have been convinced to trust in all this unsearchable depth of scientific wisdom, and principles, discoveries, and rational thought, until the whole of society has been unquestionably fastened to this one concept.  Given this unfailing assurance by the scientific community, dozens of undeniable examples should flood the mind.  Name simply one scientific fact of evolution. 

          Here’s just a general reminder of what a fact is.  According to the World Book Encyclopedia definition:  “Facts are truths proved only through such means as experiment, testing, measurement, or scientific observation.”  A fact is known, by reasonable people, to be true because of undisputed evidence. 

Absurdly, the reader may be wondering how to narrow it down to just one fact?  Good, then select a simple one, just to start with.  Be careful though. There are many ideas that scientists declare to be facts.  For instance, one might say “we evolved” which is only a concept, not a fact.  One might also claim that a fossil find “is a transitional form,” when at best, it is a perceived or possible transition.  These are not tested and proven facts, and many such professions and concepts have been disproved over the years.  A genuine fact that proves evolution should be scientifically indisputable, and also excludes the Creation model.  It therefore cannot be an accepted fact of the Creation model as well.

There are many scientific facts that people often assume contradict the Creation model.  Some of these are: the wide variation in species, natural selection of the fittest, dinosaurs, the Ice Age, mass pre-historic extinctions, types of plants and animals unique to the past, fossils, genetic mutations, the complexity and vastness of the universe, and evidence of “cavemen” and Neanderthals are among many common misconceptions.  The Creation Science model finds these factors to fit very well with expectations based on the Biblical account.        

This discussion, however, does not intend to argue for the vague and ineffectual Intelligent Design model now battling for a place in public schools.  It is not necessary to water down the Creation account into a flexible model that allows for millions of years of evolution, or a mythical interpretation of Noah’s flood.  This book will assume a literal, to the last word adherence to the Biblical model.  If Creation is such a fairy tale, it shouldn’t be hard to find one really good, blow it out of the water hard fact that completely belies the Biblical account. 

Name one fact that even EVOLUTIONISTS all agree is unwavering and completely unshakable.  Go on, set the book down, and think about it.  This will wait.  Just don’t forget to come back . . .

Okay, weeding through the impenetrable mound of assumptions, suppositions, and unproven conclusions, one might be astounded to find that there are no facts to support evolution to the exclusion of the Creation Model.  If you still think there is something out there that you are missing; that perhaps this is a ridiculous proposition, or you think you might actually have a fact in mind, then consider what one of dozens of highly regarded evolutionists have readily admitted. 

Colin Patterson, who remains an evolutionist despite his revelations, confirmed this lack of support in a 1981 address at the American Museum of Natural History in New York:  (Hanegraaff, pg 44)


For over 20 years I thought I was working on evolution . . . but there was not one thing I knew about it. . . .So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting the simple question to various people and groups of people and [scientists].  The question is “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?” . . . and all I got was silence. . . .  During the past few years . . . you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith . . . . Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge. 


Evolutionists know that there are no scientifically undisputed facts that demonstrate evolution, that’s why instead of presenting them, they simply mold the evidence only to fit their assumptions even when it is decidedly not the most logical conclusion. They declare every aspect of evolution a fact so often that people assume there is something behind it.  Even though evolutionists will not even consider scientifically sound alternatives to evolution, they are still not able to agree to a single concept of how this “fact” of evolution played out.  From the Big Bang to the rise of man, there is strenuous dispute over how any of it occurred.   

There are dozens of scientific views and interpretations concerning the evolutionary process.  These disagreements are not on minor details, but on the principle concepts of how the universe came into being, and if and how macro-evolution occurred.  Every major stage of this process remains completely unsettled as to the mechanisms involved because evolution conflicts with true scientific facts. It is called the Theory of Evolution, but it is much more than one theory.  There are no “facts” to actually build the skeleton of evolution on that all, well regarded evolutionists except.   

But curiously, one may wonder, are there any scientific facts that point to the Creation model to the exclusion of evolution?  Facts that no reasonable scientist would deny?  There are.


back to top  PHYSICS        BIOLOGY      FOSSILS         GEOLOGY     CHALLENGE INFO



The Creation Model


Many rumors have been dispensed about the Bible.  People think that if they point out what they view as errors or inaccuracies in the Bible, then they have proven the faith to be false.  They are right.  If indeed the Bible said something ridiculous like the moon was made of green cheese, (Mormon prophesy), or that the sun sets in a spring of murky water every night (Surah 18:86, the Quran), or that the sun was pulled across the sky by a god and his chariot (Greek myth of Helios), or that the world was carried on the back of a turtle (Hindu myth of Chukwa), or that a woman was impregnated by an elephant (myth of Buddha’s birth) along with many more faith based misconceptions, then it would be reasonable to question whether it was the word of an inerrant God. 

No such evidence is given, however, and arguments against the Bible typically breakdown to “Man has translated it so many times, you can’t trust it,” and “The Bible is full of contradictions.” Ask specifically what they are, and the whole of someone’s argument against the Bible usually comes down to “That word was used in this translation, and another word was used in this translation,” or “In this Gospel Mary went in the tomb, and in this one several women went in,” not considering that one Gospel just gave more details. 

The Bible has withstood every academic test—it is historically accurate, we know that the translations are faithful (thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls), the detailed prophecies have come true, the texts have a spiritual and historical continuity, and they are scientifically sound.  No other ancient document meets the standards the Bible meets, and yet no other ancient document has undertaken such a monumental task.

The Bible covers more ancient history than any other book of antiquity, and was written by more than 40 different authors over the period of 1,500 years, yet the doctrine, salvation, and nature of God maintain complete continuity throughout.  The Hebrew scribes faithfully copied the Old Testament manuscripts so that each line and column always ended the same, eliminating any possible errors.  The New Testament writings can be attributed to the eyewitnesses themselves, and were widespread within their lifetimes.  They date within the span of 40 years of Jesus’ crucifixion based on various historical citations and continued references to the Temple, which was destroyed in 70 AD. 

The existence of this kind of proof is remarkable since writing itself was not the tool of the common person, and these writings were widely distributed while witnesses to Jesus’ ministry were still alive and able to dispute each author’s claims.  Even secular sources of the time (including Roman official documents and the Jewish historian, Josephus) confirm the essential doctrines of early Christianity: that Jesus claimed to be the way to God, that he predicted His own death, and resurrection, that all His followers became bold and published His Gospel even enduring death, and that they worshiped Him as God. Additionally, hundreds of precise prophecies have already been fulfilled, a feat not even attempted by the texts of other beliefs.  Despite the Bible’s incredible trustworthiness, it takes very little to let people off the hook of believing in it.

Society does, however, have a higher level of tolerance for its own faith in Naturalism, and people’s stomachs are significantly stronger when it comes to false scientific claims.  If one perceived inaccuracy disproves God’s Word, how many blatant errors will it take to topple the monument of evolution?  How many “false prophecies” can science endure before evolution goes the way of Greek myths, and succumbs to the status of a societal icon like aliens from outer space?

If there are indeed provable, testable facts that confirm the Creation model, and exclude the theory of evolution, but there are no provable, testable facts that confirm the theory of evolution, and exclude the Creation model, then the Creation model would be the more reasonable scientific perspective, whether one wishes to believe in God or not.  Taking faith out of the equation, the Creation model factually demonstrates to be the more accurate scientific model.


The Biblical Account

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, which some professing, have erred concerning the faith,”

I Tim 6:20-21


First, so the reader is able to keep the evidence in perspective, here is the basic Creation model, according to the Bible, or Moses’ book of Genesis, chapters 1-2 (and affirmed by several other books of the Bible).  God created the universe, all the chemical elements, light and energy and matter, all the principles of physics, and natural sciences, the heavens, the earth, the atmosphere, and all life including man as a distinct and fully developed being in six literal days.  Because He is God, millions of years wouldn’t make the task any easier, and therefore this allowance is an unnecessary intrusion into the Biblical account. 

God called His Creation very good.  The Bible tells us that He gave every form of life the ability to reproduce after its own kind, fixing each basic genus.  In Genesis chapter 3, when Adam and Eve committed sin, they opened the door that allowed evil into the world, which brought death and destruction.  From then on, all life and energy has been slowly degenerating under the curse of the destructive presence of evil.  Later, in chapter 6, the earth was full of violence when the hearts of people had grown cold toward God, and they continued to reject a relationship with Him. God pronounced a judgment on the earth and on humanity to cleanse the world corrupt from rebellion.

God warned the people about the coming judgment through Noah for 100 years before He sent the global Flood to destroy all terrestrial life.  Noah and his family were spared because he was the only one who had given his heart to follow the Lord.  God used Noah to preserve a remnant of His Creation in order to continue life on the earth after the Flood, and replenish it with the good seed of the faithful.  He instructed Noah to build the Ark and preserve some of every kind of terrestrial animal.  The account of the Flood is recorded in Genesis chapters 7 and 8. 

The Flood occurred when God caused torrential rain to fall, and fountains of water to brake up from deep within the earth and sea.  It rained for forty days, and the ark was lifted by the floodwaters.  After 150 days, Psalm 104:6-9 tells us that God caused the waters to recede with the sudden rise of mountains, through continued volcanism and the movement of the earth’s crust.  This caused the water to flow to the foot of the mountains, into the valleys of newly formed sea basins, where the water is contained to this day (which is bounded by underwater mountains).  In Genesis 8:1, God also caused a wind to pass over the land, creating weather currents, which aided the evaporation of the water into the clouds.  After about a year, the Ark rested on a mountain (Mt. Ararat) in the Middle East, and all its inhabitants went about to resettle and replenish the earth.

At this point, the weather and topography of the earth would have been extremely different.  The Bible tells us in Gen 2:6 that before the flood, there was no rain, but a mist rose from water sources under the warm ground, and watered everything.  Likely, the water in the atmosphere had been contained in a water canopy that maintained the global tropical climate, and kept out much of the sun’s radiation.  Now after the collapse of the canopy, the cataclysmic geological episodes and introduction of rain clouds, the climate and the atmosphere would have shifted dramatically. 

The post cataclysm landscape and conditions brought the Ice Age, a climate that would influence genetic variations in some animals through their pre-programmed DNA (like wooly mammoths).  However, the new colder climate would likely hinder the broad success of other animals, such as dinosaurs and other creatures not suited for the cold.  The Ice Age would also facilitate repopulating the world through land and ice bridges.

Animals first began to disperse throughout the world, but people disobeyed God and did not.  Instead, they built a great civilization capped by the Tower of Babel in Iraq (Gen 11:1-9 ).  God then enforced His directive to fill the earth by causing a division among the people when He imposed different languages among them.  Since the collapse of the water canopy would have allowed in more solar radiation, the increased vulnerability to its harmful effects and an impact on genetic mutations explains the Post-Flood onset of shorter lives.  

The information and discussion throughout this book will demonstrate the scientific validity of this model, and reveal how biased and unsubstantiated the evolution model really is. 

This book is a journey that the author endeavored to undertake in pursuit of the true scientific facts.  It is a layman’s quest for genuine, unbiased answers to this mystery of our origins.  It takes great strides in drawing conclusions purely from the undisputed logic and science that can be easily gleaned from everyday textbooks and resources.  With such accessible corroboration, it was possible to reclaim the things of science from the elite-minded, and bestow them through undefiled evidence, back to the citizenry.  Let us now peak behind Oz’s curtain, and see him for what he really is. 


back to top  PHYSICS        BIOLOGY      FOSSILS         GEOLOGY     CHALLENGE INFO




Bias Dispensed

The “Truth” about Evolution—can we believe everything we hear?


Truth is an elusive thing.  Who can you trust to give it to you?  Some people like to think that there is no absolute truth (absolutely).  We betray this notion in our very convictions about life, and each believes that what we hold fast to is right, or true.  Though philosophies market this elusive concept in order to promote their own brand of exclusive truth, our daily realities prove, logically, that there is Truth.  While one may cloud the issue with philosophical challenges, I can tell you that at the writing of this book, I, a female, live in California, and I have lived here all my life.  Why waste time arguing angles of reality? 

When people ask me where I grew up, they don’t want to hear, “Why do you assume I am grown,” or “Who knows, my past is my future,” or “According to eastern thought, the reality we call life doesn’t exist.”  Well, if that’s true, stop getting up in the morning, and going to work to earn money to pay for this fantasy of life, and while you’re at it, try not moving when a car is driving toward you and test the edge of your reality.  We are all thankful that science at least claims to be a study of our reality.

Unfortunately, though, truth can be manipulated when it is dispensed to the hearer.  Before we endeavor to weigh the truth about the origin of the universe, we must dispel this concept that the scientific perspective is always truthful and unbiased, and that the Judeo-Christian perspective is always fanciful and biased.  The reason millions of people believe that evolution is a fact, and that Creation is a fable, is that we do assume that science is unbiased, and religion has an agenda.  Once this assumption is deeply established through repetition, it is possible to pass anything off as the truth, cloaking it with authority, and conviction.  The public assumes that the scientists are being forthright, and yet bias scientists use this trust to cautiously lead us through the evolutionary minefield with their careful phrases and implications.  When you act like you know what you are talking about, people will believe it.  People will not question it.  People will stop using their minds.  

One may wonder if scientists, as a community, are really capable of conspiring to keep such secrets, and why.  Society is generally cautious about giving heed to conspiracy theories, which frequently sprout from paranoid minds.   But then how do we know when a conspiracy really is being perpetrated?  We know through honest testing and inquisition by unbiased sources.  However, we watch the movies.  We know the plot.  When the suspected perpetrators refuse to submit to scrutiny, our suspicions should be aroused.  The protective barrier entrenched around evolution should tip us off that something evocative is being hidden.  Shall we poke a hole in the wall, and see?

As we scrutinize the evolutionary scientific establishment, you will doubtless hear many logical and common sense ideas and wonder why you never thought of them before.  When this happens, remember that it was the scientific misinformation that prevented you from coming to these same, obvious conclusions, and prevented you from thinking past what you were told.  Scrutinize everything—said by scientists, and said here.  Weigh it all, and judge for yourself.  What is really true? 

Why would so many scientists participate, willingly, or by coercion, to protect this concept of evolution? The reality is that despite society’s assertion that evolution science is the only non-religious science, it is in fact a decidedly religious dogma which presumes that God does not exist.  This in itself is a faith—an unproven assumption that there is no God.  Scientists will tell you that they cannot prove there is no God.  Why then do all scientific theories exclude God, and fail to keep the door open when examining the evidence?  Evolutionary science is emphatically an anti-God establishment, even though it theoretically allows us the luxury of “a form of god” that does not claim to have specially created life and the details of the universe. 

In fact, everyone who does not desire to believe in God the Creator, must believe in a form of evolution.  This refusal to believe in God the Creator, is a powerful motivator because once you decide God did not create the universe, there is no other scientific option but evolution.  And once you decide that there is no option to evolution, your job, if you are a scientist, is to make it fit.  It was not the scientific evidence that first convinced people there is no God.  People have refused to believe in God the Creator throughout history.  The evolution myth is an ancient concept that can be traced back to “the Great Chain of being” rooted in Greek pantheism.  Only now, science is seeking to substantiate it.  It is not unreasonable to wonder if science’s intellectual skeptics are now driving evolution’s bus.     

Again, if the Creation and Noah’s Flood accounts are such scientifically inadequate premises, why do evolutionists feel compelled to continually, even angrily, dispute and censor Creationist concepts?  They don’t ridicule Hindus, or Buddhists, or Muslims, or psychics, or New Age spiritualists about their deeply held convictions.  Could it be that these faiths are not a scientific challenge to the establishment?  Could it be that there really is reliable science behind the Creation model?  There are good scientists out there pursuing the truth and raising rational issues about a naturalistic origin of the universe, and they know that the evidence does not exclusively substantiate to the evolution model.  But if this is so, why don’t we hear more specifics about this evidence for Creation?

Perhaps it is because of the forgotten oxymoron—once a scientist becomes convinced by the evidence that the Bible is true, that scientist ceases to be considered legitimate, and is now considered a Creationist.  Rationally, there can’t be any non-Creationists who agree that the evidence supports Creation over evolution.  Scientists who recognize the evidence for Creation become illegitimate, and the scientists who disregard it are considered real scientists because they confirm evolution.  There is very little room for a middle ground. 

However, many scientists who have been taught that there is no scientific alternative to evolution are beginning to recognize the problems with evolution in their own work.  This recognition, occasionally, reveals glimpses of the truth about Creation, and some of this evidence is beginning to take root.  Despite this, the majority of the scientists still remain devout to evolution.  They adamantly deny any possibility that God specially created everything, or that He sent a worldwide Flood.  They take great pains to convince the less-scientific that the idea is completely unfounded and superstitious—in spite of the compelling evidence.




To demonstrate this willingness to mislead, even deceive the public, the following is a typical example of scientific manipulation.  It comes from the newly self-appointed czars of cutting edge science—The Discovery Channel.  The January 18, 2004 program (and subsequent re-airing) “Noah’s Ark, the True Story,” promised to examine the details of the account of Noah’s Flood from a purely scientific viewpoint (why don’t they ever do “Buddha, the true story,” or “Muhammad, the true story,” or “Joseph Smith, the true story?”).

According to the promo, the scientific evidence itself would be weighed to test the veracity of the Biblical account.  Instead, the producers reveal their bias against God and against the validity of the Flood account on every point.  The program would set up false obstacles to weaken the credibility of the Biblical premise, and then feign to help salvage it by making more feasible concessions to the original account.  By this, the program systematically belittles the legitimacy of the Bible on the testimony of this “science.” 

A closed-minded approach is evident from the beginning.  One of many quotes demonstrates this skeptical predisposition.  After describing a litany of seemingly insurmountable problems for the account, the host presents this dilemma—“It may seem there is a stark choice—dismiss the story as myth, or appeal to the hand of God.”  Naturally, if the evidence validated the Flood account, then it would, by default, testify that this God in heaven was true.  The statement unequivocally mocks the existence of God, revealing an absolute biased against the possibility.  The entire program is filled with disparaging remarks, making it clear that the account would not be taken seriously.  We are so used to scientists excluding God from their assessments, that we forget how unscientific it is to assume that there is no God outright, without even considering the evidence. 

There were blatant distortions intentionally perpetrated in this program, a common practice for this network.  Their custom is to feed the viewer a false assumption, and then to knock down that assumption, thereby falsely discrediting the concept while appearing to be genuine.  As the host cataloged the original Biblical account beginning at God’s direction to build the Ark, to the loading of animals and the onset of the Flood, each detail was analyzed from the perspective of doubt. 

The first intentional misrepresentation began with the Ark itself.  Illustrators provided a computer image of a giant Ark fashioned like a typical boat.  Although children’s books for years have offered this depiction, it is inaccurate.  The program showed the viewer a boat with a curved bow and stern, where the boards along the hull curved to meet in a point at the bow and the stern.  A Marine Archeologist, Tom Vosmer, is then interviewed, who testifies:


The problem with a 450’ boat made of wood, is that wood, as a material, cannot maintain the shape of the boat, and the boat would start to distort at sea, and the seams would open up, and it would sink.  


While he is speaking, and continuing to say “boat,” he points to their depiction of this “boat,” indicating where the boards are curving together to a point at the bow, and specifying the inability for the wood to hold the strain of this large, curved shape.  At this point, an animation of this boat appears, and it quickly breaks up and sinks into the sea.  The narrator then comments, “It’s a safe bet that a wooden Ark of that size would have sprung hundreds of leaks along the length of its huge hull, and sank like a stone.”  From this comment we can gather at least one thing, no experiments were conducted to find out either way, but this is a secondary issue.  Although the evidence offered is nothing more than supposition and a cartoon, the entire veracity of the account is summarily dismissed with a few words.  The Ark is then arbitrarily assigned a much smaller size, and the program moves on to the next issue.  They make no honest attempt to work out the feasibility of the account without altering it. 

This would not be so bad, if the program were not deliberately ignoring one indisputable fact.  The original word that we translate to the English word “Ark” means “box,” and not boat, otherwise it would have been translated to “boat.”  The instructions specify a length, width, and height, and indicate 3 stories—most logically and simply interpreted as a box.  There is no indication in the Biblical description that the structure resembled the image depicted in the animation, or is any other than this most obvious rectangular shape.  The expert that so rashly dismisses the account with the insurmountable strain on the large, curved boards would not be able to make his argument against a rectangular box, which is a strong, simple structure. 

In fact, it is such a good structure, designed for stability in rough water, that we still apply a similar design to barges.  It would also be more feasible to build, as the bottom of the hull would not have to be balanced on scaffolding, but could sit squarely on the ground, until the rising waters lifted it up.  One must assume that, among all the experts that would have to be consulted in responsibly undertaking such an important and public examination of this sacred text, at least one person would know such a simple fact that any common Bible concordance can tell us. 


back to top  PHYSICS        BIOLOGY      FOSSILS         GEOLOGY     CHALLENGE INFO




Furthermore, the narrator generalizes the cause of the inevitable destruction of the Ark as being “hundreds of leaks along the hull,” which is not what the expert had indicated.  Based on the history of boat making, wood is quite reliable for hull-making, a light, but strong material, which handily expands in water to seal the seams.  God’s further instruction to waterproof the hull with pitch discredits this insubstantial argument.  But the expert’s argument was not against wood as used for boats, but as wood holding the rounded shape of such a large conventional boat.  Being a straight-line box structure, and not the curved hull and bow of a boat, this argument against the size of the Ark is groundless. 

The implication at the start of the program was that actual scientific evidence and experimentation would be used to test the account, but not even the effort was made to simply build a scale model to test the structure according to an accurate interpretation of the clear instructions.  No other evidence is offered against the feasibility of the Biblical account of the structure of the Ark, so the arguments presented easily fall with a correct interpretation of the scripture.

Another assumption was intended to cast doubt on God’s directive to Noah in Genesis 6:19 to take animals onto the Ark with him and his family.  The program narrator proposes that at last count there were 30 million species in the world and that if Noah were to take 30 million species on the Ark, not only would it take 30 years of non-stop loading, but they would never fit.  With such numbers, who would give any credence to the Bible?  Since they had already greatly shrunk the Ark based on the last presumption, 30 million species would, all agreed, be quite impossible.

The deception lies in the assertion that 30 million species would need to be loaded onto the Ark.  This figure would generously include every species of life known, and several million not yet found.  However, most of these species of life are plants, microscopic life, marine animals, and insects.  Not only would Noah not take a trout onto the Ark, simply out of logic, but God was specific in what Noah was to take.  Genesis 7:14-15 (and other verses) direct Noah to take only land animals that breathe.  This also excludes insects, which do not have the “breath of life,” but would survive on volunteer basis on the Ark, and on floating vegetation mats ripped up in the Flood. 

According to the Dorling Kindersley Science Encyclopedia, there are about 4,000 amphibian, 6,500 reptile, 9,000 bird, and 4,000 mammal species living today throughout the earth, totaling only about 23,500 species.  This figure would naturally include marine mammal species, like whales that would not go on the Ark.  At 23,500 species, this is a far cry from 30 million species, and a much more logical approach to the need.  Clearly, God did not direct Noah to go about gathering each of the 10,000 species of flatworms. 

Although it is necessary to add numerous extinct animal species to the list, such as several dinosaurs and flying reptiles, mammals with no surviving forms today, etc . . . most of the present individual species are variations of an initial form of the species.  Such species today could have radiated from a basic ancestor, like the wide variety of mice, rats, hares, bats, finches, etc . . . and therefore it would be necessary to take even less animals aboard. 

The mice in North America and the mice in Africa could have easily come from the same parents.  This could apply to so many species of the same family, the way most types of domestic cats radiated from the same basic cats to begin with.  If one wanted to preserve house cats, it would not be necessary to load every model.  When one takes into account the specific directions of the account, coupled with common sense, there was ample room on the Ark to preserve the life we see today. 

The majority of these birds and animals were smaller than dogs, while only a relatively few, including juvenile dinosaurs and elephants, would be larger.  The simple logic of which animals would go on the Ark is too obvious to believe that the program’s figure of 30 million was an honest assumption from those who are professing themselves to be scientists capable of critical thinking.  One must conclude that in an attempt to knock the viewer completely away from the feasibility of the Biblical account, it was necessary to purposefully distort the facts.

Another deception was formulated in this fashion.  The narrator, presumably not a scientist, makes this challenge concerning geological evidence of a global flood:


Such a catastrophe should have left evidence all over the planet in the form of uniform marine sediments spread across the earth and the ocean floor.  But is there any proof of a devastating global flood?


At this point, the program goes to a commercial, leaving the viewer to assume that the next part will discuss whether or not there is a layer of marine sediments all over the world.  When the program returns, Geologist Ian Plimer comes on and states:


A great flood would leave a signature.  It would be a very great signature apparent all over the world.  There is no such signature and there is no evidence.  In fact, there is only overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


At this point the narrator adds:


The absence of direct evidence is only one of the problems with this story.  In fact the whole idea of a global flood flies in the face of what is known about planet earth.


  Not one example is listed to support or explain this declaration of an utter lack of evidence.  All scientific inquiry is brushed off with an absolute statement as if it was a fact: “There is no evidence.”  The assertion has the effect of reassuring the viewer that there is no need to investigate further, the scientists have done it, and there is nothing to the claim.  In fact, this “fact” is really an opinion.  The true and undisputed fact—famously known, and the very foundation upon which evolution is built—is that there indeed is a very great deposit of marine sediments covering the entire world.  The misrepresentation is that the wording suggests that there is not.  (The later section on Geology will discuss this in detail.) 

What the statement really means is that despite the overwhelming evidence of a prominent marine layer, we have chosen to interpret the evidence from an evolutionary perspective of long ages, and it dictates that there was no worldwide flood at the time the Bible indicates.  The minds behind the program are apparently afraid to even mention the existence of this marine layer within the context of the program for fear that the viewers might start thinking for themselves and put 2+2 together.  It would be easier for them not to discuss the marine layer here, than to mention it, and then have to explain all about why they don’t think it is from the Flood. 

To make any concessions at all would be to risk people concluding that this blatantly evident marine layer, and all the fossils it contains, was actually the result of the same catastrophic Flood of the Bible.  This would not only validate the Bible, but acknowledging a rapid deposit of sediments negates the assumption that fossils are the result of long ages.  If fossils were deposited in a catastrophe, then they do not represent millions of years of evolution.  Any concession that concurs with the Flood account, risks disclosing that the evidence proposed for evolution has been misinterpreted.  And who would admit such a thing? 

There were many more intentional distortions in this program, but the final one we will discuss was set up by the narrator.  He continues:


To flood the entire planet to the top of the Himalayas would take five times the volume of the water in the oceans.  It’s hard to imagine where such a deluge would come from.


The geologist then states, with “unquestionable” and emphatic authority: 


We know how much water we’ve got in the oceans, we know how much water we’ve got in the polar ice caps, we know how much water we’ve got in the atmosphere, we know how much water we’ve got in the rocks.  If we put all of that together, which has happened many times in the geological past, we still do not flood the continents. 


Two certain truths reveal that this distortion is intentional.  First, the statement forces an unknowledgeable viewer to accept the conditions of the assertion—that the top of the present day Himalayas must be covered in order to meet the criteria for the worldwide Flood.  That indeed is what it would take to flood the world completely today.  The Bible is clear, in Psalms 104:8-9 (as will be discussed later in the geology section) that the mountains arose in order to create drainage from the land. 

The Himalayas, according to this biblical detail, were formed post-Flood.  Since the scrutiny is whether the Biblical account fits the geological evidence, one must include this condition in order to faithfully address the description.  Since any legitimate assessment of the Biblical account (as stated earlier) would require analysis by someone who had at least a casual knowledge of the scriptures, one must assume that this detail was deliberately disregarded in order to set up the false premise.


back to top  PHYSICS        BIOLOGY      FOSSILS         GEOLOGY     CHALLENGE INFO




Secondly, scientists have the geological history before them to dispel any doubt about the Flood covering the area of the Himalayas.  As will be discussed in detail later, the fact is that geologists and paleontologists know that the Himalayas were once covered by the ocean; hence the reference to the oceans put together “many times” in the “geological past.”  The unquestioned evidenced for this lies in the thick layers of fossiliforous marine sediments that cover the very top of these great mountains.  Actually considered “young” mountains by geologists, the Himalayas were apparently formed in crumple zones, which crumpled these abundant marine sediments into the very rocks of the mountains. 

Every Geologist and Paleontologist knows for a fact that the Himalayas were formed after the sediments were deposited by water, which then lifted these marine fossils to the peak of even the highest mountain in the world, Mt Everest.  They know this is indisputable, which absolutely coincides with the Biblical account.  Despite this, they willingly choose to apply an evolutionary interpretation, and more damningly, they must use subtlety and deception to prevent the general public from seeing the obvious connection between the geological evidence and the Bible.

As a contrast, another network, The History Channel, made an honest attempt to evaluate the account of Noah’s Ark.  The April 12, 2006 re-airing of “Modern Marvels: Bible Tech,” tackled the same topic without the assumed skepticism, but earnestly weighed all the evidence.  The narrator initially characterizes the Noah’s Ark account as lacking solid proof.  However, maritime archeologist, Dr. Cheryl Ward is introduced, and she points out that cultures around the world have a similar version of the account telling of the world destroyed by water.  She, therefore, is not willing to dismiss the account as a local occurrence.

The narrator next comments “Boats must resist leakage, so the Biblical builders developed a sophisticated technology for tightly joining the wood planks.”  Dr. Ward then begins to describe the well known techniques of the ancient Mediterranean for building sturdy boats.  The most reliable of these is the “mortis and tenon” method using slots, mortis, and pegs to tightly secure the boards.  This method was commonly used for about 4,000 years. 

As the narrator begins to recount the Biblical instructions for building the Ark, a computer animation slowly constructs a rectangular shaped ark with a flat hull, in accordance with the specific Genesis description.  The true length and size is applied, and the full dimensions come out to 624’ long by 104’ wide, by 62’ high.  The narrator concludes it is “a huge vessel, but not without precedent.”  Dr. Ward next cites ancient ships described to be nearly as large, including some at 500’.  At least one Egyptian barge 3,500 years ago that was intended to transport obelisks, was huge enough to carry a 747 loaded with elephants. 

  At this point, the narrator introduces some research conducted by an engineer, Joseph K. Silver, who was an Ark buff.  As an engineer, he took the specific instructions for the Ark at face value, and worked out the feasibility of the design, careful to draw upon many related fields of study.  After he died, his family pieced together his notes, and submitted them in 2000 to Ed Shearer, the president of a nautical engineering firm.  Shearer was skeptical, but soon became very involved in extensive research, trying to refute the detailed conclusions of Mr. Silver’s notes.

Shearer looked up requirements and standards with the United States Coast Guard, the American Bureau of Shipping, and the International Maritime Organization, and finally concluded that:


Basically, his concept of the Ark fit all the requirements.  The rule of thumb is that ocean going barges have a length to depth ratio of about 15 to one.  The Ark actually met those criteria.


Shearer went a step further and created a computer model of the Ark using the same highly accurate software as the Coast Guard and the Navy for engineering analysis.  He discovered that the Ark design was highly stable, and had no excess bending areas, it would stay afloat in rough waters without a lot of stress in the hull, and met all the nautical criteria according to Coast Guard standards.      

In the final analysis, the sincere approach of the History Channel included the applicable research and input from appropriate experts who scientifically determined that the design of the Ark would have been a practical vessel for the stormy seas.  We are left to evaluate which presentation carries more weight—the one that offered no experimental evidence, or the one that actually presented a genuine investigation of the account.  Fortunately, in this instance, there has been an unbiased scientific exploration of the claim.  Where evolution is concerned, however, scientific voices rarely dissent from the traditional paradigm.         

An honest reader will find that deceptions and manipulations of wording, even outright lies, pervade the scientific community in order to keep the average person from recognizing the truth.  There are hundreds of good, honest scientists out there working hard to give us understanding.  However, when at any point the evidence and observations soundly discredit evolution, and affirm Creation and the Flood, those findings will not be made well known, and explanations will always be conjured. 

If indeed there is so much evidence to corroborate the Biblical account, why of the two possibilities, do scientists always slant it toward evolution?  Because they have no other choice.  Again, they have decided to believe that the universe was formed without God, that science must exist outside of religion, and to concede to any part of the overwhelming evidence, would be to relinquish all that they are, and all that they hold fast to.  Science must provide a viable alternative to God, even at the cost of the truth. 

Evolutionists are the Pharisees of science, jealously guarding their domain with pompous authority, and casting out the converted.  Just as Jesus said of those religious tyrants, “Woe to you . . . for you are like unmarked graves, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them . . . Woe to you, for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you wouldn’t enter in yourself, and those that would have entered in, you hindered,” (Luke 11:44, 52).  We have supposed that we have nowhere else to turn to for the truth. 

Evolutionists use science like a shell game, cloaking the truth with slight of word.  There are no facts to prove the theory of evolution because there is not one piece of evidence that every evolutionist will agree is an undisputed fact of evolution.  They only agree that evolution itself is a fact.  The Creation model, however, is so sound that the excellence of this world blooms with wisdom and beauty when viewed through its scope.  “For I will give you . . . a wisdom that all your opponents will not be able to overcome, nor resist,” Luke 21:15.


The following text, sectioned by Units, lays out scientific facts that support Creation Science to the exclusion of the evolutionary theory.


back to top  PHYSICS        BIOLOGY      FOSSILS         GEOLOGY     CHALLENGE INFO