This document contains dedications and forewords for a book on creation from a gap theory perspective. The dedication thanks those who helped with editing and research. The forewords praise the author's qualifications and recommend the book. They assert the author can correctly interpret scripture and apply science without conflict between the two fields. The introductions define key creation theories and provide scriptural support for the gap theory view of an initial creation, followed by a period of chaos, and a subsequent re-creation over six days.

2. DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to my wife, Debbie, who despite her admitted dislike of the life sciences,
faithfully help in editing and offered helpful suggestions for this book. This work is also
dedicated to Bro. John Penn and Bro. John Owen, my former seminary instructors, at whose
insistence I undertook this work, and who offered encouragement and advice along the way. I
would also like to acknowledge Bro. Jim Still and his wife Cindy, who were such gracious hosts
while I was doing research at the Dinosaur National Monument in Utah and to Casey Penn for
her hours of editting. Finally, I dedicate this book to all those who remain faithful believers and
defenders of the gap doctrine.

3. FOREWORD
From Dr. John E. Owen
I am happy to write a foreword to this book regarding creation. Dr. Bray has done a
masterful work in harmonizing valid Scripture interpretation and true science. He is uniquely
qualified to write on such a subject from his educational background, with degrees in Theology
and Science from recognized institutions in both fields. You will be challenged in your study of
both fields. Since God is the Originator of both science and theology, He has provided mankind
with His own revelation of Himself and His creation in the Bible without any conflict between
the two.
Troy Bray is a man who loves the Lord, has dedicated his life to a study of His Word and
His creation, and has spent many months writing this book in order to make it readable and
understandable to all. I invite you to read it seriously and prayerfully expecting greater
understanding and appreciation for the creation our all wise and all-knowing God has made.
From Dr. John E. Penn
No one is better prepared to write a book on the creation of the heavens and the earth than
Dr. Troy Bray. His intellect and training complement one another. He is a theologian and
scientist. He can be trusted to correctly interpret the Scriptures. This is his first concern.
However, he can also apply himself as one educated in the life sciences.
I know that Dr. Bray and his family have given up many of the things that would have
made their lives more pleasant. These sacrifices were made willingly that he might be well
equipped to defend the faith from the pulpit and the secular classroom podium as well.
I highly recommend Dr. Bray’s book, A Matter of Time: The Scientific Absurdities of a
Young Earth from the Vantage Point of a scientifically Educated Believer. It should be placed
into the hands of every graduating; high school student as well as the college freshman.

4. i
INTRODUCTION
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was
without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of
God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1, 2 KJV)
Creation Theories Defined. Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism,
restoration creationism, or The Gap Theory) is an interpretation of old Earth creationism that
posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour
days, but that there was a gap of unspecified time between two distinct creations—the first
creation described succinctly in Genesis 1:1 and the second creation, better known as the “re-
creation” beginning in Genesis 1:2. The Gap Theory (GT) differs from the Day-Age Theory
(DAT), which posits that the “days” of creation were much longer periods of time (i.e. thousands
or millions of years), and from the Young Earth Theory (YET), which like the GT teaches that
the six days of creation were literally 24-hour days, but does not accept that any time gaps
existed in Genesis and thus teaches that the original creation is less than 10,000 years old.
Furthermore, the YET contends that man has been a contemporary of all animals and plants that
have ever existed on earth.
While there has been a resurgence of The YET in recent years, this doctrine owes its
original popularity, if not its very existence, to the published works of two 17th
century,
Protestant theologians—John Lightfoot and James Ussher. An English churchman and vice-
chancellor of the University of Cambridge, John Lightfoot, using Biblical genealogies and dates
of historical events mentioned in the Bible, declared that creation had occurred on September 17,
3928 B.C., while James Ussher, the Irish Archbishop of Armagh, using the same types of data,
insisted that creation occurred in October of 4004 B.C. After a few rounds of academic sparring

5. ii
these two men had a meeting of the minds and agreed that the universe came into existence the
week of October 18 through 24, 4004 B.C., and that man had been created on October 23rd
at
9:00 a.m. Even though such precise dating never fails to bring about a grin or at least a giggle
from most people today, such accuracy made these two men scholarly superstars of the highest
magnitude. Greatly boosting the acceptance and popularity of these young earth dates was the
long time inclusion of the Ussher-Lightfoot calendar to the marginal annotations and cross
references of the King James Version of the Bible, which made it difficult for the average
church-goer to distinguish between what was inspired and what was commentary in their favorite
version of the Bible.
Despite the assertions of modern supporters of the YET, historic supporters of the GT
have many purely Scriptural reasons for not accepting a single creative act in Genesis. Among
those ample Scriptural reasons is the Biblical support for two different acts of God—the creation
and the restoration of creation. The idea that the Gap Theory originated from a feeble attempt of
intimidated Christians to harmonize the Scriptures with science rather than standing up to
science is preposterous—if for no other reason than the Gap Theory predates modern science by
centuries. Although this book uses modern science to show the fallacy of a young earth and at
the same time supports the doctrine of an old earth, it needs to be clearly understood that the
contents of this book are superfluous and admittedly unnecessary given that the Scriptures
themselves testify to the divine acts of creation and restoration separated by an indeterminate
period of time. It is only because of the pseudoscience being presented by young earth teachers
and accepted by a growing number of Missionary Baptists today that this author was asked to
write this book.

6. iii
If the young earth leaders and writers had refrained from attempting to use science to
validate or give credence to their erroneous beliefs, such a book as this would be unjustified at
best. However, when some of our very own leaders, teachers, and writers begin to parrot and
propagate the unreferenced, non-peer reviewed, and outright false scientific claims of Young
Earth Theory evangelicals, such a book as this becomes warranted and hopefully will be used to
help safeguard the credibility of those who stand behind the pulpits and podiums in our churches
and schools. As early as in our freshman year at the Missionary Baptist Seminary in Little Rock,
this author and his classmates were taught to use a particular method for scripture interpretation.
This method involved answering the following set of questions for each passage: 1) who was
speaking? 2) to whom was he speaking? 3) about what was he speaking? and 4) when was he
speaking? These same basic questions are not being asked or applied by the young earth
converts in the American Baptist Association (ABA) when it comes to the fantastic and absurd
scientific claims of such leading young earth propagandists as Ken Ham, Henry Morris, John
Woodmorappe, and Ken Hovind.
Scriptural Support for the Gap Theory. One of the more obvious reasons given by Gap
Theorists for believing in both a creation (Gen. 1:1) and a re-creation (Gen. 1:2-31) is found in
the Hebrew word Tohu meaning “chaos,” a state that God is never associated with (I Cor. 14:33).
Nowhere was this truth better illustrated than in the creation of the universe as described by the
prophet Isaiah:
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth
and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be
inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:18 KJV)
The Hebrew word Tohu is translated “IN VAIN.” Certainly it is understandable that a perfect,
orderly God could create nothing less than a perfect, orderly creation and yet, the Hebrew word
Tohu first appears in the scriptures in Genesis 1:2 translated as “without form.” Thus, for those

7. iv
who insist that the Book of Genesis describes only one act of creation, who is to be believed—
Isaiah, who stated that God did not create the earth in Tohu, or advocates of the YET who simply
see the Tohu of Genesis 1:2 as God’s initial step in creation?
In addition to the discrepancy between an orderly God beginning His creation with chaos,
there is the inconsistency also of a God who would describe His nature and character as light
only to begin the creation process in darkness: “. . . darkness was upon the face of the deep. . .”
(Gen. 1:2). Where did the darkness originate? If Gen. 1:2 is just part of an expanded description
of Gen. 1:1, one can only say the darkness came from God as part of the creative process and
leaves supporters of the YET with the difficult, if not impossible, task of harmonizing Gen. 1:2
with the description of God given by John:
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is
light, and in him is no darkness at all. (I John 1:5 KJV)
Another strong reason Gap Theorists cannot accept only a single act of creation is found
in the Hebrew word was in Genesis 1:2; was could have been better been translated “became” or
“had become,” thus the perfectly created Heaven and earth of Genesis 1:1 “became chaotic”
sometime after God created His perfect Heaven and earth. For a period of what could have been
billions of years, God’s perfect, inhabited creation (Isaiah 45:18) operated with all the living
beasts and plants we now only find in the fossil record. But what caused the transition in the state
of creation from perfect to chaotic? Most believers in the GT place the blame squarely on the
shoulders of Lucifer and his failed coup against God.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut
down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart,
I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the Stars of God: I will sit also
upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the
heights of the clouds; I will be like the most high. (Isaiah 14:12 KJV)

8. v
For more information on this failed rebellion by Satan and his followers, see Ezekiel 28:11-28
and Revelation 12:3-4, 7-9. Jesus himself confirmed the casting out of Satan:
I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. (Luke 10:18 KJV)
In retaliation against God, Satan made havoc of God’s creation, leaving the earth in the condition
described in Genesis 1:2 and far from inhabitable. How long did the earth remain in this chaotic
state? No man knows. Oddly, this author has not come across a YET supporter who denies the
fall of Lucifer and yet, no believer in the YET is willing to venture a guess as to when it
occurred. Could that be because there is only one logical time and place that it could have
occurred? That is, after the creation of a perfect universe (Gen. 1:1), but before chaos (Gen.
1:2)?
Consequently, Gap Theorists refer to what occurred during the six days mentioned in
Genesis 1 as a “reconstruction” or “restoration.” The earth was restored to a state of perfection
and a new caretaker for the earth was created—the first modern man. Unlike any creature
before, Adam was created in the image of God; that is, he was a three-part being (i.e. mind,
body, spirit). The doctrine of a recreation or restoration is also alluded to in the New Testament:
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that
things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Heb. 11:3)
It is interesting to note that the Greek word translated “framed” is the verb, καταρτίζω, which
can mean “to mend (what has been broken or rent), to repair.” This certainly would complement,
if not confirm, the Gap Theory.

9. PREFACE
To consider the topic of creation beyond what is recorded in the book of Genesis is
considered by some frivolous, impractical, and others would even say, arrogant on my part. I am
sure many would remind me of the question God asked of a very disgruntled Job, Where wast
thou when I laid the foundation of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding (Job 38:4).
Certainly, there were no human eyewitnesses to creation and this author would not dare to
presume that his account is precise on every point.
So why bother? What reason do we have to investigate the topic of creation outside of
the book of Genesis? What gives us the right to look outside the Scriptures for evidence of
God’s existence and work? The Scripture does. For example:
But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall
tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall
declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought
this? (Job 12:7-9).
God left a discernable trail of evidence in nature of His existence and creative work (e.g. Psalms
19). Sadly, man chooses to ignore the testimony of creation to the existence of a Creator, in
much the same way as man chooses to ignore the very same testimony coming from the Bible.
However, nowhere in the Bible does God discourage man from investigating his environment for
fear that such investigations would be fraught with misleading or contradictory data.
Historically, on those few occasions when there were apparent contradictions between
science and the Bible, the fault did not always lie with science. It would seem there have always
been extremists in Christianity who refuse to accept the premise that while the Scriptures are

10. infallible terms used in them are not always scientifically accurate. Why? First, the Bible is not a
book of science. To seek the answers to the mysteries of the natural world in the Bible would be
as unwise as to look for the spiritual precepts of Christian living among the laws of chemistry.
Second, the language used by the writers of the Scriptures was ordinarily adapted to appearances
(i.e. phenomenological language) rather than the scientific reality of the physical universe. The
extremists from both camps (i.e. Christians and scientists) tend to overlook that their terms had
to be intelligible to those to whom the Scriptures were first addressed. One of the first martyrs of
science, Galileo, dared to challenge the notion that the sun and the rest of the universe revolved
around the earth (i.e. geocentric universe). The teaching that the earth and the other planets
revolved around the sun (i.e. heliocentric universe) was widely believed to contradict the
accuracy of the account of the sun and moon standing still for Joshua in the valley of Ajalon
(Joshua 10). However, had the writer of the Book of Joshua given a scientifically accurate
account of the episode (i.e. the earth stood still), how many centuries would it have taken
mankind to understand this story? While it is not described in scientific terms, is the story any
less miraculous or meaningful today? Does the earth standing still rather than the sun and moon
standing still in any way diminish the power of God? If accuracy of scientific terms is required
for the Scriptures to be considered infallible, where does that leave the Book of Revelation? Had
the Book of Revelation been written using scientifically accurate terms, how long would it have
taken man to begin to understand its meaning? The doctrine of a geocentric universe was
doubtless a product of bad theology and not bad science, unless we are to disregard the very
foundation of astronomy and all the data gathered from every telescope and space flight.
Unfortunately, history seems to repeat itself. Nearly 500 years later, the custodians of bad
theology have once again chosen to prosecute another fundamentally accepted scientific tenet.

11. This author was surprised to learn that many Missionary Baptist churches and leaders have
joined with countless evangelical groups across this country in support of what many call the
Young Earth Theory (YET) as the only correct interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.
The supporters of YET contend that the age of the earth can be estimated in thousands of years
according to the Bible, as opposed to the billions of years that is the current contention of the
scientific community. However, having pastored Missionary Baptist churches for over thirty
years and being an alumnus of the largest and oldest Missionary Baptist Seminary in the United
States, this author has never taught or been taught YET. Instead this author was taught and
continues to teach what is called the Gap Theory (GT), which does not in any way attempt to
estimate or limit the age of the earth or universe. Thus, the GT does not put the Bible student at
odds with the scientific community over the age of the universe.
Because of being taught the GT by such men as Bro. Owen, Bro. Penn, and Bro. Capell,
this author was able to graduate the Missionary Baptist Seminary in Little Rock and go on to
earn four more degrees (all in the field of biology) without having his faith in the Scriptures
shaken in the least bit. The GT provided a biblical framework into which all the general
biological concepts and principles fit nicely. Conversely, had this author been taught or led to
believe in the YET version of Genesis, his years of biological training would have been spent
trying to drive round pegs into square holes and it would have either cost the author his faith or
his education.
Should Christian college and university students have to choose between their faith and
their education, particularly if that education is in the field of science? What YET supporters
teach creates this false dichotomy. Many Christian young people enter their first year of higher
education having been taught that the acceptance of an earth that is any older than 6,000 years is

12. tantamount to turning their backs on God and throwing away their Bibles. The pressure to
believe the rhetoric of the scientifically illiterate preacher over the professor trained in matters of
science can backfire, leaving the student feeling as though he or she has no other choice but to
reject his or her Christian upbringing at a time when he or she needs it most. Some students go
as far as to reason that if his or her pastor can be this dogmatic and yet wrong on matters of
science, how can he be trusted in other matters? So while the age of the earth and the events
surrounding the creation might not speak directly to the matter of salvation, the accuracy of such
teachings does speak to the legitimacy of both the messenger and his message.
It is the goal of this book to prevent Christian young people from getting caught on the
horns of a dilemma that need not exist, while at the same time hoping to enlighten YET
supporters as to the needless internal conflict their theory causes among our youth today. The
idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old has its origin in neither science nor the Bible, but rather
in the pride of man that prevents him from believing that creation could have existed for any
measurable length of time without him. This book will show how the proponents of YET are
ignoring more scientific evidence in order to prove their thesis than did all the supporters of a
geocentric and flat earth combined.
Troy L. Bray, Ph.D.
Pastor, Landmark MBC
Associate Professor of Biology and Biology Chair
Biology Department, Henderson State University

13. [1]
CHAPTER ONE
A BRIEF HISTORY OF GT AND THE RISE OF YET
An Ancient Origin
“If it is new, it is not true and if it is true, it is not new,” is a favorite saying of one of my
colleagues in the ministry. This warning is certainly valid given that originality is not a
desirable quality among those called upon to deliver the ageless and unchanging message of the
Bible. Novel interpretations to Scriptures and so-called innovative approaches to hermeneutics
should be suspect and approached with extreme caution. Thus, it is important to understand that
the Gap Theory (GT) is not a recent interpretation of the creation story that was conceived within
the last two centuries in an attempt to harmonize scripture with modern science, as some have
erroneously reported (Morris, 1976; Thompson, 1995). On the contrary, the GT predates modern
science and has allowed its supporters the latitude to welcome the modern discoveries and
conclusions of notable scientists from various fields when it comes to the ancient age of the
Earth.
Many supporters of the Young Earth Theory (YET) mistakenly believe that the GT arose
out of a need to explain the quickly expanding fossil record in the late 1700s and to compete with
the growing popularity of Darwinism of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Although it is true that
Christians were becoming increasingly concerned about the growing popularity of Darwinism in
the public arenas and institutions, very few fundamentalists attempted to disprove evolution by
arguing in favor of a young Earth (Biologos, 2013). In fact, enthusiasm for a young Earth was
largely confined to the Seventh-Day Adventists, who followed the writings of their founding
prophetess, Ellen G. White. White claimed to have seen the creation of the Earth in a vision from
God. In another vision, God revealed to her that the flood of Noah produced the fossil record

14. [2]
(Numbers, 2007). Early Adventists then explained the geological data found in the early
nineteenth century with their interpretation of the flood story of Genesis 6-8. It was this same
flood theology that Whitcomb and Morris would popularize later in their 1961 book, The
Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications.
In the early 1900s, large groups of conservative Christians wrote papers, engaged in
public debates, and preached countless sermons against the new teaching of evolution.
Interestingly, very few of these early Fundamentalists used the idea of a young Earth as evidence
against Darwinism. Even William Jennings Bryan, secretary of state under President Wilson,
three-time Democratic candidate for President, and a Fundamentalist who crusaded against the
teaching of evolution in public schools, accepted an old Earth (Biologos, 2013). Consider the
response of Bryan to Clarence Darrow in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, TN, . . . I
think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the Earth in six days as in
six years or in six million years or in 600 million years. I do not think it important whether we
believe one or the other (State v. Scopes: Trial excerpts, 2013). Unlike YET enthusiasts of
today, Bryan did not try to fight lies with lies; that is, he did not try to combat Darwinism by
teaching a young Earth. Bryan and other Fundamentalists of his day seemed to realize that the
teaching of a young Earth in light of Biblical and physical evidence was just as preposterous and
unreasonable as Darwinism.
Sadly, the YET supporters of today find great fault with these early defenders of truth.
The modern YET champion Kenneth Ham, a former high school biology teacher and now a
multi-million dollar author and president of Answers in Genesis (AiG), accused these early
warriors against Darwinism of being incompetent (Ham, 2012a). Ham equated the refusal of
these early theologians to reject Darwinism based upon the YET to being guilty of purposely

15. [3]
leaving the door of compromise half open for future generations and explained that such men
were simply spineless and unable to withstand accusations by the scientific community that they
were “anti-intellectual” and “anti-science” (Ham 2012a).
Ironically, the spiritual descendants of these early defenders of truth who continue to
stand against Darwinism without using the YET are still being wrongfully accused today. Ham
(2012a) and his followers are quick to publically accuse those Christian groups who refuse to
accept their YET views as being deniers of both the infallibility and authority of the Word of
God. Such conceit seems to permeate throughout the YET community today. This collective,
arrogant attitude has inspired, particularly the leaders of the YET population, to preach that they
are either the first to discover the “real” truth about the age of the Earth or that they are the first
to have the courage to defend such truth against the secular world. Please take into account the
following partial list of Landmark Baptist authors: J. L. Guthrie (1940; 1943), B. M. Bogard
(1925), D.N. Jackson (1937), and L.D. Foreman (1955), writers considered by the YET leaders
today as either deficient in hermeneutic skills or lacking in the courage to stand up to the secular
world because of what they wrote about the ancient age of the Earth. As a student in the
Missionary Baptist Seminary and Institute in Little Rock in the early 1980s, this author was
taught unequivocally that the Bible supported the existence of an ancient Earth by the following
instructors whom YET supporters today consider hermeneutically-challenged or fearful of the
scientific community. The list includes such men as John Owen, John Penn, L.D. Capell, J. C.
James, and Paul Goodwin. It certainly seems highly unlikely that multiple generations of
seminary teachers who were much more academically diverse than today’s YET leaders, could
all share in such a fundamental, hermeneutical miscue. And what seems even less believable is
that such a foundational and time-tested doctrine as the GT would so suddenly and adamantly be

16. [4]
discarded by a younger generation of Missionary Baptist seminary instructors who freely boast
of having an understanding of the Scriptures that is superior to that of their predecessors
(Thornton, 2010) and a greater mastery of science than the whole scientific community (Koon,
2010) when it comes to the true age of the Earth.
So if the GT supporters were not motivated by a desire to harmonize the Scriptures with
the findings of contemporary science, then what were they seeking to harmonize? As with any
believer in the authority and inerrancy of the Bible, the supporters of the GT sought to bring the
Scriptures into harmony with themselves, and they understood that a “gapless” Genesis 1:1 and
1:2 is far from harmonious with other Bible passages. The interpretation that God began his
perfect creation by creating an imperfect Earth (i.e.without form and void) is irreconcilable
with other Scriptures (e.g. Isaiah 45:18, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens;
God himself that formed the Earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not
in vain [void], he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else).
Even early Hebrew scholars used an ancient Earth as a means to harmonize their
interpretations of Genesis. Consider the most distinguished Jewish man of letters during the
Middle Ages, the Hebrew grammarian, Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) who wrote of the world
being created in time from preexistent material (Jewish Virtual Library, 2013; Gray, 1849).
Another early Old Testament commentator and Hebrew grammarian, Rabbi David Kimchi
(1160-1235), was also a scientific writer and physician (a hybrid that would not be accepted
among many YET supporters today), who saw creation as being perfect and complete in Genesis
1:1 and afterwards those things described by Moses were formed from this once perfect, pre-
existent matter (Jewish Virtual Library, 2013; Gray, 1849). There were other early Hebrew
scholars who likewise would not have seen a contradiction between their interpretations of

17. [5]
creation and the modern scientific model that places the Earth at billions of years old. Such old
Earth advocates include Moses Ben Maimon (1135-1204), Joseph Albo (1380-1433), and several
others (Jewish Encyclopedia, 2013).
Supporters of an ancient Earth and the GT can be found among early Christian scholars
as well. Dr. John Eadie (1810-1876), professor of Theological and Biblical Literature in
Divinity Hall of the United Presbyterian Church, Glasgow, Scotland, recognized the validity of
the gap doctrine:
The length of time that may have elapsed between the events recorded in the first
verse (of the first chapter of Genesis) and the condition of the globe, as described
in the second verse, is absolutely indefinite. How long it was we know not, and
ample space is therefore given to all the requisitions of geology. The second
verse describes the condition of our globe when God began to fix it up for the
abode of man. The first day’s work does not begin until the third verse. . . This is
NO NEW THEORY [emphasis added]. It was held by Justin Martyr, Origen,
Theodoret, and Augustine—men who came to such a conclusion without bias, and
who certainly WERE NOT DRIVEN TO IT BY ANY GEOLOGICAL
DIFFICULTIES [emphasis added]. (Fitzgerald, 1938)
The Alexandrian theologian Origen (185-254) alluded to the existence of a world prior to this
present world (Origen, 1917; Biologos, 2013a). The great admirer of Origen, St. Basil of
Caesarea (329-379) in his series of sermons entitled the Hexahemeron (the Six Days of
Creation), also held the opinion that there was an undocumented world before the world man
lived upon when he wrote: It appears, indeed, that even before this world an order of things

18. [6]
existed of which our mind can form an idea, but of which we can say nothing, because it is too
lofty a subject for men who are but beginners and are still babes in knowledge (Basil, 340). St.
Augustine of Hippo (354-430), a bishop in North Africa, was another central figure of the period
who did not see a gapless account of Genesis, but argued that the first two chapters of Genesis
are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time (Gray, 1849). Augustine also
believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with
biological evolution (Collins, 2006). Then there was the Dutch theologian, Simon Episcopius
(1583-1643), who is reported to have been the first to translate Genesis 1:2: And the Earth
‘became’ waste and void . . . (Zockler, 1954). All these men who were interested in harmonizing
the Scriptures were led to the same conclusion; namely, that there was a creation and a recreation
with a gap of unknowable time between the two events. Thus, the claim that the GT originated
out of a desperate attempt on the part of 19th
century theologians to force the Biblical account of
creation into the framework of modern science is blatantly untrue. In fact, just the opposite was
true; many theologians of the day welcomed the new science of geology as a means of bringing
harmony between what God had done and what God had said, between what man observed and
what man read in the Scriptures (Gray, 1849). If the findings of geology did anything, it proved
the gap that had been long taught and believed to exist between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
The Emergence of the Young Earth Theory
It was not until the mid-17th
century that the supporters of the GT faced their first serious
opposition. The challenge came almost simultaneously from the works of two vice-chancellors,
John Lightfoot (1602-1675) of Cambridge University and James Ussher (1581-1656), Trinity
College Dublin. While most scientific textbooks today love to point out just how ridiculous their
works appear in light of an additional 350 years of scientific data, few take the time to consider

19. [7]
the conditions and circumstances under which Lightfoot and Ussher labored. With little to no
modern scientific data available, particularly data dealing with ancient or prehistoric times,
Lightfoot and Ussher used the Bible as a book of science. While there had been the discovery of
various accounts of creation among other cultures worldwide, only the Hebrew account came
with a contiguous and, what they felt, was an uninterrupted account of the history of man from
his creation.
While many today assume that the works of Lightfoot and Ussher were little more than
thoughtless acts of accounting piety (i.e. adding up the ages of men), their Bible chronologies
were not so easy. The addition of life spans appear rather straightforward from Adam to
Solomon, but soon lose this clarity upon reaching the kings of the divided kingdom and become
even less clear during the inter-testament period. Nevertheless, Lightfoot was confident that
creation had occurred at the third hour (9:00 am) on the morning of September 12, 3929 B.C.
(Lightfoot, 1642). Ussher was no less confident that creation had occurred at noon on October
23, 4004 B.C. (Ussher, 1650). However, it was Ussher’s dates that became the standard. The
extent of the popularity of Ussher could best be seen in the fact that his chronology was included
for nearly 250 years in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible with 4004 B.C. emblazoned
on the first page of Genesis, bringing his work up to almost a canonical status (Gould, 1991).
This could partially explain the great affection the YET supporters feel for the KJV and the large
overlap of YET supporters and the KJV-only community (i.e. those who believe that the KJV
translators were God’s instruments of preserving His Word and all other versions are flawed).
Consider the words of Lawrence Ford, executive editor of Acts & Facts, a publication of the
YET organization, Institute for Creation Research (ICR): There is no doubt that God
providentially used King James to initiate what is likely the greatest translation project in

20. [8]
history. . . (Ford, 2011). Such support for the KJV is a reflection of the teachings of Henry
Morris (1996) the founder of said Institute and a well-known YET teacher.
There is little doubt that the widespread acceptance of the Ussher chronology caused
hesitation on the part of some early naturalists to publicize their conclusions that conflicted with
a young Earth. However, the growing mountain of physical evidence to the contrary
strengthened the resolve of researchers by the 18th
century. Among the earliest scientists to
challenge Ussher’s chronology was the French zoologist, Georges Cuvier (1769-1832). Even
though a professed Christian and a believer in the Biblical creation story, the early work of
Cuvier demonstrated that some species of animals had become extinct as the result of multiple
catastrophic events rather than a single catastrophic event such as the Biblical flood (Rudwick,
1997). Cuvier used groups of fossils to analyze the geological column under Paris concluding
that the layers had been laid down over an extended amount of time and included periods of
coverage by both fresh and salt water (Rudwick, 1997). Cuvier argued that the history of the
Earth was characterized by geological catastrophes occurring in relatively short periods of time
spread out over millions of years. The proponents of the GT could lift a flag in support for his
work, having no problem whatsoever with a long period of chaos and multiple catastrophes
occurring before the appearance of man during the gap. Conversely, the supporters of the YET
had a big problem with the time periods proposed by Cuvier as well as the number of
catastrophes he suggested had occurred during these periods of time.
The theory of Cuvier (catastrophism) soon faced a competing and contrary scientific
philosophy called uniformitarianism, which stated that the same laws and forces that operated on
the Earth in the past are still at work in the present throughout every part of the universe. In
other words, the laws of nature are constant across time and space. Uniformitarians believed the

21. [9]
present Earth was the result of slow, ongoing geological processes still at work today, not sudden
catastrophic events. Thus, the key to understanding the past was to understand the present
processes still at work shaping the Earth (e.g. erosion, deposition of sediments, continental drift,
volcanoes, etc.). Uniformitarianism was the brainchild of Scottish geologists, beginning with
James Hutton (1726-1797) and gaining popularity in the writings of Charles Lyell (1797-1875),
colleague and friend of Charles Darwin.
Although a professed believer in God, Hutton was accused of being an atheist after
arguing that fossils of marine organisms were not evidence of the universal flood of the Bible,
but of an infinite, natural cycle by which the Earth maintained itself (Hutton, 1788). Hutton was
further demonized because of his rejection of the popular Neptunist theories of Abraham Werner
(1774), which stated that all rocks had precipitated out of a single universal flood as opposed to
originating from the hot interior of the Earth (Hutton,1788). In terms of the age of the Earth,
Hutton is best remembered for this summation of his geological investigation: The result,
therefore, of our present enquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning,–no prospect of an end
(Hutton, 1788). Obviously, such a conclusion did not endear Hutton to the hearts of the YET
enthusiasts of his age or today.
However, because of his popularization of uniformitarianism and his close friendship
with Charles Darwin, no geologist is so vilified by YET supporters as Charles Lyell. It was the
first volume of Lyell’s Principles of Geology (1830) that Darwin chose to bring with him on
board the H.M.S. Beagle, and he would later write about the tremendous influence it had on his
work (Darwin, 1859). It would be through Darwin that uniformitarianism would be extended
into the biological sciences through the teaching of evolution. Uniformitarianism gave
biological evolutionists the time necessary for natural selection to make profound changes within

22. [10]
the living world. Thus, we see why YET supporters are so adamant today in their opposition to
an ancient Earth. Biological evolution could not survive without its most crucial ingredient—
time. For many YET proponents, the desire to correctly understand the age of the Earth per the
Book of Genesis seems to come in a distant second to their goal of disproving Darwinism.
Early Defenders of the Gap Theory
By the end of the 19th
century the supporters of a young Earth were not only losing
ground to modern science, but to a more vocal group of theologians who had found even more
reason to defend their old doctrine of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Modern science was
slowly discovering the evidence for what GT supporters had taught all along, an ancient and
traumatized pre-Adamic Earth. Among such 19th
century supporters of the GT was the Jewish,
Christian scholar Alfred Edersheim (1870), who wrote concerning the first chapter of Genesis:
An almost indefinite space of time and many changes may therefore have intervened between the
creation of heaven and Earth as mentioned in verse 1, and the chaotic state of our Earth as
described in verse 2.
Another staunch advocate of the GT was the theologian, James Gray, who wrote:
. . . the first verse in Genesis is not to be understood according to the currently
entertained notion, as merely giving a summary account of the after-recorded
work of the six days, but is an independent proposition enunciating THE
CREATION, primordial as to time, - the reference being retrospective rather than
prospective (Gray, 1849).

23. [11]
There was also George Bush (1838), professor of Hebrew and Oriental literature at the
New York City University, whose knowledge of the original language led him to argue
that a gapless Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 would be a clear violation of Isaiah 45:18.
During this same period, Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a Scottish mathematician,
economist, and leader of the Free Church of Scotland, was considered by many as the leading
spokesman for the GT, which had earned him the unofficial title of the “Natural Theologian”
because of his contention that there were no apparent contradictionS between the Scriptures and
the findings of the naturalists of his day. Some leading YET teachers mistakenly accused
Chalmers as the originator of the GT (Hovind & Lowwell, 2006) rather than simply being one in
a long line of contenders of a well-established doctrine. It is true that Chalmers loved to lecture
on the topic of creation, specifically on what God had created before the chaos that occurred
between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Consider the following quote from one of his 1814 lectures:
The first chapter of Genesis begins at the middle of the second verse; and what
precedes might be understood as an introductory sentence, by which we are most
appositely told, both that God created all things at the first and that, afterwards,
by what interval of time it is not specified, the Earth lapsed into a chaos, from the
darkness and disorder of which the present system or economy of things was
made to arise. Between the initial act and the details of Genesis, the world for
aught we know, might have been the theatre of many revolutions, the traces of
which geology may still investigate. (Hitchcock, 1851)
Such publicized lectures of Chalmers not only failed to contradict the novel sciences of his day,
they independently complemented the findings of the new science of geology.

24. [12]
What Chalmers and others were demonstrating, to the disappointment and disgust of the
YET believers then and now, was that the GT provided Christian members of the scientific
community, particularly geologists, a legitimate means to preserve their faith in both the Bible
and the new authority of emerging sciences.
It was just such harmony between theology and science that brought baseless accusations
from the YET crowd. In his book, PreAdamic Earths—Contributions to Theology Science, John
Harris references these widespread allegations by stating:
If I am reminded that I am in danger of being biased in favour of these
conclusions by the hope of harmonizing Scripture with Geology, I might venture
to suggest, in reply, that the danger is not all on one side. Instances of adherence
to traditional interpretations chiefly because they are traditional and popular,
though in the face of all evidence of their faultiness are by no means so rare as
to render warning unnecessary. The danger of confounding the infallibility of
our own interpretation with the infallibility of sacred text, is not peculiar to a
party [emphasis added]. (Harris 1851)
It is no surprise that those in support of GT are still being accused today of reinventing
interpretations of the Scriptures to avoid conflicts with scientific ideas, while the modern YET
supporters still insist that their own private interpretations of Scriptures falls under the auspices
of the infallibility of the Bible. However, if there would be a group tempted to change their
interpretation of the Scriptures based upon the latest science, it would be the YET crowd, who
under no circumstance would want to be found in agreement or harmony with the scientific

25. [13]
community on any topic and would rather reinterpret a Scripture than see their beliefs confirmed
independently by the scientific world.
This animosity toward science on the part of some Christians (e.g. the YET backers) was
palpable in the 1800s and early 1900s, but there were those who spent their lives trying to build
bridges between the two sides. For example, Louis Auguste Sabatier, who spent the last half of
the 19th
century as a professor at Strasbourg and then at the Sorbonne in Paris, wrote extensively
on the overlap of the spiritual with the physical world (Sabatier, 1897 & 1904). However, the
most well-known bridge builders between science and religion at the turn of the 19th
century was
Henry Drummond, a Scottish evangelist, teacher, and close associate of D.L. Moody, upon
whose shoulders had fallen the mantle of Thomas Chalmers, the Natural Theologian.
Drummond was acutely aware of the growing resentment of science by the YET advocates and
was also familiar with the reasons for it. Up to this time, man had little choice but to fill his lack
of understanding of the natural world with God. From a bolt of lightning to a solar eclipse, from
the ability of fish to breath water to the illumination of a firefly, all such natural phenomenon
that went beyond man’s understanding were comfortably offered up as further proof of the
Creator. God’s creative power was the only explanation for these natural mysteries, and science
was seen as man’s attempt to slowly, but surely eliminate these mysteries by offering scientific
explanations for such natural events and thereby eliminating them from the list of evidences for
the existence of God.
However, the idea that God could only exist in the gaps of man’s understanding (i.e. in the
ignorance of man) was infuriating to Drummond, who wrote:

26. [14]
There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books
of Science in search of gaps—gaps which they fill up with God. As if God lived in
the gaps? What view of Nature or of Truth is theirs whose interest in Science is
not in what it can explain but in what it cannot, whose quest is ignorance not
knowledge, whose daily dread is that the cloud may lift, and who, as darkness
melts from this field or from that, begin to tremble for the place of His abode?
What needs altering such finely jealous souls is at once their view of Nature and of
God. Nature is God’s writing, and can only tell the truth; God is light, and in Him
is no darkness at all (Drummond, 1894).
Drummond believed that the truth of the spiritual world could be found in the natural
world and that true science was nothing to fear or fight. He did not see science as the enemy of
Christianity determined to eliminate any and all traces of God. Drummond knew the tremendous
damage that would occur on both sides of the aisle if this expanding divide between science and
religion was allowed to go unchallenged. Those wishing to gain a greater understanding of the
natural world (i.e. investigate extra-Biblical subjects) would be charged with abandoning their
faith in God and the Bible. Thus, rather than convincing the lost to become believers, the
religious world would contribute equally to leading would-be or professed believers to become
atheists. Just consider the brain drain such a false dichotomy would have produced in the
religious world had it been accepted by all Christians down through history. Consider the fact
that Sir Isaac Newton, a man who arguably filled more holes in man’s understanding of the
natural world than any man before or since, was a professed believer in Christ who cared and
wrote more on the topic of theology than of science. And what of Dr. John Clarke, minister of
the very first Baptist church in America and a physician, a combination that would not have been

27. [15]
possible had he believed science was the enemy of spiritual truth. Thankfully, there were and
continues to be those who have no problem seeing God in both the explained and unexplained
mysteries of the universe, the physical and the spiritual, and in the Scriptures and in science.
Another individual who saw tragedy in the rift between science and Christianity was
Giorgio Bartoli, an eminent professor of geology and chemistry, professed Christian, and writer.
Bartoli (1926) lamented: If true believers knew science, and if scientists knew the Bible, there
would be in the world more Christian faith and more true philosophy. Bartoli (1926) was a
strong advocate for the GT, declaring that among the various interpretations of Genesis it was:
. . . the true one, and the only true one. It is not contrary to science; on the other hand it sheds a
flood of light on true science. While Bartoli strongly preached against the notion that the Bible
was a book of science, he did not say the two were incompatible. Such were the sentiments of
Ben M. Bogard (1925) who argued: the Bible is not a book of science, but it is a scientific book
. . . we find perfect agreement between all the known facts of science and the statements in the
Bible. Unlike the YET, the GT as taught by Bartoli (1926) in The Biblical Story of Creation,
was completely compatible with the new geological estimations of the ancient and turbulent past
of the Earth. Even by the middle of the 20th
century, one of the most recognized Baptist
preachers in the world, Charles Spurgeon, was including the GT in his messages:
Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of
this world was when Adam came upon it; but we have discovered that thousands of years
before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting
races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork
and marvelous skill, before he tried his hand on man. (Spurgeon, 1855)

28. [16]
By the last half of the 19th
century and beginning of the 20th
century, the two competing
views of creation, YET and GT, had made their way across the Atlantic Ocean and into the
American religious and scientific communities. However, it was the GT that found greater
acceptance in the minds of pragmatic American theologians. Henry Morris III (2011) writes: By
the time of the Scopes trial in 1925 Christian scholarship had either embraced some form of
theistic or day-age evolution, or had consigned the ages of evolution to a ‘gap’ between the first
two verses of Genesis 1. Such an admission on the part of YET supporters like Morris is not an
over statement considering how ubiquitous the GT had become on the American theological
landscape. While Americans may not have been the most formally educated populace in the
world, the average American knew more and cared more about the Scriptures than did any other
citizenry in the world. Consequently, for average American church-goers, there was nothing in
this trans-Atlantic GT that conflicted with what they already believed. One proof of this fact was
the popularity of the Scofield Reference Bible (1909) among many American Fundamentalists,
which included footnotes explaining and supporting the GT. Likewise, among Missionary
Baptists, the GT was widely accepted as proven by its inclusion in the American Baptist
Association (ABA) Sunday School literature dating as far back as 1937 (Jackson, 1937).
While many U.S. theologians were familiar with the writings of such European scholars
as Sabatier and Chalmers, it might well have been Drummond and Bartoli who were most widely
known because of their lecture tours in the United States. One such American theologian who
expressed his gratitude to these men for stimulating and helping to refine his thoughts on the
matter of creation was Dr. Jeremiah Louis Guthrie, one of the three founders of the Missionary
Baptist Seminary (MBS) in Little Rock, Arkansas. In his great treatise, Christ in Creation,
Guthrie acknowledged the works of these European theologians:

29. [17]
I am indebted to Drummond, Sabatier, Dr. Georgio Bartoli, and others, for some
help I have had in this trend of thought. They have given valuable suggestions to
which I have fastened quite a train of thought. . . Drummond has written the
nearest to a spiritual science, and consideration of all phases of life, in his
‘Natural Law in the Spiritual World,’ . . . I prefer to give offhand the thought
advanced by Dr. Sabatier in his ‘Outlines of a Philosophy of Religion’ (Guthrie,
1943).
So while Guthrie’s book Christ in Creation showed great independence of hermeneutical
thought, it also demonstrated the purest of agreement with current scientific principles.
However, his book was not so original that there were not recognizable areas of overlap
with other early, ancient-Earth theologians.
For example, the overlap of thought was nowhere more apparent than between
Guthrie and Bartoli on the topic of creation. Gurthrie had tremendous respect for Bartoli
and was not hesitant in Christ in Creation to directly quote the words of Bartoli and to
express his confidence in Bartoli’s credentials:
Dr. Bartoli in his little book, ‘The Biblical Story of Creation,’ makes this
observation in the amazing statement, ‘even now, after the millenniums that our
Earth has existed, no simple bodies exist, only composite ones. The element it is
an artificial product of man, which he extracts from the chemical combination of
which it is part and parcel. It is not physical progress that prevails in the world
but degeneracy. Our creation is getting gradually older, poorer, and uglier; the
Earth moreover, is drying up constantly, becoming less habitable, and by degrees

30. [18]
becoming a desert. The progressive decay and degeneration of the Earth and
man is a fact, beyond the possibility of a doubt. Not evolution, but involution, is
the great law of the universe. Involution means the imperfect from the perfect, the
simple from the composite, the immoral from the moral, ugliness from beauty,
crime and violence from innocence, disorder from order, and death from life.’
This is the pronouncement of a man who is ‘chemist and physicist’ who has taught
these sciences along with geology and biological science in many universities of
Europe and Asia. He has lectured extensively in nearly all countries in Europe
and in the Americas, and knows language, philosophy, science, and theology in
their practical phases. He writes in nearly every modern Occidental language.
He is now Superintendent of Mines in Sardinia. His varied experiences have
qualified him to speak with authority. His knowledge of literature, the sciences,
theology, and philosophy can hardly be questioned (Guthrie, 1943).
There was the strongest of agreement on the belief of a gap among Drummond, Bartoli, and
Guthrie. This was further reflected in other texts written by Guthrie (1940) including his short
Bible analysis pamphlet, The Bible in 8 Periods, of which Guthrie encouraged seminary students
to read, along with other things such as Bartoli’s Biblical Story of Creation. Thus, there is no
doubt that the GT and an ancient Earth were taught, if not debated, at Fundamental American
Bible Schools including the seminaries of the Missionary Baptist churches (Guthrie, 1940;
Forman 1955).
During his lifetime Guthrie constantly pointed out the need for more Missionary Baptist
writers. The dependence upon Protestant literature and textbooks was less than appealing to
Guthrie. Among those that responded to Guthrie’s call was L. D. Forman, who would serve as

31. [19]
president of the MBS in Little Rock, Arkansas for 20 years. At the insistence of Guthrie,
Forman (1955) completed what would become one of the most read books among Missionary
Baptists and a longtime seminary textbook, The Bible in Eight Ages, based upon Guthrie’s The
Bible in 8 Periods. Forman included many illustrations of prehistoric animals, which he
concluded had belonged to a Pre-Adamic Earth. It was in 1981 from Foreman’s book that this
author was taught Bible Analysis at the MBS by L.D. Capell, a man who had known both
Guthrie and Foreman and had written forwards to both Christ in Creation and The Bible in Eight
Ages. Another Missionary Baptist leader that responded to Guthrie’s plea for writers was his
colleague and co-founder, C. N. Glover. His book, Three Worlds, leaves no doubt that Glover
(1976) was a consummate supporter and believer in the GT.
The Missionary Baptists were not alone in showing widespread support for the validity of
an ancient Earth. Other supporters included evangelistic and popular personalities, such as the
iconic Billy Graham, who received his degree in anthropology from Wheaton College in 1943
and went on to become a household name and spiritual advisor to multiple presidents. When
asked about dinosaurs and the Bible, he exclaimed: “They [dinosaurs] aren't mentioned in the
Bible, however, since they were extinct by the time it was written. I also don't know why God let
them become extinct (although I'm not sorry He did; I'd hate to have a hungry dinosaur peek
over the fence at me!) (Graham, 2010). This response must have been particularly stinging to
those YET cheerleaders of the Creation Museum in Kentucky with the animatronic scenes of
humans and dinosaurs co-existing. Another heartbreaking disappointment for YET advocates
was the support James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, showed towards an ancient
Earth. Ken Ham (2000) confessed that his heart sank as he pictured thousands of eager moms

32. [20]
and dads buying books recommended by Dobson that endorsed an Earth that could be billions of
years old.
A New Direction
Thus it seems quite clear that any abandonment of the GT and the teaching of an ancient
Earth on the part of the Missionary Baptist Seminary (MBS) in Little Rock is of recent origin
and represents a novel direction for this institution as new instructors line up to publically
apologize for having ever accepted and/or taught those doctrines once defended by the founding
fathers of this school (Thornton, 2010). Furthermore, the teaching of the GT and an ancient
Earth were never questioned and certainly not characterized as heretical until recent years
(Thornton, 2010).
This author finds it interesting that the recent rejection of the GT doctrine and the
withdrawal of support for an ancient Earth come on the heels of a significant spike in
homeschooling. According to Dr. Brian Ray (2011), president of the National Home Education
Research Institute (NHERI), the number of American children now educated at home has more
than doubled over the last 20 years with annual growth rates estimated to increase somewhere
between 2-8% as more and more parents grow concerned over safety and moral issues in public
schools. Consequently, much of the so-called Bible-based, homeschool curriculum as well as
Bible/church school curriculum is written and distributed by YET organizations with an agenda
such as Answers in Genesis (AiG). This curriculum is taught by parents and church school
teachers, some of whom are scarcely qualified to teach high school material, particularly the
sciences, and who fail to recognize the propaganda being put forth by YET advocates in
homeschool textbooks. Wheeler (2013) of The Atlantic reported there was no shortage of

33. [21]
homeschool curriculum teaching against the evils of evolution, while concurrently teaching the
co-existence of man and dinosaurs. However, these anti-evolution/anti-old Earth curriculum
writers are savvy enough to know that for any level of success (e.g. book sales) to be sustained,
the spiritual leaders of these homeschooled families and church schools (i.e. the pastors) had to
be brought squarely onboard with the doctrine of a young Earth.
Leader of the Answers in Genesis (AiG) organization Ken Ham (2012) plainly stated that
the mission field his organization had to reach was the shepherds (e.g. Christian school teachers,
pastors, church leaders, etc.); to call them out of whatever their current belief about Genesis was
and back to the authority of the Word of God (i.e. an erroneous phrase YET supporters like to use
for their own private interpretation). Ham goes on to declare the biggest challenge for his
organization is not in reaching the secular culture, but in dealing with the millions of church
leaders and members who wrongfully accept an old-Earth version of Genesis. Sadly, Ham and
associates appear to be gaining new ground among church leaders, even within the Missionary
Baptist ranks to which this writer belongs, by resurrecting the old lie that to preach or teach any
doctrine supporting an old universe promotes the theory of evolution and calls into question the
Genesis account of creation. Such a false dichotomy was easily exposed by early church leaders
with their broader bases in both secular and religious education. Unfortunately, a current trend
today is to discourage such diversity in education and replace it with Christian homeschooling
followed by private Christian universities or seminaries. Such homogenous educational
backgrounds are great at producing a generation of Christians whose faith remains untried,
untested, and lacking in any need for endurance (James 1:3).
According to The Baptist Press, the official news service of the Southern Baptist
Convention (SBC), professors serving in the various SBC universities, colleges, and seminaries

34. [22]
all agree that Old-Earth Creationism falls within the boundaries of the Baptist Faith and Message
(Roach, 2015). Ham and his YET cohorts responded to such announcements in their usual
dogmatic and dramatic fashion, claiming that any belief in an old creation does not come from
Scripture—it comes from outside Scripture and opens the door to abortion on demand and gay
marriage (Roach, 2015). (The reader might want to pause here and again ask who is it that is
insisting on making the age of the Earth a test of fellowship among churches.) Nevertheless, the
YET doctrine continues to make headway among the charismatic and evangelical churches alike
that view such YET leaders as Hovind, Ham, and Morris as being champions of the Bible—
doing battle against the armies of evil scientists and those churches that fail to stand up for the
inerrancy of the Scriptures. Approximately 64% of all evangelical churches today preach and
teach the YET doctrine with the number continuing to grow each year (Tafarella, 2011). Among
such non-denominational churches, Ham (2012) is realizing his lifelong dream, to help bring
reformation to the church and see Christians accept the full authority of the Bible (i.e. a 6,000
year old Earth).
Do some of the instructors at the MBS in Little Rock share the same sentiments and
beliefs as the non-denominational, mega-church hero Ken Ham, namely, that the acceptance of
the GT is synonymous with rejecting the authority of the Scriptures? Do they want to see the
abandonment of the GT because they believe this doctrine represents a major hermeneutical flaw
perpetuated by multiple generations of past Missionary Baptists? Such is the published testimony
of at least one instructor at the MBS in the Missionary Baptist Searchlight (Thornton, 2010). In
his 2010 Searchlight article, Thornton publically apologized for having ever taught the GT to
past students. Wittingly or not, this anti-gap MBS instructor used the same unethical tactics in
his article as does Ken Ham and his colleagues—that is trying to shame others into accepting the

35. [23]
YET interpretation of Genesis by declaring, Incidentally, the Bible, not scientific theory, is
authoritative. If anything contradicts the Bible, the Bible is always right (Thornton, 2010). Such
a statement insinuates that those who dare to have a different interpretation of creation (e.g. GT)
are deniers of the authority of the Scriptures and instead place scientific theory over and above
the authority of the Word of God. (Again, who is it that is attempting to disrupt the harmony
among Missionary Baptist churches today over the question of the Earth’s age?) Quite frankly,
this author has NEVER come across a fellow believer in the GT who questioned the authority the
Word of God or advocated the placement of scientific theory above the Bible. To be so grossly
misrepresented in this way is more than insulting. Those men who taught this author the GT had
only the highest regard for the Word of God in their teachings. The use of such inflammatory
insinuations and charges on the part of YET preachers against old Earth creationists before their
classes, congregations, and in publications could very easily ignite a rift in fellowship among
Missionary Baptist churches. The same fear has been expressed by leaders within the Southern
Baptist Convention concerning their churches (Roach, 2015). Just consider what church, upon
hearing all these accusations leveled against the GT doctrine from their pastor, would then desire
to fellowship with a church that still taught and believed in the GT? After all, would that not be
viewed as fellowshipping with a church that rejected the authority of the Scriptures, upheld
scientific theories above the word of God, taught hermeneutically flawed doctrines, and, oh yes,
left the door open for abortion on demand and gay marriage? If there is any doubt as to which
group would like to see the age of the Earth become a test of fellowship among churches just
look again at the seriousness of the charges being leveled by the YET campaigners against the
GT believers.

36. [24]
The recent rejection of the GT by certain Missionary Baptist preachers today makes one
wonder what new powers of insight this new generation of YET advocates possess that was
hidden from or ignored by previous generations of ABA seminary instructors and writers such as
Bro. Guthrie, Bro. Bogard, Bro. Forman, Bro. Capell, Bro. Penn, Bro. Owen, etc. Were the
hermeneutical skills of former seminary teachers just inferior to that of current instructors? Such
must be the case if one is to believe what Thornton (2010) declares about the GT, namely, [it]
cannot be proven with the Bible or with the Hebrew language. Thus, past and present teachers of
the GT must be incompetent at best or at worst, guilty of . . . teaching for doctrines the
commandments of men (Matt. 15:9).
Such insinuations and blatant
accusations on the part of some YET defenders
against believers in the GT demonstrate just
how conceited and pretentious such men are
when it comes to their hermeneutical skills. As
further evidence of how vain YET leaders can
be about their perceived defense of the Genesis
account of creation, consider their plan to construct the “Creation Science Hall of Fame”
(Fig. 1), a beautiful facility with the sole purpose to honor those who honored God’s Word as
literally written in Genesis (Creation Science Hall of Fame, 2013). According to the leading
YET personalities, this Hall of Fame was conceptualized in the spirit of Hebrews 11 and Romans
13:7. The location of this elegant brick-and-mortar, cross-shaped structure will be in northern
Kentucky between the existing Creation Museum and the new Ark Encounter Park currently
under construction (Creation Science Hall of Fame, 2013). To no surprise, the 20 or so living
Figure 1. Artist drawing of the future Creation
Science Hall of Fame in Kentucky.
http://creationisthalloffame.org

37. [25]
inductees are men closely associated with Hamm and AiG (e.g. Austin, Baugh, Brown, Carter,
Ham, Hovind, Wieland, Whitcomb, etc.), Conversely, the 100 or so deceased inductees to the
Creation Science Hall of Fame had absolutely no association with a young Earth organization or
Ham and his AiG program and included such scientific titans as Sir Isaac Newton, Carl
Linnaeus, Louis Agassiz, Robert Boyle, Francis Bacon, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michael Faraday,
George Washington Carver, and Lord Kelvin. Consider the sheer amount of unmitigated
audacity it took for these modern YET leaders, with their limited education and intelligence, lack
of original thought and research, and animosity towards science, to place their names and
accomplishments alongside such intellectual giants of the past. Consequently, the induction of
past men of science is misleading when their induction is solely based upon their testimony of a
belief in a creator—clearly not the same thing as a belief in the YET, as their membership in this
museum would indicate. Additionally, could anyone see such men as Newton or Da Vinci, if
they had the benefit of today’s data and technology, ever siding with the YET supporters?
Sadly, this spirit of self-congratulating and self-seeking among leaders of the YET
movement is not contained to monuments and museums. Many such YET leaders serve as
faculty members and administrators in non-accredited Bible schools and colleges across the
country. In addition to the detrimental contributions of these close-minded individuals who
equate their interpretation of the Bible to the Bible itself, there is the ever increasing practice of
nepotism among many young Earth Bible schools, which ensures that the doctrine of a young
Earth will be perpetuated for generations to come. For example, the Institution for Creation
Research was a school established by the late Henry Morris, the father of young Earth doctrine,
who appointed his son, Henry Morris III, chairman of the school and his other son, John D.
Morris, president of the institution. How much diversity of teaching and thought could students

38. [26]
expect while attending such institutions? In addition, we see Kent Hovind, founder of Creation
Science Evangelism (a young Earth ministry) whose son Eric Hovind was appointed to oversee
while his father finished a jail sentence for tax-related crimes in a federal prison in New
Hampshire. Such familial faculty and administration leaves one to wonder how intense the
searches were to fill open positions in such schools and institutions. And what of Ken Ham who
found staff positions at AiG for four of his children, a brother, a son-in-law, and a daughter-in-
law at salaries between $1,300 and $80,000 (Schedule L, Part IV). Were search committees used
in the selection process for any of these positions? Were the positions even advertised? Were
better qualified applicants overlooked in the process? Was the best interest of their students
considered in the hiring decisions? And to be fair, even this author’s alma mater, the Missionary
Baptist Seminary at Little Rock, is not immune to what could be easily be interpreted as the
practice of nepotism in its selection of new faculty (Searchlight, Sept., 2014). While this author
will not deny that relatives and friends of current faculty may be qualified and talented teachers,
were they the best and most experienced of all qualified applicants? Or were there other
applicants? One would think the hiring practices at a Christian or Bible school would be, if not
equal to, more ethical than the hiring practices found in secular institutions.
Just as troubling as the practice of nepotism in young Earth schools is the practice of
academic inbreeding (i.e. the practice of private schools or college hiring its own graduates).
Among other problems, academic inbreeding may solidify hierarchical relationships within
departments and enhance the power of senior faculty or administrators. In young Earth
institutions, academic inbreeding is important for the propagation and maintenance of a belief in
a 6,000 year old Earth. Those who would think or teach outside this young Earth box are not
hired or are quickly pressured into keeping their old Earth beliefs to themselves. Granted, many

39. [27]
young Earth institutions are relatively small in size making academic inbreeding almost
unavoidable. For example, among the current faculty of this author’s alma mater every
instructor with a doctorate was awarded that degree by the very institution at which he now
teaches. This is unfortunate, but understandable, given that there are so few ABA seminaries
offering graduate degrees in the United States. However, if not carefully monitored such a
situation can become insular and academically unhealthy for students who have been promised
the tools to rightly divide the word of God for themselves free from bias and preconceptions.
However, nepotism and academic inbreeding may not be as big of a contributor to the
sustaining of the YET in many institutions as the fact that most of their faculty and
administrators having never taken a class or earned a degree outside of their own Bible schools.
Such a fact does not prevent many YET teachers from feeling as though they can speak and
teach with authority on various non-biblical topics, especially the sciences when attempting to
defend their YET belief. Indeed, many of these teachers of the YET fail to understand that their
knowledge of the Bible does not substitute for a degree in science. Why? The Bible is not a
science book. Contrary to the claims of many well-meaning pastors, the Bible does not contain
all the answers in life and was never intended to do so. If you want answers to medical questions,
would you go to a theologian or to your family doctor? If your child is having problems in math
would you advise them to spend more time studying their Bible or their math textbook? Make
no mistake, the Bible does have the answers to the most important questions in life, just not to all
the questions in life. Thankfully, this author had the benefit of having sat under quality Bible
instructors at the MBS who knew the difference between the answers that could be found in the
Bible and the answers that could not. These were men who had a fundamental understanding of
the purpose of the Bible.

40. [28]
Sadly, such quality instructors are not as abundant as they once were at my alma mater.
Further, the fact that most of the MBS faculty have not attended even the most basic university
science course (as of this writing) does not prevent certain of them from feeling their theological
training and degrees more than qualifies them to publish articles dealing with such assorted
scientific topics as anthropology, paleontology, cytology, genetics, molecular evolution,
comparative anatomy, and organic chemistry (Koon, 2010). There may have been a time when
preachers could throw around long, difficult-to-pronounce medical and scientific terms they
themselves did not truly understand in order to impress their audience, but that day has passed as
more and more college graduates fill the pews. In fact, those preachers who insist on continuing
with this strategy had better be aware of the consequences; namely, coming across as ignorant
men or blatant liars. For example, to put in writing that the close similarities between the
sequences of human DNA and ape DNA is “propaganda” (Koon, 2010) is a lie, and any student
of an undergraduate genetics class can go to the National Center for Biotechnology Information
(NCBI) website, GenBank, where they can align the two sequences (man and ape) side by side
and see for themselves just how extremely similar the DNA sequences are to one another. The
DNA sequence comparison between man and chimpanzee is even more similar (95-98.5%
identical). This need not be such a troubling fact for Koon or any other Christian, since the
definitive difference between man and the rest of creation is the fact that man was created with a
spirit, making man the only being created in the image of a triune God. And it is safe to say the
spirit has no DNA nor does it fossilize. It is as if Koon and others like him want to align
themselves with the scientific world in defining man in terms of anatomical features and DNA
sequences. Clearly, the Bible and science have two completely different and irreconcilable
definitions for what constitutes a man.

41. [29]
There is little doubt that much of the animosity and ill will between science and religion
today originates from the lack of a common language and the unwillingness of both parties to
resolve this problem. Consider again the article by Koon (2010), the current president of the
Missionary Baptist Seminary, who actually attempted to make the same disproven argument
offered up by Jean Baptiste Lamarck over 200 years ago called The Theory of Inheritance of
Acquired Characteristics. Like Lamarck, Koon stated that a change in an organism’s
environment “allows” its DNA to mutate to fit the environment. Lamarck used the example of
giraffes, stating that these animals stretched their necks farther and farther to reach higher leaves
in the trees and after generations developed extremely long necks. For most non-science people
such an argument makes sense. Or does it? If two cats (male and female) had their tails cut off
(i.e. an acquired characteristic) does that mean any offspring resulting from the mating of these
two cats would be born without tails? If a man and his wife were both body builders who
worked out regularly and “acquired” six-pack abs, would that mean that their child would be
born with the same six-pack abs? Of course not. At least Lamarck died before the discovery of
the mechanisms of inheritance (e.g. genes, chromosomes, meiosis, etc.), which would have
doubtless led him to revise his theory. But today given just a few weeks in any introductory
biology class in any university, Koon would understand that mutations (changes) in DNA
sequences are due to random (not directed) chemical occurrences and not environmental factors.
It was Darwin (1859) who came to understand that mutations occur randomly and that it was the
environment that sifted out those mutations that were advantageous in that habitat and those
mutations that were not. The organisms with the advantageous mutation was most successful in
reproduction, passing down that mutated gene to the next generation, while the organisms
without the advantageous mutation were simply reproductively out competed and their genes

42. [30]
disappeared eventually from the gene pool. This could
mean that an ancient generation of that organism could
have looked very differently from the current
generation. Nevertheless, Koon (2010) adamantly
declared that there is no fossil evidence of such an
occurrence, which means he obviously has never
looked at the fossils of Archaeopteryx lithographia
(Fig. 2) or Archaeomithura meemannae, or any other
fossils of feather-covered reptiles that no longer exist.
Unfortunately, such scientifically flawed articles
(Thornton, 2010; Koon, 2010), from the pens of men occupying teaching positions at the MBS
leave many Missionary Baptist students of universities (especially science majors) either
ashamed of or embarrassed by such men, and wondering just who is the real propagandist. At a
time when the faith of young men and women are most subject to attack, why would seminary
instructors insist upon writing to their ignorances instead of their strengths by addressing
subjects they have never taken a course in or read an entire textbook about? Could it be these
instructors would rather get their science background from the agenda-driven websites and
articles of such scientifically and doctrinally unsound YET groups as: Answers in Genesis,
Creation Ministries International, Creation Today, Creation.com, Creation Research Society,
Institute for Creation Research, or Apologetic Press? Instead, why not take a few basic science
courses at a local university to gain a fair perspective on what science really teaches versus what
YET groups say science teaches. What about consulting with fellow Missionary Baptists who
work and even teach in the field of science?
Figure 2. Archaeopteryx lithographia.
Carnegie Museum of Natural History,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

43. [31]
Young Earth Organizations
There is little doubt that the popularity of a YET doctrine is due in large part to the expert
marketing skills of a handful of multi-million dollar, international organizations. The three
major creationist organizations in operation today that promote YET are: 1) Answers in Genesis,
2) Institute for Creation Research, and 3) Creation Ministries International. Of these three YET
advocacy organizations, Answers in Genesis (AiG) is the largest, most widely known, and well
financed groups with annual donations exceeding $25 million (McKenna, 2007; Reily, 2013).
Founded in the late 1970s by the Australian high school science teacher turned evangelist Ken
Ham, this organization is best known for its $27 million, 60,000 sq. ft. Creation Museum in
northern Kentucky, which depicts humans living alongside dinosaurs in scenes reminiscent of
the Saturday morning cartoon the Flintstones. However, this facility pales in comparison to the
$172 million, 800-acre park with a life-size Noah’s Ark planned to open soon called the Ark
Encounter. Currently, AiG estimates 1.6 million visitors the first year after completion. In
addition to the museum and theme park, AiG controls a media empire. The group publishes
various lines of curriculum for Christian and home schools (e.g. Answer Bible Curriculum) as
well as the magazine, Creation, that was later replaced by Answers. The AiG radio program, The
Answers, is heard worldwide on 142 stations. In addition to print and radio, there are also the
occasional TV specials, news interviews, videos, and over 300 national and international
speaking conferences each year.
Thus, it is no surprise that as early as 2004 this organization was a multimillion dollar
company with an ever-expanding international market. However, managerial differences
(executive salaries and authority) between the old Australian group and the new U.S. partners
soon led to a split in 2005 that left the original group taking the new name, Creation Ministries

44. [32]
International (CMI). While the division was initially downplayed by both sides, lawsuits soon
surfaced between AiG and CMI indicating this was not an amicable parting of minds (McKenna,
2007; Lippard, 2006).
The second largest YET organization is the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) founded
in 1970 by a man whom many consider the founder of the modern creation science movement,
Dr. Henry Morris. Morris was best known for books he authored or co-authored such as The
Genesis Flood, The New Defender’s Study Bible, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and
Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings, and Evolution and the Modern Christian to
name a few. In addition to his many books, Morris contributed regularly to the institute’s
monthly magazine, Acts & Facts, with a reported readership of 200,000. Like the other leading
YET organizations, IRC publishes its own line of K-12 curriculum called Science Education
Essentials. Additionally, the IRC radio programs boast 1,500 outlets worldwide. The IRC also
has a non-accredited graduate school in Dallas, Texas, called the School of Biblical Apologetics
in which the late Dr. John Morris served as president and John Morris III serves as chancellor
and chief executive officer.
Other smaller YET proponents include the Christian Science Evangelism Ministries
founded in 1989 by Kent Hovind of Pensacola, Florida. Along with numerous speaking
engagements at various churches and private schools, Hovind appeared on local TV and radio
defending a young Earth. Hovind’s most famous disciples would be the stars of the reality show,
19 kids and Counting, the Duggars. In 2001 Hovind started construction on Dinosaur Adventure
Land (DAL) on his property some six years before the completion of the Creation Museum in
Petersburg, Kentucky. The park not only depicted man living side by side with dinosaurs, but
displayed signs declaring some dinosaurs still exist today as well as reward posters of $250,000

45. [33]
for anyone who was able to prove the theory of evolution (Jackson, 2004). Hovind alienated
neighbors and town officials alike with the construction of DAL during which a blizzard of
building code violations was issued and various building permits were not granted.
However, the offenses grew more serious as Hovind began bringing in large sums of
money from various sources. Hovind reported earnings of $50,000 year, most of which he
claimed came from speaking engagements, but it was discovered that he was in fact making an
annual income in excess of $2 million (Nicole, 2006; O’Brien, 2006). It was estimated that from
its opening date until 2004, DAL had generated around $5 million dollars in admission donations
(Fail, 2006). In addition to DAL’s failure to pay personal income tax was its failure to pay
property tax and to pay employee related taxes. Hovind argued that his 30 workers were not
employees but missionaries that he helped with personal expenses each week (Brown, 2006). In
2007 Hovind was found guilty on all 58 counts of tax evasion, sentenced to ten years in prison,
and ordered to pay the US government $600,000 in restitution. His wife, Jo, was sentenced to
one year after being found guilty of 44 counts of tax evasion (Stewart, 2007). Hovind and his
supporters complained that he was being persecuted because of his stand for creation and against
evolution and that Hovind was imprisoned out of principle and not deceit. Amazingly, the
conviction of Hovind did not prevent his induction into the Creation Science Hall of Fame by
fellow YET supporters (The Creation Science Hall of Fame, 2013). Nevertheless, while Hovind
serves out his sentence at the federal correctional institution in Berlin, New Hampshire, his son
Eric Hovind continues the ministry. Thus, the effort to defend YET can be a wildly popular and
commercially lucrative venture.
Support for a young Earth is more ridiculous and unreasonable today than ever before
given the massive accumulation of empirical evidence from multiple scientific fields that without

46. [34]
exception show the Earth to be a very ancient planet. However, despite this exponential increase
in scientific data collected over the last 200 years in support of an ancient Earth, the premise of
an old Earth is no less vulnerable or impeachable today than at any time in the past. All it would
take to render the old Earth argument null and void would be the discovery a single out-of-place
fossil such as human bones being found in the same layer (i.e. stratum) of rock as the fossils of
dinosaurs, which are generally accepted to have become extinct 65 million years before the
appearance of man. Such a find would negate the current scientific interpretation of the fossil
record and cause an entire paradigm shift in the scientific dating of life on this planet. However,
despite the millions of dollars and man hours spent by the YET supporters to locate such out-of-
place fossils, not a single example has been found.
Conversely, for those supporters of the GT not a single penny or man hour need be spent
to combat the scientific dating of the Earth. What science is uncovering is further evidence of
what God’s word has taught all along. True science is giving creation a more articulate and clear
voice by which it can testify of its creator and the order and means by which He created and
maintains it (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:20).

47. [35]
CHAPTER TWO
FOSSILS AND THE GEOLOGIC RECORD
Believers in the Young Earth Theory (YET) have no choice but to attribute the current
geology of the Earth (e.g. geologic strata, canyons, mountains, etc.) and the vast fossil record to
the nearly year-long Flood in the days of Noah (Gen. 6-9) that occurred around 4,000 years ago.
Such an interpretation is called “Flood Geology” and is rejected by supporters of the GT and
scientists alike. Flood geology is one of the most fanciful and flimsy premises in the YET
argument; nevertheless, it is a vital component in their defense because it gives YET believers
their only alternative to the common belief that fossil-bearing strata were laid down slowly over
millions of years.
Remember, to agree with the GT or any other theory that makes the Earth older than
10,000 years is completely unacceptable to many YET creationists. Consider the accusation of
AiG’s Ham (Ham et al., 2000): Gap theorists [with their old Earth belief] leave the evolutionary
system intact, [his implication being GT supports evolution]. Supporters of the YET fear and
despise any doctrine that hands over to evolutionists the gift of “time.” The author of the book
The Creation-Evolution Controversy, R. L. Wysong (1976) wrote, It is no secret that
evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. . . Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Likewise,
Hall & Hall (1974) argued, Time is the evolutionists’ refuge from the slings and arrows of logic,
scientific evidence, and common sense. Thus, YET supporters routinely and unfairly accuse the
believers of the GT of collaborating with the enemies of the Scriptures. The YET creationists
will not for even a moment entertain the possibility that the GT could be right and the Earth is as
ancient as the scientific world teaches.

48. [36]
Sadly, this sort of stubbornness on the part of YET church leaders today towards science
and scientific theory is inciting a brain drain from the pool of educated young Christians in
churches today. Just consider what is being told to our brightest young people before sending
them off to universities and colleges across this country. In homeschool text books such as The
New Answers Book 1, students can read the instructions of such YET authors as Mike Riddle
(2006): When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in
the Bible, we should never [emphasis added] reinterpret the Bible. Such was precisely the same
instructions given to Galileo 400 years earlier by the Catholic leaders of the Inquisition (Mullan,
2003). Leading Protestants of the same period also warned their scientists of collecting or
presenting data that would cause a change (i.e. reinterpretation) to their official church
interpretations of the Bible. Johann Kepler, a believer in the heliocentric theory and discoverer
of the three laws of planetary motion, was professionally and personally persecuted by the
Lutheran Church for teaching things that conflicted with the Bible interpretations of Martin
Luther. Kepler was finally excommunicated from the Lutheran Church for teaching that the
moon was a solid object instead of the “lesser light to rule the night,” which according to Luther
meant the moon was literally just a light, and therefore, could not be a solid body (Mullan,
2003).
However, if the historical context of these landmark scientific discoveries is considered,
one can almost understand the resistance such theories encountered. Unlike today, these theories
were not only novel and the evidence limited and difficult to understand, but also the acceptance
of such theories required an entire paradigm shift in the theological foundation of the religious
community. Reinterpretations of certain Scriptures became necessary. Literal interpretations of
some Bible verses no longer seemed plausible. However, it is crucial to realize that these

49. [37]
scientific discoveries did not call into question the infallibility or authority of the Bible, but
rather the validity of some traditional interpretations by men. As much as YET promoters
would like others to believe their interpretations of the Bible and the Bible itself are
synonymous, they are not. The former is fallible, while the latter is not. The Biblical
interpretations of no man are faultless, perfect, or unerring. What theologian or Bible language
scholar has never had to reinterpret a scripture? What pastor or Sunday school teacher can say
they have never changed their mind (i.e. interpretation) on a passage of Scripture after further
reflection and study? And yet, YET believers insist that their interpretation of the Genesis
account of creation is somehow immune to the possibility of error. Even worse, prominent YET
leaders accuse ancient Earth believers (e.g. gap theorists) of being “idolaters.” According to
Ham (1999a), Christians who compromise with the millions of years attributed by many
scientists to the fossil record, are in that sense seemingly worshipping a different god — the
cruel god of an old Earth. He goes even further in his condemnation of those groups that would
differ from him over the age of the Earth by stating, The god of an old Earth cannot therefore be
the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death. Thus, it would seem to many
YET teachers that the old-Earth believers such as the GT faithful are not only idolaters, but
unable to be saved without accepting the YET interpretation of Genesis.
While the prime goal of YET promoters might be to destroy the theory of evolution by
eliminating its most vital component (i.e. time), think about the collateral damage such
dogmatism does within and among churches. Gap theorists were never so divisive or dogmatic
in their belief and in over 35 years in the ministry this author has never heard of the “age of the
Earth” being used as a test of fellowship. However, if churches were to believe the things Ham

50. [38]
(1999a) and other YET leaders have charged GT believers with such as idolatry, how could the
two groups remain in fellowship (I Cor. 5:11)?
Consider also the crisis of conscience that awaits the incoming freshman of any
university who grew up in a church that teaches the YET interpretation as a Biblical truth, or
more challenging yet, was homeschooled using the YET curriculum. As these young men and
women are taught to think and examine evidence for themselves, many will choose to leave their
churches, not because of what professors taught in their science courses, but because of the
dogmatic ultimatums they have heard their YET pastors make repeatedly. For example, There’s
no doubt — the god of an old Earth destroys the Gospel (Ham, 1999a). How can those young
adults who have come to accept the mountain of physical evidence for an ancient Earth ever feel
welcome back into churches where such claims are made? Instead of offering these young
college students much-needed strength and spiritual guidance from the Word of God, too many
YET pastors want to step outside of the Bible and challenge the science these students are being
taught in their secular classrooms.
To read the articles or hear the sermons of certain YET leaders, it is as if these men want
others to believe that along with hope, faith, and love (I Cor. 13:13), they have been endowed
with an additional spiritual gift—the gift of science. These gifted preachers, with no former
scientific training or education, believe they can speak, understand, and write with authority on a
wide range of scientific topics such as anthropology, astronomy, biochemistry, cosmology,
cytogenetics, evolutionary biology, phycology, phylogenetics, physical and organic chemistry,
protozoology, molecular genetics, thermodynamics, etc. However, as more and more college
graduates fill the pews of churches, the more embarrassing it becomes when such “gifted”
preachers step outside of the zone of their understanding and training. Indeed, one national-

51. [39]
award-winning science teacher who is also a faithful member of a Missionary Baptist church
whose pastor teaches YET doctrine admitted to this writer, . . . it is becoming more and more
difficult to overlook the ignorance of my pastor when it comes to science and the anti-science
sentiments he spreads in our church (pers. com., 2015).
Due to the recent emergence of the YET doctrine among pastors and church leaders,
many science-minded young Christians are now struggling to find ways of staying faithful in
support of their church while at the same time, attempting to ignore the pseudoscience being
spewed from the pulpit. According to the research group Barna (2011), in Six Reasons Young
Christians Leave Church, the tension young professionals felt existed between church leaders
and science was one of the top reasons for the exodus of young adults from their churches today.
According to the study of those young Christians who had left their churches: 30% felt the
church leadership was out of step with science and too confident that they knew all the answers;
25% felt their churches were anti-science; and 25% were weary of the creation vs. evolution
debate from the pulpit. Perhaps the clearest illustration of why young educated Christians no
longer feel welcome in their home churches is articulated best by the adamant YET supporter,
Wayne Jackson (1975), in his article The Gap Theory. In his article Jackson openly condemns
any and all who dare to accept the GT or any other theory that made an allowance for an ancient
Earth: Though they [GT believers] may be completely unaware of it, they have been influenced
by the subtle pressure of evolution geology. . . [And] attempt to pacify the indefensible assertions
of those [atheists] who reject the Biblical teaching of the origin of man. So, to a large number of
YET supporters, their interpretation of Genesis is the only correct interpretation, with all other
interpretations of creation not only being wrong, but “treasonous” to the cause of Christ. Again,
we find here another YET creationist unequivocally making the doctrine of YET a test of

52. [40]
fellowship within and among churches. The YET crowd
appears to see two distinct camps: 1) the Bible believing YET
creationists and 2) everyone else, including the subversive and
apostate gap theorists with their acceptance of an old Earth and
collaborative work with both theistic evolutionists and day-age
theists (Fig. 1).
However, what the YET advocates fail to understand and
admit is that their insistence upon a 10,000-year-old Earth
creates more problems than the Flood of Noah can possibly
clean up. The present-day geology of the Earth and paleontology could not have been the result
of a single, year-long, universal Flood that occurred a few thousand years ago for many, many
reasons. Therefore, this chapter does not pretend to be an exhaustive list of every problem
associated with Flood geology. Nevertheless, enough evidence will be presented to show that
the attempt to attribute the present-day geology of the Earth and the fossil record to the Flood in
the days of Noah is no less ridiculous today than attempting to teach a geocentric universe was
500 years ago. Thus, this chapter will address both the dating of rocks and fossils and the means
by which such dating is acquired.
Radiometric Dating
To understand the basics of radiometric dating, recall
from high school chemistry or physics that, according to the
Bohr model, three particles make up the entire atom (Fig. 2)
Resembling a miniature solar system, tiny electrons orbit a
nucleus of larger protons and neutrons. The number of protons is fixed in any given element and
Figure 1. Cartoon from anti-
gap article (Ham, 2007).
Figure 2. Bohr Model of an Atom.

53. [41]
equal to the number of electrons. Additionally, the number of protons in one atom of an element
is equal to its atomic number. Protons and electrons carry electrical charges that are opposite of
one another. These charged particles are essential in the formation of chemical compounds (e.g.
H2O, C6H12O6, CH4, etc.). On the other hand, neutrons carry no charge and play no role in
chemical compounds. By adding the number of neutrons to the number of protons in the nucleus
of an atom gives an element its atomic mass. Neutrons would not be worth mentioning in this
context if not for the central role they play in radiometric dating.
Unlike the number of protons in an atom, which is diagnostic or unique for that element,
the number of neutrons can be variable allowing atoms of any given element the ability to come
in different versions referred to as isotopes.
Almost all elements consist of more than one
isotope. So isotopes of an element all share the
same number of protons and electrons, but not
the same number of neutrons (Fig. 3). This
variation in the number of neutrons naturally
gives each isotope a different atomic mass.
Some elements (e.g. fluorine) have only one naturally occurring isotope, while others (e.g. lead)
can have upwards of five naturally occurring isotopes. Among the most attention-grabbing
elements is carbon, which has three naturally occurring isotopes. Carbon-12 is the most common
with its equal number of protons and neutrons. The most short-lived is carbon-13. The rarest
and most useful in radiometric dating is carbon-14.
The next important thing to understand about isotopes is that there are two categories,
stable and unstable (i.e. radioactive). An element can have both types of isotopes; for example,
Figure 3. Isotopes of Hydrogen.
e=electron; p=proton; n=neutron

54. [42]
lead-202 is unstable, while lead-204, lead-206, lead-207 and lead-208 are all stable. To be
unstable means that atoms spontaneously decay into something else at a predictable rate. It is
this predictability of decay rates that allows for the use of radioactive clocks. All of the decay is
exponential. Exponential decay rates are measured in what has been called its “half-life” or the
time necessary for half of its atoms to decay into something else. Thus, the half-life is the same
no matter how many atoms have already decayed. Despite there being many different unstable
or radioactive isotopes that occur in nature, just four—uranium-235, uranium-238, rubidium-87,
and potassium-40—have provided most of the data used in the radiometric dating of ancient
rocks. According to Eicher (1968), these four radioactive isotopes were not limited by the most
common pitfalls such as being too rare, decaying too slowly, or decaying too quickly. Note that
carbon-14 was not used in the dating of ancient rocks,
for good reason—the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730
years. However, the use of carbon-14 dating is
wonderful for dating artifacts of ancient mankind, but
not the planet upon which mankind lives. For settling
the questions of how old sections of the Earth are, the
potassium-argon clock is often employed because after
1.3 billion years, half of the original potassium-40 in
the rock at the time of its formation has decayed to argon-40 (Figure 4).
Potassium/argon, like all radioactive clocks, provides radiometric dating for igneous
rocks only, named for fire. Underground magma pushes its way to the surface, where it cools
and solidifies. Igneous rock typically contains many different radioactive isotopes, but
fortunately igneous rock solidifies suddenly so that all the different clocks in a given layer of
Figure 4. Decay of potassium-40 to
Argon-40. K=potassium, AR=Argon,
BY=billions of years (Levin, 2009).

55. [43]
rock are zeroed simultaneously. Of course, there are YET supporters who would have everyone
believe that potassium/argon clocks are not or cannot be calibrated or standardized due to such
long half-lives (Johnson, 2012; Woodmorappe, 1999). After all, if the half-life for K/AR decay
is truly 1.3 billon years, who will be around to set the first half-life standard, much less the
second or third? A causal read of the these complaints might initially make sense, but what YET
writers do not tell their readers is that rather than waiting around for natural levels of
radioactivity to decay of K-40 to AR-40, a known amount of K-40 is placed in nuclear reactors
that generate many times the natural levels of radiation (Henke, 2015). By measuring the K-40
before the experiment and by measuring the remaining level of K-40 after the experiment along
with levels of AR-40 in the solid along with any argon that escaped as a gas, scientists can easily
extrapolate reliable standards for the K/AR clock and have been doing so since the 1960s
(Henke, 2015).
Another misleading strategy by YET writers like Woodmorappe (1999) is to only report
the “outlier” dates (Fig. 5) from radioactive dating methods
and fail to tell readers that such a list of aberrant dates is out
of tens of thousands of radiometric dates that tended to
cluster together nicely. Even common sense teaches against
including outliers in statistics of tests of such a data set
because generally such outliers are simply artifacts of
experimental or sampling error and would needlessly skew the results, albeit not much.
Nevertheless, YET writers always want to sensationalize and then normalize outliers in any
radioactive dating results even though such dates are such a small percentage (i.e. < 3%) of the
total number of dates (Fig. 5). Such YET writers fail to mention that both experimental and
Figure 5. Outlier (9); cluster
of valid data surrounding (2).

56. [44]
sampling errors are a normal part of any scientific testing method and are not statistically
significant. Thus, the only argument that YET believers can make against radioactive clocks
(and they do) is the highly unlikely event that radioactivity levels on Earth did not remain
constant throughout the history of the Earth, but rather dramatically fluctuated down through
time (Johnson, 2012). If this truly occurred (i.e. unpredictable and dramatic fluctuations),
this author finds it hard to believe God would have encouraged man to listen to what the Earth
teaches (Job 12:8), if its lessons were that inconsistent and unreliable.
Some of those professed YET scientists, began to collect and age their own samples.
None drew more cheers from the YET community
than their own YET geologist, Steven Austin (1988),
who collected and dated samples from the Uinkaret
Plateau on top of the Grand Canyon. Austin reported
that rock samples he collected from the Uinkaret
Plateau at the top of the Grand Canyon (Fig. 6)
dated older than rock samples he had collected from
the bottom of the Grand Canyon (Fig. 6). Such test
results would confirm the already established belief
among the YET supporters that radioactive dating
was unreliable. If radioactive dating was reliable and the geological record was true, than the
rocks from the bottom of the canyon would have dated much older than those from the surface
layer. However, upon checking the sample sites carefully, Stassen (2003) points out that Austin
(1988) made a critical error or intentional mistake in choosing his sample sites on the plateau.
The samples Austin took from the plateau were from lava flows. This lava’s source material
Figure 6. There is an angular
unconformity at the bottom of the
Paleozoic layers. An angular
unconformity is the result of tilting
and eroding of the lower layers
before the upper ones are deposited.
Austin test sights.

57. [45]
came from the lithosphere mantle located below the whole canyon and, as expected, is older than
the canyon itself; as Stassen (2003) put it, Austin has confirmed what mainstream geologist have
known all along. Austin being a trained and experienced geologist made it very difficult for
Stassen and other geologists to believe that Austin did not know in advance what the results
would be from selecting these lava flows as sampling sites and then to try to pass off the age of
the flow rather than the age of the flow’s source material, according to Stassen (2003) . . . says a
lot more about the level of competence or honesty in this creation "science" research program,
than it says about the validity of isochron [radiometric] dating methods.
A last resort in the YET argument against radiometric dating is an assertion that cannot
be proven. The YET crowd in their attempt to thwart radiometric dating, argues that radioactive
decay must have been accelerated by a factor of one billion, and they place this period of
accelerated decay during the first three days of creation and during the Flood (Vardiman et al.,
2005).
Fossils
Fossils are rarely found in igneous rock (rocks formed by the cooling and solidifying of
molten materials). Fossils of any importance are formed in sedimentary rocks (e.g. limestone
and sandstone). Sedimentary rocks are formed from weathered products of pre-existing rocks
that have been transported and deposited by wind and water (Tarbuck and Lutgens, 1991). The
weathered material is gradually laid down on the floor of some body of water, where it is
compacted over millions of years with fossils sandwiched among the hardening layers. Despite
the fact that this weathered material contained particles of igneous rock with various radioactive
isotopes, such particles did not all arrive or harden at the same point in time; thus, such material

58. [46]
cannot be accurately dated due to the fact that the
radioactive clocks were not simultaneously set. In
other words, the igneous particles found in the
sedimentary stone represent weathered, parent
material from igneous rock that solidified at different
times.
Ideally, it would be wonderful if every fossil
was found tightly sandwiched between two igneous
layers of rock. However, the actual method of dating
fossil is more elegant. Long before radiometric
dating, similar layers of sedimentary rock were observed all across the world. The layers were
given specific names such as Cambrian, Ordovician, Devonian, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Eocene,
Oligocene and Miocene (Fig. 7). Each layer contained the same types of fossils and occurred in
the same sequential order worldwide. Although early scientists did not know the dates of these
layers, they knew the relative positions of these layers. Logic dictated that the youngest layers
occurred closest to the surface. It was not until later that radiometric dating was done on igneous
rocks that overlaid and underlaid these particular sedimentary layers. These sites were found all
across the world and multiple readings were done at each site. Therefore, the dating of these
sedimentary layers and consequently, the fossils found in them was not the result of a single
radiometric reading; rather it was a collaboration of multiple readings at multiple times and
places and by various scientific teams. Thus, the popular accusation of YET creationists that
scientists use a circular argument when dating artifacts (i.e. use rocks to date fossils and fossils to
date rocks) is simply untrue and unfair. The fact that the vast majority of these readings from
Figure 7. Geologic Time Scale.

59. [47]
across the world produce similar dates for each layer allowed scientist to place time periods on
their geologic scale (Fig. 7).
Radiometric dating was so problematic for the YET groups that two such groups, the
Institute of Creation Research (ICR) and the Creation Research Society jointly commissioned
their leading YET researchers to initiate an eight-year study on the validity of radioisotope dating
of rocks. The project was called Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE) and was
funded by ICR ($250,000) and over one million dollars in donations (Isaac, 2007). Morris
(2000) reported that at the first conference of the RATE group, each meeting day was opened
and closed in a prayer that included a request for wisdom to think outside the box. Sadly, “the
box” was the conventional, universal findings of the scientific community and thus each meeting
of RATE began with a renewed challenge to find evidence to prove their interpretation of
creation and, in the process, discredit findings that support an old Earth including GT believers.
Sadly, these YET scientists were not looking for truth, but for evidence to support the
conclusions that they and their financial backers already held. This was made apparently clear
by Vardiman (2000), a participating scientist in the RATE group, who warned that any
accommodations afforded to the GT (an old Earth belief) would, . . . degrade the reliability and
authority of the Scriptures. Such men, having these foregone conclusions, should have recused
themselves from such a study due to conflict of interest. An opportunity to review the findings
of RATE should have been extended beyond known YET believers. Experiments should have
been independently confirmed. Incidentally, consider RATE’s close financial affiliation with
the John Morris organization, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). This is the same John
Morris (2013) who wrote, . . . the main reason for believing in a YET is because the Earth is
young. Where is the need for science or experimentation with logic like that?

60. [48]
Nevertheless, based upon radiometric dating, there was one interesting fact that RATE
did unanimously accept: based upon current decay rates there is sufficient evidence on Earth for
more than 500 million years’ worth of nuclear and radioisotope decay (Vardiman et al., 2005).
However, rather than use such a fact as clear evidence that the Earth cannot be 6,000 years old,
the YET leaders go with the least plausible, least parsimonious conclusion that their 6,000 year
old Earth must have endured periods of time in its history when the rate of decay was one billion
times greater than it is today (Vardiman et al., 2005). While this conjecture by RATE might
solve the mathematical problem of how to squeeze more than 500 million years’ worth of
nuclear and radioisotope decay into the history of a 6,000 year old Earth, it completely fails to
take into account the laws of thermodynamics. Consider that the thermal energy from the normal,
current levels of radioactive decay today is a major source of heat on Earth. Now, imagine this
current level of radioactive decay accelerated by a billion times. The excessive amount of heat
from this accelerated process would have quickly evaporated this Earth and everything on it
(Isaac, 2007). While all RATE members had to agree that these intermediate periods of hyper-
radioactive decay occurred in order to keep on teaching the doctrine of YET, what all members
do not agree upon is WHEN and HOW it happen?
Some young-Earth RATE members are content to say that at some future time it will be
discovered how God kept the 6,000-year-old Earth cool during these periods of intense nuclear
and radioactive decay (Vardiman et al., 2005). These are the same men who will accept any
other reason or answer for this rapid radioactive decay other than the possibility that their
interpretation of Genesis is incorrect and the Earth is really billions of years old, there were no
intermediate periods of rapid radioactive decay, and no further explanations are needed. Such
YET fanatics strike this author as men who would rather teach that God used UFOs to help men

61. [49]
survive periods of intense heat than to concede that there could be a gap of time between Genesis
1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
On the other hand, there are YET scholars who not only feel comfortable telling their
students WHEN these periods of excessive radioactive decays occurred, but also HOW and
WHY these events occurred. According to one YET believer, Patterson (2011), there were two
such decay events and here was the reason:
Recent research by a creation science group known as Radioisotopes and the Age of The
Earth (RATE) has produced evidence of accelerated rates of decay at some point (or
points) in the past. Creation scientists suggest that there are two possible times that God
supernaturally intervened on a global scale – during Creation Week and the Flood. It is
not unreasonable to assume that God used the energy of accelerated radioactive decay to
initiate and drive the major geologic changes in the Earth that accompanied the Flood.
Just imagine the premise of this teaching. Patterson tells his readers that it is NOT unreasonable
to think that God needed and then used the energy of destruction (entropy) in the form of
radioactive decay (disorder) to initiate and drive a perfectly ordered creation. In reprimanding a
New Testament church that had been anything but orderly or stable, Paul described God in I
Corinthians 14:33 as to His nature and attributes as NOT being ἀκαταστασία (Grk. meaning
“instability, confusion, disorder, tumult, disturbance, or upheaval”). However, while the idea that
an orderly God would use disorder to create order might seem illogical and even unbiblical to
most, is this not the whole premise for the YET doctrine and their interpretation of Genesis 1:2?
God took disorder and chaos and from it created a perfectly balanced and orderly creation? After
all of this to whom do YET believers credit the chaos of Genesis 1:2? From where did the chaos
originate in Genesis 1:2? Rather than during creation week, for some unclear reason some YET

62. [50]
scholars believe the accelerated radiometric decay occurred during the Flood, and the excess
energy was channeled into moving tectonic plates (Rusbult, 2010). Such a scenario defies
explanation.
Finally, there are even those who believe God created the Earth 6,000 years ago out of
pre-aged, ancient material that had been pre-exposed to millions of years of radioactive decay
(Rusbult, 2010).
With such incredible explanations for ancient radiometric dating of the Earth being
advocated by these YET leaders, consider the substandard education being given to Christian
school children and Christian homeschool children in the area of the sciences. Homeschool
textbook author and avid YET supporter, Roger Patterson (2011), loves to accuse science
textbook authors of being influenced by what he calls initial conditional assumptions when it
comes to dating the Earth. Oddly, in the same chapter where Patterson (2011) warns his readers
not to be influenced by initial conditional assumptions, he freely admits the following: Biblical
geologists start with the assumptions laid out in the Bible [emphasis added] and conclude that
the rocks must be less than 6,000 years old [emphasis added].
The hypocrisy of YET leaders in their criticisms of scientists and old Earth creationists
seems almost limitless. Even the most senior members of the YET movement seem oblivious to
their own hypocrisy. Morris (2000) had the audacity to complain, most research scientists hold
to evolution and an extremely old Earth, and use that perspective as the framework within which
to interpret all data. How is this approach unlike that of YET creationists, who use their
interpretation of Genesis and YET as a framework to interpret all data? How is it that an initial
conditional assumption on the part of scientists is a disgraceful thing to do, but for YET
supporters it is a commendable thing to do?

63. [51]
Such double standards are not uncommon among YET teachers. For example, YET
textbooks often include and emphasize what they see as a handful of blatantly wrong results
found among the tens of thousands of consistent results given by scientific radiometric dating
(see outlier discussion, pg. 42). However, if the scientific evidence for an ancient Earth is so
flawed, where is the corrected scientific data supporting YET, so it too can be scrutinized for
mistakes? In the place of scientific results supporting a YET, these textbook writers fill pages
with unsubstantiated and unreferenced criticisms of scientific results that show the Earth is very
old. However, when the literary smoke clears, the rhetoric cut through, and the insignificant
outliers removed from statistical analyses, the only reachable conclusion is that the scientific data
overwhelming supports an Earth that is billions of years old and thereby fails to support one
group’s particular interpretations of the biblical account of creation.
One does not have to be a professional reviewer or editor to see how tendentious and
unbalanced that YET homeschool textbooks are in the area of science. Even current customers
and fellow YET believers have begun to complain about how one-sided such literature has
become and how they would rather have homeschool textbooks that offer a diversity of different
positions on Creation so their children can at least know these different views exist and can fairly
evaluate these positions for themselves (Zylstra, 2013). Some YET homeschool parents are
insisting on more evidence in textbooks that supports a YET rather than just adding another
strident argument to the text against an old Earth (Zylstra, 2013). For example, if the Earth is
young, and arguments to the contrary are baseless, where is the data in these textbooks that
supports a consistent age of less than 10,000 years for all Earth rocks collected at various depths
from every continent and ocean floor as well as for the 842lbs. of moon rocks brought back by
six Apollo missions and for any surviving piece of a meteorite that has struck the Earth? Where

64. [52]
are the stacks of YET, scientific papers that can be scrutinized and tested for errors by the old
Earth supporters? Not surprisingly, such original studies do not exist. But no worries. . .YET
creationists are long on conjectures when it comes to the dating of the Earth. One of the earliest
and most desperate claims by the YET supporters was that the ancient dating of the Earth was
the brain-child of Satan, implemented by atheist scientists whose sole purpose in life was to
discredit the Bible. However, that accusation was found to be fantastic and impractical given the
competitive nature that exists among researchers (Tierney, 2009; Ferric and Fang, 2012).
The Geologic Column
Since the geologic column (Fig. 8) represents the history of the Earth, then obviously the
fossils in each of the layers must be the same age as the layer in which they are found and must
have lived at the same relative time as the other fossils found in that layer. This becomes
especially interesting in that the fossils appear to show a progression from the most "simple" of
organisms in bottom layers to the most "complex"
organisms in top layers (Fig.8). Needless to say, YET
advocates reject such a progression of fossils in the
strata of the Earth. Remember, YET preachers have
no alternative but to believe that the Flood was
responsible for creating all fossil-bearing strata and
must attribute the fossil record to those organisms that
were not on board the ark at the time of the Flood and
therefore, had to have all lived and died at the same
time (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961; Ham & Lovett,
Figure 8. Geologic Column. Simple to
complex fossils.

65. [53]
2006). Because the progression and groupings of fossils within their respective strata have been
noted worldwide, denial that these fossils exist is not plausible. In lieu of denial, YET theorists
offer at least four different explanations [detailed below] for the relative positions of these
organisms in the strata: 1) the conspiracy theory; 2) ecological zonation; 3) hydrodynamic
sorting, and 4) differential escape. All of these explanations deny the scientific community’s
explanation that stratum represent layers laid down over millions of years and layers come with
their own respective sets of organisms that lived during their own respective geological age.
One of the most baseless explanations offered by the YET supporters is the ever popular
conspiracy theory. Paleontologists and evolutionary biologists worked together to produce a
geologic column that supported evolution. However, the geological column and relative dates
given to the fossils in these periods were already proposed before Darwin’s work became so
widely popular. For instance, one of the early fathers of modern geology and the proposer of
both the Devonian period (419-358mybp) and the Cambrian period (541-485mybp) was Adam
Sedgewick, who actually had Darwin as one of his students, but finished his career as one of
Darwin’s most outspoken opponents (See the Cambridge University, Darwin: Correspondence
Project; The Sedgewick Museum of Earth Science). No conspiracy there! Nor were there
conspiracies found between Darwin and other early Christian geologists such as Georges Cuvier
(Rudwick, 1997), James Hutton (Hutton, 1788), Charles Lyell (Lyell, 1830), and J. W. Dawson
(1868). Thus, just as the GT predates the geological record, so the geological record predates
Darwinism making both the GT and the geological record hard to blame on Darwin’s theory of
evolution. So, like most conspiracy theories, the paleontologist/geologist/evolutionist conspiracy
entails too many parts, too many players, too much data, and too much time to be credible except
to the most paranoid.

66. [54]
Another popular defense offered up by YET creationists for the stratification of the fossil
record was referred to by its YET originator, Henry Morris (1974), as ecological zonation:
Patterns of fossil deposition in Noah's Flood can be explained by ecological
zonation. The lower strata, in general, would contain animals that lived in the
lower elevations. Thus, marine invertebrates would be buried first, then fish, then
amphibians and reptiles (who live at the boundaries of land and water), and finally
mammals and birds. Also, animals would be found buried with other animals from
the same communities.
This same defense is stated again in the 50th
Anniversary edition of The Genesis Flood—the
Biblical record and its scientific implications by Whitcomb and Morris (1961):
This is in the order: (1) of increasing mobility and therefore increasing ability to
postpone inundation; (2) of decreasing density and other hydrodynamic factors tending
to promote earlier and deeper sedimentation, and (3) of increasing elevation of habitat
and therefore time required for the Flood to attain stages sufficient to overtake them.
Again an explanation that defies logic. The idea that fossils exists where they do in the
various strata because of their ecology at the time of the great Flood is subject to major
problems. For example, while ecological zonation might explain why coral and bivalve fossils
are found in one of the lowest stratum of the geologic column that scientists date back to the
Cambrian Era (~500mybp), it fails to explain why coral and bivalve fossils appear in every

67. [55]
subsequent geological period (layer) since the Cambrian Era (Boardman et al., 1987; Bybell,
2003; Fortey, 1999; Stanley and Fautin, 2001). If ecological zonation is a valid principle,
where did these additional layers of coral
and bivalves fossils originate? Scientists
have pointed out that these additional
fossil layers of coral and bivalves were the
result of constant fluctuations in the
Earth’s water levels (Fig. 9) due to
changing climates (e.g. ice ages) and plate
tectonics (e.g. orogeny) over millions upon
millions of years of the Earth’s history
(Eicher, 1968; Lomolino et al., 2010;
Schlee, 2013). It has been suggested by
scientists that the mid-section of North
America alone has been through at least 45
cycles of marine inundation and
withdrawal (Heckel, 1986; Boardman and
Heckel, 1989). Even Arkansas went through its share of baptisms and rebaptisms. During the
early Paleozoic Era (~570 to 370 mybp) the only dry land in Arkansas was a few scattered
islands in the Ozarks that would intermittently appear and then disappear into a shallow sea, but
by the end of the Paleozoic Era (~320-245 mybp) dry land in Arkansas included the Ozarks, the
Arkansas River Valley, and the Ouachita Mountains leaving only the state’s southern and
eastern most regions wet (Guccione, 1993). But of course, much of Arkansas would return to
Figure 9. Generalized geographic map of the U.S. in
Cretaceous (top) and Pennsylvanian (lower) time. USGS
website “Science for a Changing World”

68. [56]
the sea during the Cretaceous Period (144-66 mybp) with the rise of the Interior Cretaceous
Seaway, the last large sea to cover the interior of North America (Guccione, 1993; Lomolino et
al., 2010).
There are other serious problems with Morris’ explanation of the fossil record. If fossil
location in the geologic column is a matter of shared ecologies and habitats, as suggested by
Morris (1974) and his colleagues, why do whale fossils consistently occur in strata that are much
higher in the geologic column than fish (Boardman & Heckel, 1989; Heckel, 1986)? Did both
animals not share the same habitat at the time of Noah? Or were whales terrestrial animals in the
days of Noah living at higher altitudes than the fish and thereby were able to avoid the Flood
waters longer by scaling to mountain tops or living in tree canopies? Maybe that explains the
vestigial pelvis found in some whale and dolphin species (Bejder and Hall, 2002; Conrad, 1982;
Landau, 1982); that is, that during Noah’s day, these behemoths of the deep simply walked out
of the oceans on their hind legs and up to higher ground in an attempt to avoid the Flood, leaving
their fossils to appear in strata higher than the fish populations of the Earth.
There is also the conundrum caused by the fossils of dinosaurs consistently being found
deeper in the geologic column than more modern organisms with which they would have shared
the same habitat. If young creationists are correct, dinosaurs along with all terrestrial animals
and man were created on the 6th
day of creation only to die (with the exception of a single animal
mating pair and Noah’s family) in the same universal Flood. According to these same YET
supporters, there is no doubt that man and dinosaurs shared the same pre-Flood habitat and for a
short period of time, shared the same post-Flood habitat with those dinosaurs saved on the ark
(Dutko, 2012; Ham, 2006c; Hodge, 2006). Nevertheless, the fossilized remains of man and

69. [57]
dinosaurs remain millions of years apart in the geologic record, having never been found in the
same stratum.
Not to be dismayed by this lack of evidence, YET advocate Hodge (2006) showed his
total ignorance of the geologic record and the problem with teaching a human-dinosaur
coexistence by when he offered the following explanation to young people in the homeschool
textbook, The New Answers Book,:
Actually, all we know for sure is that they weren’t buried together. It is very easy for
creatures to live at the same time on Earth, but never even cross paths. Have you ever
seen a tiger or a panda in the wild? Just because animals are not found together does not
mean they do not live in the same world at the same time.
It is clear from such statements that Hodge and other YET creationists who see his argument as
valid do not understand the concept of the geologic record, stratification, or what is meant by the
word “column.” To answer Hodge’s question, “no, I have never seen a panda, but if I lived on
the Earth at the same time as pandas I would think it reasonable to believe our bodies would be
found buried in the same layer of the Earth even though our gravesites might be thousands of
miles apart.”
Before leaving Morris’ (1974) false explanation for the grouping of organisms in the
fossil record, what of the fossil placement of the most abundant life form in the history of this
planet, the plant kingdom? Due to factors such as soil type, hydrology, and climate, plants tend
to form distinct communities composed of populations of various species interacting directly or
indirectly with one another. Surely, plant species within these communities have always lacked
the motility necessary to avert impending doom (e.g. fire, Flood, lava flows, hurricanes,
tornadoes, etc.). Thus, there should be no disagreement that pre-Flood plant communities would

70. [58]
have perished together as a community in the great Flood. That is to say, no member of the
community could have pulled up roots and ran for higher ground, while other community
members perished in place as is suggested by the ecological zonation explanation of Whitcomb
and Morris (1961). Therefore, a mixture of fossils from various plant species that comprised
those pre-Flood communities would have been found in a single stratum (i.e. geological period).
However, this is not the case in the fossil record. Those species that form single plant
communities today are widely separated in the fossil record (Scagel et al., 1984). According to
the paleobotanists, at least 400 million years separate the appearance of green algae from the
emergence flowering plants (Wing et al., 1993; Thomas and Taylor, 1993). In fact, all major
plant groups (i.e. algae, mosses, liverworts, ferns, conifers, flowering plants) have distinct and
widely separated initial appearances in the geologic column (Taylor et al., 2009) even though
algae, mosses, liverworts, and ferns share a very similar habitat today.
However, if the scientific community has the fossil record interpretation so wrong, where
is the YET alternative explanation of the fossil record? Where and why is the current fossil
record in error? YET creationists Froede and Reed (1999) attempted to explain why there is
currently no YET alternative to the contemporary geological record by complaining, the
immensity of the task of constructing a viable Bible-based alternative to accepted geologic
history has been little appreciated by many, and has proven even more difficult by the lack of
workers willing to undertake such a job. However, if Hodge (2006), one of the YET textbook
authors, is an example of the few individuals willing to undertake the job, the problem would be
compounded from a lack of workers to a lack of workers with even the most elementary
understanding of the most fundamental principles of biogeography. However, geologist Greg

71. [59]
Newman (2011) gives what has to be one of the best explanation for why there is no YET,
alternative geological record in existence today:
. . . the reason there are so few workers is because we all realize the truthfulness of
[currently accepted] geologic history. It is even hard to comprehend how any reputable
scientist can sanely testify to a young Earth, . . . there is no need for an alternative,
because the geologic history agrees completely with the Bible in the first place. There is
no problem with saying the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and God created it. You only
need an alternative if you blindly ignore the evidence of an old Earth. . . . there is no
problem between Scripture and the geologic column. . . . Yes, you can be a Christian, and
believe in an old Earth!
No truer explanation could be given and yet how many YET supporters will choose to ignore this
truth for the sake of hanging on to their interpretation of Genesis.
The next explanation offered by YET supporters for the particular grouping of fossils in
the geologic column is called hydrodynamic sorting. According to Morris (1967) the
hydrodynamic sorting action of moving water was quite efficient to cause each stratum to
contain an assemblage of fossils of similar shapes and sizes. In other words, Morris (1967)
proposed that simpler, less complex organisms were all of the same shape and size, which
accounts for them being found in the lower layers of the geologic column. Again we find an
argument that is simply not true with many examples that could be offered to disprove it.
For example, one of the most abundant and economically important groups of marine
organisms is called Foraminifera (Fig. 10). The remains of recently dead Foraminifera are so
abundant that they form a thick blanket over one third of the surface of the Earth. There are

72. [60]
close to 7,000 extant (living) species and 2,000 extinct (non-living) species that have been
identified so far (World Foramimifera Data base,
2013). Most known species (extant and extinct) are
relatively the same shape (round) and size (< 1mm).
Therefore, if Morris’ (1967) hydrodynamic sorting
theory is correct, all extinct species killed in the
Flood (i.e. a mixture of 2,000 species) would have
settled within the same stratum, or at least, adjacent
strata due to their similar size and shape. However,
this is not the case at all; instead different
Foraminifera species or groups of species are found
in different strata. Thus, Foraminifera were sorted
not by size and shape, but according to species or
groups of species that lived during the same geological period of time. The order of species in
the geologic column is so uniform across the globe that the oil industry uses the fossils of these
organisms as bioindicators to identify the various strata being drilled through in search of oil
(Boardman, 1987).
Consider also that there are entire strata dominated by smaller, lighter organisms
underneath strata dominated by larger, heavier organisms. If there was a single Flood, how
would the smaller, lighter organisms have sunk first and the lower strata? Then there is the
issue of different parts of the same plant species (e.g. roots, trunk, branches, flowers, fruits,
pollen, etc.) being found in the same stratum. If all pollen-bearing plants were destroyed in the
same Flood, would not the microscopic pollen be found in a higher stratum than the heavier
Figure 10. Extant Foraminifera collected
from different latitudes (Kennett, 1982).

73. [61]
trunk or stem? And yet, this is not the case (Stewart, 1983). Not only are there strata containing
the entire anatomy of fossil plant species, but there are also numerous examples of strata laid
down over millions of years with upright forests appearing in one stratum directly over another
stratum with upright fossilized trees (Fig. 11)—hardly a condition expected after a single
destructive deluge (Cristie & McMillan, 1991; Dawson, 1868; Ferguson, 1988; Gastaldo, 1990;
Yuretich, 1994).
This author has led many students to collect the fossilized
remains of a 300-million-year-old fossilized forest of tree ferns
(Fig. 12) that had been unearthed from beneath a pine-oak forest
in the Ouachita Mountains near Waldron, Arkansas. The tree-
fern forest had species of both Lepidodendron, Sigillaria and
Calamites (Fig. 12) some grew up to 130’ tall and thrived in
warm-water swamps. It was a drastic climate change, not the
Flood that destroyed this forest.
When it came to the absence of human fossils and
artifacts from the layers containing dinosaurs, how does the
Figure 11. Petrified forests located in different strata (one on top of another) of Nova Scotia.
Trees (black) still erect as stumps (Brown, 1849).
Figure 12. Tree ferns.
Lepidodendron (left) and
Sigillaria (right)
http://botanyprofessor.blo
gspot.com

74. [62]
hydrodynamic sorting argument apply? It would seem when it comes to the occurrence of
human fossils, the YET creationists feel there is no reason why human bones and artifacts cannot
be found within the same strata as dinosaurs. In homeschool literature, Hodge (2006) asked
children to believe such explanations as: 1) the body of those who died in the Flood were
“obliterated,” and that is what is meant by “destroy” in Gen. 6:7 and 7:23, thus nothing was left
to find in the fossil record; 2) the Flood victims decomposed or were eaten and thus nothing was
left to find in the fossil record; 3) due to extraordinarily high murder rates, the humans
population was very small (e.g. 200 million) and thus human fossil would be almost impossible
to find; and finally 4) have faith that the geologic record proposed by scientists based upon
mountains of data is wrong and faith that the geologic record interpretation of YET creationists
is right. Each argument seems as dubious and desperate as the last and all are lacking in
scientific evidence, if not common sense.
Consider Hodge’s (2006) “obliterated” argument; does this mean these humans went into
a state of “uncreation” or were rendered “two-part beings” (i.e. spirit and mind) lacking the
remains of a physical existence making verses such as Rev. 20:13 impossible to fulfill? There
were many things in the Old Testament that God “destroyed” or “wiped out” ( ‫מ‬
ָ
‫ח‬
ָ
‫ה‬ ) that left
behind physical remains. What of the idea that the human victims of the Flood were so
thoroughly decayed as not to leave behind a single fossil? On a molecular and physical level
God made man, the beasts, and even the plants from the very same elements (e.g. carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, etc.), thus, making all living things subject to the same degree
of decay. So why would antediluvian (i.e. before the Flood) man alone leave no fossils, while
plants and animals did? Hodge (2006) also wanted his homeschooled students to consider the
possibility that the entire population of mankind who died in the Flood were eaten by creatures

75. [63]
living in the antediluvian oceans. Gruesome thought, but unfortunately Hodge forgets to inform
these students that fossils have been found in the stomachs of other fossils (Verrengia, 2005;
Choi, 2012; Young, 2013). The fact that not one piece of the human anatomy has ever been
found in the fossilized stomach of dinosaurs is another problem for YET creationists like Hodge
and Ham. Finally in what can only be seen as grasping at straws, Hodge (2006) argues that the
murder rate before the biblical flood was so high that there were very few antediluvian people
left that died in the Flood, making the chances of finding human fossils very, very remote.
However, to concede such was the case still does not account for those bodies of the murdered.
Would the bodies of at least some of these unfortunate souls not be fossilized? Where are their
fossils to be found? Whether murdered before the Flood or killed in the Flood, where are the
human fossils mixed with the dinosaurs that died before and in the Flood? This author would
agree with one thing that Hodge (2006) told the readers of his homeschool textbook: it takes a lot
of faith to overlook the mountains of evidence supporting the scientific interpretation of the
fossil record and, in turn, accept the YET explanation for the fossil record.
The London Artifact
Some of the most enthusiastic YET
supporters, in their desperation to refute the
established geologic record, will cite what
has come to be called the London Artifact
(Fig. 13). The London Artifact is a metal-
headed hammer with a short wooden handle
that was discovered in 1936 by Max and
Emma Hahn along Red Creek outside of
Figure 13. The London Artifact with a piece of nodule
that was broken off with shell (Kuban, 1999).

76. [64]
London, Texas. It was originally encased in a limestone nodule with only a short segment of the
wooden handle protruding from the rock concretion until the Hahns’ son broke the nodule open
some ten years later to reveal the metal hammer head (Kuban, 1999). The artifact was later
purchased (1983) by the Creation Science sensationalist, Carl Baugh, who added it to his
Creation Evidence Museum of Texas to promote as another pre-Flood artifact. On the
museum’s website, Baugh (2011) asks the following:
If the artifact is truly from the Cretaceous time frame, where does this leave
evolutionary theory, since man was not supposed to have evolved for another
100-million years or so? If the artifact is relatively recent, that means that the
Cretaceous Hensell Sand formation from which it came is relatively young?. . .
Again, where does that leave evolutionary theory with its traditional dates for the
Cretaceous formations?
Despite the burden of proof of such claims landing squarely upon Baugh (other than allowing it
to be photographed on a couple of occasions), he has refused to offer any independent
confirmation of the age of the object or its possible origin. Along with his supporters, Baugh
fully believes that the artifact is the same age as the rock layer from which it was allegedly
pulled and the concretion in which it was embedded. Assuming it came from the natural
surrounding rock of the Red Creek (there is no proof of this), the age of this artifact still confuses
its believers. Judging from the layer from which it was supposedly found, Baugh (1983, 1986,
1987) reported it to be from the Ordovician period (500mybp), while Lang (1983) and Bartz
(1984) insisted it is of the Silurian (435mybp) period and MacKay (1983) stated it was from the
Pennsylvanian period (320mybp), but later changed his mind stating the object was between 400-
500 million years old (MacKay, 1984). However, the team of Helfinstine and Roth (1994)

77. [65]
examined the protruding outcrops of the Red Creek site and dated this layer from the lower
Cretaceous period (100mybp). Thus, there appears to be mass confusion over an
“unsubstantiated site” from which the artifact was “allegedly” taken.
What of the concretion encrusted around the hammer? Cole (1985) and others have
pointed out that the hammer is of an early American design
and that any object left on the ground such as this hammer
must have become encrusted with minerals originally
dissolved in solution from a different geological layer. It is
not unusual for minerals in solution to harden around an
intrusive object dropped in a crack or simply left on the
ground if the source rock is chemically soluble (Johnston,
1964). Consider the Coso Artifact, which upon x-ray turned
out to be an encrusted 1920 Champion spark plug (Fig. 14).
This is analogous to stalactites incorporating recent objects in
their paths as they grow. The rapidity with which concretions
and similar types of stone can form is evident in soil caliche
development. Gettens (1961) points out:
The surface of nearly all ancient metal objects, except gold, whether buried in soil,
immersed in fresh or salt water or exposed to air, rain, and sun have undergone some
transformation because of chemical reactions with surrounding environment. The
surface may be quite thin and superficial and hardly measurable or may be so complete
that none of the original metal remains.
Figure 14. (top) Coso Artifact cut
in half. (bottom) X-ray of artifact
showing sparkplug (Stromberg,
2000).

78. [66]
Rapid formation of limestone has been shown in coral atolls in the Pacific where World War II
artifacts have been found in the matrix (McKusick and Shinn, 1980). As for the bivalves
appearing in the concretion of the London Artifact (Fig. 12), they appear to be of a recent species
(Kuban, 1999).
While Carl Baugh will not allow the London Artifact to be independently examined, it
has been reported (Kuban, 1999) that Baugh’s close friend, David Lines, did have the hammer
handle carbon dated and the resulting date was younger than 700 years old. However, what is
painfully obvious in this situation is that Baugh is not going to risk losing his celebrity status by
allowing his artifacts to be scientifically dated. His collection of so-called pre-Flood artifacts and
his argument for a 6,000-year-old Earth that at one time was filled with men and dinosaurs living
in harmony, brought Baugh many speaking engagements as listed on his own website (accessed
March 2016): 1) he has lectured at meetings on no fewer than 11 university campuses; 2) been
granted over 500 news interviews from local, national, and international news agencies; 3)
appeared on two CBS TV Network specials and one ABC TV Network special; 4) authored at
least 6 books; 5) made 70 appearances on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, forming a
partnership with Kenneth Copeland; 6) been a guest speaker for NASA; 7) made three
expeditions to Papua, New Guinea, to find extant pterodactyls and 8) directed several former
NASA astronauts in a dinosaur dig in Colorado. Why would Baugh risk losing notoriety and free
publicity for his Creation Evidence Museum ($5 admission fee) by allowing scientist to
independently examine and date the London Artifact? If they were to discover that the object is
of recent origin and does not share the same age as the rock encrusting it, such a finding would
discredit Baugh and his museum and reduce his speaking invitations.

79. [67]
However, aside from the London Artifact, there are evidences presented by Baugh in
defense of a YET that are not welcomed by every member of the YET community. For example,
Baugh’s claims regarding: 1) finding chlorophyll in the teeth of dinosaurs; 2) having footage of
Neil Armstrong demonstrating how eggs will not hatch in zero gravity; and 3) growing a 30’
tomato plant producing 5,000 tomatoes under simulated, pre-Flood light have caused many YET
advocates to consider him “a serious embarrassment” (Kerby, 2013).
The embarrassment caused by Baugh to the YET community cannot be any greater than
the embarrassment caused by YET to other creationists as a whole. St. Augustine is quoted as
saying, . . . be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are far-fetched or
opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers.
Try to imagine the huge amount of ridicule and damage Baugh brought not only to YET
believers, but also to all creationists and to the Scriptures themselves when he agreed to be
interviewed on Nov. 14, 2001, on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In all
seriousness, Baugh told the show’s interviewer that the cartoon The Flintstones was “intriguing
and completely plausible and realistic” and that the 1970’s children show The Land of the Lost
was “accurate with the exception of the dinosaurs being carnivorous.” Baugh also told of his
numerous expeditions to New Guinea in search of the Pterodactyl and showed (to the delight and
laughter of audience) the so-called “human footprint in the dinosaur footprint” that has already
been shown multiple times to be fake (Myers, 2008; Kuban, 2008; Hasting, 1988; Armstrong,
1989).
However, the mainstream YET creationist such as Gish, Taylor, Humphreys, Morris, and
Lisle are not so upset with Baugh as to prevent him from selling their books alongside his own in
the Creation Evidence Museum bookstore. What needs to be understood is that the fundamental

80. [68]
conclusions of Baugh are the same as all YET believers – the Earth is 6,000 years old, man and
dinosaurs lived during the same time, and the Flood (not time) is responsible for the geologic
column. What mainstream YET leaders who are upset with such loners as Baugh must realize is
that there are many versions of a lie, but only one version of the truth.
The last and most ludicrous of the four great arguments posed by Henry Morris (1967)
for the arrangement of fossils in the geologic column has been termed differential escape. The
occurrence of fossils from more complex organisms in the upper strata, according to this
argument, occurs because more complex organisms such as mammals had larger brains and
therefore would have had the intelligence to escape to higher ground as the Flood waters rose
leaving the less intelligent organisms to drown first and become entombed in the first (lower)
strata of sediments. Thus, this argument would have students believe that the intelligence of the
organism, and not the time at which the organism lived, accounts for its position in the geologic
column. This argument might initially seem to answer the order of the fossil record, until plant
fossils are added to that record. It is true that the more modern, complex, angiosperm (flowering
plants) are only found in the upper strata, while the more primitive, less complex conifers (cone
bearing), pteridophytes (ferns) and bryophytes (mosses) are found differentiated into the lower
strata; however, does this placement in the geologic column really have anything to do with plant
intelligence? Even if plants had the capacity for intelligence and did show differences in
intelligence, did the plants with a higher I.Q. have the ability to move to higher ground at the
sight of the Flood?
Surprisingly, it is not the macroscopic (large) plant fossil that presents the greatest
difficulty for YET advocates. According to the Industrial Minerals Association of North
America (2011), an estimated 4% of the Earth’s crust is composed of the microscopic remains of

81. [69]
marine algae in the form of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Calcium carbonate sinks to the bottom
of the ocean forming layers of chalk, limestone, and marble. One of the most spectacular
examples of chalk formations in the world is the White Cliffs of Dover in southeastern England
(Fig. 15). As a child living in England, this author remembers visiting these cliffs and being
amazed at how brightly they glimmered in the sun.
These 350 ft. high chalk cliffs were composed
almost entirely of fossilized, microscopic shields
called coccoliths that once encased individual
members of a group of single-celled algae called
coccolithophores (Fig. 16). During the Cretaceous
period (Latin Creta meaning “chalk”) some 70-100
mybp, much of the ancient atmospheric carbon
dioxide (CO2) was sequestered with the help of these
photosynthetic marine algae (Witty, 2011). Based on current accumulation rates of calcium
carbonate (i.e. 10-150mm/ 1000 years) on seafloors, the
cliffs of Dover, England, would have taken over 700,000
years to reach their current height (Hallam, 1981; Kukal,
1990). Such estimates are a far cry from the one year (i.e.
duration of the Flood) that YET advocates believe this
magnificent cliff of chalk took to form.
To explain the huge differences in estimated
accumulation times, YET enthusiasts have presented two equally flawed explanations. The first
explanation offered for this 350ft. chalk cliff is the occurrence of three massive algal blooms
Figure 16. Coccoliths of Emiliania
huxleyi. Photo taken by Dr. Jeremy
Young. The Natural History museum.
Figure 15. The White Cliffs of Dover near
the South Foreland Lighthouse, seen from
St. Margaret's Bay, Dover. The Lighthouse
is 21 m high and the cliffs are 101 m high
(Witty, 2011).

82. [70]
within a single year and corresponding to the three major
layers of chalk (lower, middle, and upper) comprising the
cliffs of Dover (Roth, 1985, Woodmorappe, 1986).
Snelling (1994) goes as far as to suggest that the
succession of three algal blooms could have produced
these three layers in as little as six days! Snelling also
attributes the possibility of such huge and unprecedented
algal blooms to the sudden influx of nutrients and
optimal growth conditions caused by the catastrophic
events surrounding the biblical Flood such as the
turbulence of the sea, the wind, decaying corpses, freshwater inflow and upwelling, and
temperature. However, many studies have shown that the limiting growth factor in marine algae
has always been iron of which atmospheric dust appears to be the principal source (Martin and
Fitzwater, 1988; Martin et al., 1990). Furthermore, Corstjens and Gonzales (2004) have shown
that coccolithophorids have greater rates of calcification when nitrogen and phosphorus are
limited in seawater. This would certainly not have been the case in the biblical Flood as
thousands of corpses would have formed a huge reservoir of nitrogen and phosphorus. Consider
also that even many prominent creationists have problems with the number of coccolithophorids
that would have had to have been killed in the Flood to account for today’s global chalk deposits
including those in Arkansas (Fig. 17). One such creationist, Schadewald (1982), estimated that if
these organisms could somehow be resurrected simultaneously, they would cover the entire
planet to a depth of 45 cm (18 in.). Another creationist G. R. Morton (1984) expressed grave
Figure 17. The 100’ high
chalk cliffs above Little River before
entering Lake Millwood, AR. Favorite
site to visit with my biogeography
students showing the multiple times
and years this part of Arkansas existed
under a shallow sea (HSU Trip, 2013).

83. [71]
doubts as to the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) being present in the atmosphere to support such
large numbers of coccolithophorids living at the same time.
The second explanation offered by some YET theorists is that most of this chalk bed was
already in place prior to the Flood and would have been displaced due to the “fountains of the
deep” being ruptured (Tyler, 1996; Woodmorappe, 1986). Thus, current chalk beds represent
both pre-Flood and Flood deposits. While this argument attempts to address the grossly
underestimated duration of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) deposition necessary to create such chalk
beds, it still fails to address other questions. For example, fossilized burrows and borings of
shallow ocean organisms (e.g. marine worms) extending through multiple layers of chalk
deposits of the White Cliffs of Dover have been well documented (Bromley, 1967; Kennedy,
1967; Kennedy, 1970). Such structure would have been hard to produce and maintain during a
rapid “redeposition” of hundreds of meters of chalk. On that same note, there is clear evidence of
intermittent layers of sedimentary rock between chalk layers that is highly suggestive of erosion
during non-deposition periods (Kennedy & Garrison, 1975). However, if these chalk formation
were the result of the Flood of Noah, there would not have been any “non-deposition periods”
caused by erosion during which sedimentary rock layers could have been laid down because the
Bible plainly teaches that the world between Adam and Noah was watered by a mist. Therefore,
there was no chance of local, temporal flood waters depositing a layer of sediment between the
layers of chalk in the White Cliffs of Dover.
Another equally compelling piece of evidence in support of the ancient age of the Earth
comes from another set of microscopic organisms called Diatoms (Fig. 18). Like the
coccolithophores, diatoms are a group of single-celled algae (~100,000 species) but instead of
living within calcium carbonate plates, diatoms live within intricate houses of silica (glass).

84. [72]
Their ancient, fossilized remains (Fig. 18) can be
found in large deposits worldwide and are mined and
sold under the commercial name “diatomaceous
Earth.” Deposits in Colorado and Nevada are several
hundreds of meters thick. Diatomaceous Earth is
used in a multitude of products from toothpaste to
extremely fine filters. The largest and best deposits
of diatoms date back ~ 60 mybp (Cummings, 1960), making them younger than those of the
coccolithophores. Thus, we do not have evidence of a simultaneous, global demise of these two
ubiquitous plankton members occurring 4,000 years ago in the Flood of Noah. What we do have
in diatoms is yet another group of microscopic, aquatic
organisms whose members have been contributing
gradually to the fossil record for millions of years (i.e.
throughout the pre- and post-Adamic worlds).
Before leaving the world of the microscopic fossil,
consider a strange, living fossil formation called a
stromatolite (Fig. 19). It has been estimated that these
formations record 7/8ths of the history of life on this
planet for some 4 billion years (Brasier et al., 2002;
Buick, 1992; Dalton, 2002). Stromatolites are rock-like
build ups of microbial mats (biofilms) that trap calcium
carbonate between layers (Fig. 20). The microbial mats
consist of a complex mixture of interdependent microbial
Figure 18. Microscopic view of diatoms.
UCMP Museum, Scientist Dr. Karen
Wetmore photographer.
Figure 20. Cross-section of a
stromatolite (Fossilmall, 2013).
Figure 19. Stromatolites, Shark’s Bay,
Australia.

85. [73]
species (primarily cyanobacteria). These layers can be loosely compared to growth rings in trees
(Fig. 20). Each microbial community grows over the previous microbial civilization. The inner-
most layers in stromatolites consist of the fossil remains of the oldest communities of prokaryotic
organisms (known as sulfate-reducing bacteria), which, in turn, are enclosed by the fossil
remains of sulfur-oxidizing bacteria that are themselves enclosed by layers of cyanobacteria
civilizations (Walters, 1976; Tewari et al., 2011). The outermost layers were fossils of very
diverse communities of cyanobacteria and algae (Blank, 2002). Such a progression is in perfect
agreement with paleoclimatological and geochemical data, which suggests the Earth’s first
climate was absent of free oxygen (O2) until around 2.7 billion years ago after which oxygen
levels increased to 21% of the Earth’s atmosphere due to the growing dominance of
photosynthetic algae (Biello, 2009). Stromatolites were first discovered in Shark’s Bay (Fig.
19), Australia, in 1956 but since have been found in both marine and freshwater environments
throughout the world with all specimens recording the same ancient history of this planet.
Concluding Remarks:
Neither radioactive dating nor the current, scientific interpretation of the fossil record
presents any insurmountable hurdles for the gap theorist’s understanding of creation. However,
such is not the case for the YET creationists. This chapter has just been a brief sample of the
convoluted and absurd road YET believers must walk in their attempts to harmonize what they
believe God said about creation with the evidence presented by creation itself. Only YET
supporters find and insist upon such a major disconnect between the creation and the Creator.
One of the most important concepts taught to new research students by their mentors is
the importance of parsimony. Parsimony refers to the simplest explanation that fits the evidence.

86. [74]
Parsimonious explanations are not rejected lightly by scientists and there would have to be very
good reasons for any other type of explanation to be accepted by their peers.
However, this author’s first lessons in the importance of parsimony were not learned in a
science course or lab, but rather in the Missionary Baptist Seminary in Little Rock, where men of
God and wisdom taught me how to interpret the Bible. I can remember Bro. Penn teaching us
the danger of giving parables legs; that is, trying to read too much into these stories. Of greater
importance was finding the single, most important point of the illustration. Bro. Owen also
cautioned our class on the habit of trying to make everything in the Old Testament a type (i.e.
foreshadow or representation of some future event or person) unless it is specifically referred to
in the New Testament as a type. These were all lessons in parsimony—taking the most obvious,
simplest, straightforward explanation that fits the verse because God inspired the Bible to reveal
and not conceal His Word.
Notice how many YET proponents do not place such a high value on parsimony. The
YET believers are not seeking the simplest explanation that fits the evidence; they are seeking
the explanation—no matter how far-fetched—that fits their unique interpretation of the Bible.

87. [75]
CHAPTER THREE
AN ANCIENT AND DYNAMIC EARTH
In addition to the fossil records of those organisms that once inhabited this planet, the
Earth has much more evidence to offer in support of its ancient origin, none of which conflicts
with the Gap Theory (GT) or the Bible. It has been said that true science and the Bible do not
conflict and that false science and the Bible do; but what about true science and false
interpretations of the Bible? Surely, that would lead to conflicts. A well-known example of an
erroneous interpretation of the Bible was the historical Roman Catholic doctrine of a geocentric
solar system in which all objects revolved around the Earth as the dwelling place of God’s
crowning act of creation—man. However, when scientific evidence began to surface that
contradicted a geocentric solar system, rather than take the time and make the effort to re-
examine the Bible interpretation of a few church theologians, some immediately called into
question the scientist Copernicus for his opposing view of the universe. Copernicus’
disagreement was with a particular interpretation of the Bible and not the Bible, but still he was
called a heretic. The very idea that a heliocentric solar system could be correct and the Bible
interpretation of a few church leaders could be wrong was so out of the realm of possibility for
his doubters that they later convicted another scientist, Galileo, for following the “heresy of
Copernicus,” and sentenced him to life under house arrest.
It is important that readers understand that “Flood Geology” is an essential component of
the YET “interpretation” of Genesis. YET advocates have no other means by which to interpret
the geological history of the Earth except by the Flood of Noah (Genesis 6-9). The YET
community believes wholeheartedly that the Flood caused every fossil and created the world’s

88. [76]
reserves of fossil fuel. Further, their most ardent supporters work very hard to convict dissenting
individuals (in the court of religious opinion) of being deniers of the Holy Scriptures.
Reminiscent of the Dark Ages, YET advocates would have others believe the choice is between
science and the Bible, when in fact the choice is between science and the Bible interpretations of
certain Christian groups. YET theorists label all professed Christians who stand in disagreement
with them over the age of the Earth liberals. In their book, History of Modern Creationism,
Whitcomb and Morris (1993) portray themselves as modern saviors of a Christian community
that had fallen victim to the writings of Darwin and Wallace (1800s) and, despite winning the
legal battles against teaching evolution (Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925), were losing badly in the
court of public opinion. In the minds of Whitcomb and Morris the acceptance of evolution was
becoming widespread (i.e. few Christians took offense at what they felt was the central dogma of
evolution, an ancient Earth). In order to help the Christian community “get back on its feet and
back on track,” the two men published The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961). In the
minds of the YEC community, such a rescue of Christianity put Whitcomb and Morris in a
league with reformers like Martin Luther, Alexander Campbell, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy,
Charles T. Russell, and William Miller.
It is interesting that during these “lost years” when Christianity was “sinfully” respectful,
if not totally accepting, of modern scientific teachings, there was one new group that vehemently
and vocally rejected modern science, particularly the teachings concerning an old-aged Earth. It
was believed that the co-founder of a new church called the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA) was
having visions from God about many things, among them, creation and the Flood. The SDA co-
founder and prophetess was a tiny, 90-pound woman born into a family of milliners from Maine

89. [77]
whose name was Ellen (Harmon) White (Fig. 1). She
and her husband James founded this new sect, which
depended greatly upon the prophecies of Ellen. It was
said that Ellen received 100-200 prophetic trances in her
lifetime; oddly, these visions only occurred in public
places or at meetings (White, 1985). Audiences were
thrilled at the sight of each vision as Ellen began each
trance with cries of “Glory, Glory, Glory” before
passing out and ending each vision with the long, drawn
out shout of the word, “dark” (White, 1985). Needless
to say, mainstream religions dismissed this group as a cult of false teachers. But such a negative
public perception did not stop Ellen from being a prolific writer who authored over 5,000 articles
and 40 books detailing her visions and out-of-body experiences. For her true followers, her
prophetic words were as inspired as the Bible itself and, according to her prophesy, the world
was young! Some of her more well-known books include The Desire of the Ages (1898), The
Great Controversy (1858), and Steps to Christ (1892).
A devoted Seventh Day Adventistist and personal friend of Ms. White was a Canadian
amateur geologist by the name of George McCready Price (1870-1963), who felt burdened to
prove the geological world wrong and Ellen White correct concerning the young age of the
Earth. Dr. Ron Numbers (n.d.), science historian, wrote: Shortly after the turn of the century,
Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of Earth history: the creation of
all life on Earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years
before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. With the exception
Figure 1. Ellen G. White
(1864) age 36. White Estate
Research Center.

90. [78]
of a single year (1896) at what is known as the University of New Brunswick today, Price got all
of his formal education in the Adventist school system. He was self-taught in geology, claiming
his knowledge was mostly firsthand, although students would report that Price could barely tell
one fossil from another in the field. A review of Price's (1906) book, Illogical Geology, the
Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory, was written by David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford
University, and a leading American expert on fossil fishes, in which Jordan (1906) stated that
Price should not expect any geologist to take his work seriously.
Despite Jordan’s warning concerning the total lack of geological intelligence on the part
of Price, there was a group of men who did take Price’s words very seriously. In their book,
History of Modern Creationism, Morris and Whitcomb (1993) mention George McCready Price
as an early creationist. Also, the book most YET supporters feel rescued the modern church
from evolution, The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris (1961d), refers to the work of Price
no less than four times, and in one section states: “Price is even more right than he thought.” So
closely do the arguments of Whitcomb and Morris align with those of Price, many today feel
strongly that The Genesis Flood is nothing more than a plagiarism of George McCeady Price’s
lifelong work. Dr. Ron Numbers, science historian and former Seveth Day Adventist, gives the
following biography of Henry Morris:
. . . a Baptist civil engineer from Texas. As a religiously indifferent youth Morris
accepted theistic evolution, but shortly after graduating from the Rice Institute in
Houston, he came to accept the Bible as God’s infallible word, from Genesis through
Revelation. At first, he remained undecided about whether to attribute the fossil record to
pre-Edenic activities or, following Price, to Noah’s flood. Eventually he settled on the

91. [79]
latter—and devoted the rest of his life to promoting flood geology, which about 1970 he
renamed creation science (Numbers, n.d.).
Leading atheist P.Z. Myers traces the history of YET creationism from Ken Ham and Kent
Hovind backwards to Whitcomb and Morris to George McCready Price to Ellen G. White
(Myers, n.d.). Myers goes as far as to say the entire book, The Genesis Flood, was plagiarized
from the writings of George McCready Price (Myers, n.d.).
Why do Ham (2012) and colleagues such as Purdom and Looy (2011) deny that Henry
Morris drew any significant inspiration from George McCready Price, even though Price is
referred to no less than four times by Whitcomb and Morris in The Genesis Flood? Why does the
name George McCready Price not appear anywhere in the Creationist Hall of Fame, not even as
an honorable mention when YET
writers such as Wood and Snelling
(2008) refer to Price as a self-taught
creationist and place his picture
prominently next to The Genesis
Flood in their homeschool textbook
(Fig. 2)? How could a man who
virtually stood alone in his
insistence on a young Earth
against both scientists and mainstream religion alike, be so overlooked and forgotten by so many
YET groups today? Could it be that the modern YET supporters do not want the world to know
that their arguments originated with an unqualified, would-be geologist whose only motivation to
prove a YET was to defend the visions of the prophetess Ellen G. White and not the Genesis
Figure 2. George McCready Price (third from left with
arrow) pictured alongside The Genesis Flood by
Whitcomb and Morris. (Wood and Snelling, 2008).

92. [80]
account of creation? This seems to be one skeleton Ham and his colleagues hoped would remain
in the closet.
Many YET groups are not very accepting of criticism, particularly from other Christians.
Their hostility towards other Christian groups who hold a different opinion of creation (e.g. GT
believers) is apparent to even those outside the Christian faith. Atheists today are rather shocked
that YET creationists can be as venomous towards old-Earth creationists as they are towards
them. In a lecture entitled, The Evolution of Creationism, given to the Lake Superior
Freethinkers in 2013 by well-known atheist P.Z. Myers, the following point was made about the
Answers in Genesis (AiG) organization:
They [Answers in Genesis] make it very clear that millions of years [Earth’s Age] is the
devil’s work shop. . . it has got to be 6,000-10,000 years old anything else and you are
violating the word of God. . . Their enemy is not atheists, like me. They are not pissed off
at atheists at all. We are off their radar; they don’t care about us. The enemy of
creationists is liberal creationists [any Christian believing the Earth is over 6,000 years
old]. All over their website and all over the museum [creationist museum in Kentucky]
are displays of how evil liberal Christians are. . . but there are no displays talking about
the evils of atheism. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruBjWkVKyRo).
The fact that such time, effort, and money are being spent by YET creationists against old-Earth
creationists and not against atheists was especially pleasing to the atheists who reject both sides.
In this chapter, the writer offers additional evidences for an old Earth. The constantly
moving remnants of a once great, single continent testify to the ancient origin of our planet.
Again the old Earth creationists find nothing incompatible between this scientific data (e.g. plate
tectonics, continental drift, Pangea, etc.) and the Genesis account of creation.

93. [81]
Plate Tectonics
Who was the first person to propose the theory of continental drift? The answer is
difficult to determine. Different principles of plate tectonics and continental drift can be
attributed to various great thinkers of the past 400 years. Sir Frances Bacon (1561-1626) and
Compte de Buffon (1701-1788) noted the curious fit between Africa and South America and
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) and Charles Lyell (1797-1875) both postulated that the crust of
the Earth was like a shell floating on a fluid interior and that broken pieces of the shell could
float about (Lomolino et al., 2006). Although all of these ideas had been floating around for
quite some time, it is interesting to note that one of the first to demonstrate the geometric fit of
the coastlines of continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 3) and to argue that they
once formed a supercontinent was a creationist named Antonio Snider-Pelligrini (Lomolino et
al., 2006). With very little geological data available in 1858, Pelligrini suggested that the
movement of these continents was somehow connected to the Flood of Noah (Lomolino et al.,
2006).
The theory of continental drift found few supporters initially. German meteorologist
Alfred Wegener (1912) developed his ideas on continental drift while spending time in one of
Figure 3. Antonio Snider-Pellegrini
maps showing how the American
and African continents may once
have fit together (right), then later
separated (left).
(http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossa
ry/plate_tectonics.html)

94. [82]
the most tectonically active areas in the world—Greenland. Taking what little evidence existed
at the time and trusting that data would continue to be compiled in support of his ideas on
continental displacement, Wegener presented his working hypothesis in January of 1912. From
this rudimentary hypothesis, the modern science of plate tectonics was born (Wegener, 1912a,b).
Initially, Wegener’s theory of continental drift encountered serious obstacles and
criticism from the scientific world (Lomolino et al., 2006). One of the biggest obstacles
Wegener faced was his occupation; he was a meteorologist (not a geologist) and yet, he was
challenging the most important paradigm in geology at that time—fixed continents on a solid
Earth. Then there was the political climate of the day to consider. Europe was on the brink of
its first world war; Wegener was a German, while the bulk of the geological establishment was
western European. Additionally, there were some glaring errors in the proposed theory of
Wegener—none as flagrant as the proposed high rate of speed at which he believed continental
plates moved—36 meters per year! Finally, there was a less than truthful accusation that
Wegener had failed to include a plausible mechanism responsible for the movement of such
enormous masses of rock (i.e. plates). On the contrary, Wegener included at least three
mechanisms: centrifugal force, gravitational fields, and convection currents of molten rock
beneath the crust of the Earth (Lomolino et al., 2006). It was this third force, convection
currents, that modern scientists still consider the ultimate mechanisms behind plate movement;
albeit, the plate movement turned out to be at a much slower annual rate than Wegener
predicted—centimeters rather than meters.
Although Wegener had been wrong on various parts of his continental drift theory, he
was right to assume that future data would only serve to strengthen his main contention. It

95. [83]
would be a second generation of scientists with their newer technology (developed originally for
the war effort) that would give the continental drift theory its greatest support. Modern marine
geology was born out of an effort to find and destroy enemy submarines during WWII when the
Allies began to put serious effort into understanding and charting ocean topography. One of the
earliest pioneers of marine geology was Rear Admiral Herman Hess. He sailed aboard U.S.
troop carriers using an echo sounder to discover underwater volcanoes and guyots (flat-topped
volcanoes), which later led to the discovery of sub-oceanic continental plate boundaries
(Lomolino et al., 2006). Such topography mapping eliminated one of the greatest criticisms of
Wegener’s theory; namely, that the terrestrial continental plate boundaries did not exactly fit
together like a puzzle. When
the sub-oceanic sections of the
continental plates were
included (Fig. 4), the continents
fit remarkable well together
(Bullard, 1965).
As predicted by
Wegener, newer technologies
continued to validate his
hypotheses on continental plates and movement. Data collected during the Cold War era
confirmed that the mid-ocean ridges were zones of seafloor expansion. In addition, newly-
discovered ocean trenches were shown to be places where the Earth’s crust was extremely thin
Figure 4. Sub-oceanic tectonic plate boundaries.
http://www.visionsofthecosmos.com/Plate%20Tectonics.htm

96. [84]
based upon temperature and gravity
measurements that were different from
the rest of the seafloor. Geologists
postulated that in such trenches the
crust is pulled downward and melted as
it became reincorporated into the
mantle (Fig. 5). These sites were
called “Subduction Zones,” which
formed what has become known as the
“Ring of Fire” in the Pacific due to the
violent nature of geological events that occur in such boundary areas (Benioff, 1954).
Radioactive dating of the ocean floor further confirmed the Wegener model by showing that the
age of the ocean floor was not uniform. The ocean floor ranged in age from brand new at the
mid-ocean ridge to ~200 million years old at the continental subduction zones (Fig. 5). Such
dating correlates to the average rate of plate movement today of 2.5 cm/yr as determined by both
ground-based and space-based geodetic measurements (USGS, 1999).
When it comes to the science of plate tectonics, the disagreement between learned GT
creationists and YET creationists is not whether continental drift occurred, but rather the rate at
which it occurred. It would seem that, at least on the existence of a historic supercontinent
(Pangea), the two groups agree; however, the amount of time it took this one continent to divide
into the seven current continents is where the agreement ends. The YET creationists concede
the existence of a single continent based upon Genesis 1:9,10 that existed for ~1,600 years (i.e.
until the Flood of Noah) at which time the one tectonic plate broke apart and the pieces moved
Figure 5. Seafloor age and spreading. Recycling of
Earth’s crust. Modified from NSTA/FEMA (1988).

97. [85]
rapidly and suddenly into their present day positions. Once again because they deny an Earth
older than 6,000-10,000 years old, YET supporters attribute any and all major geological
changes to this Earth to the Flood of Noah.
One of the most educated champions of the YET cause is Dr. John Baumgardner, a recent
retiree from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Dr. Baumgardner received an M.S. in
electrical engineering from Princeton and a Ph.D. in geophysics from UCLA. In defense of
YET, he has written many articles and essays including: Creationists Believe in Shorter Time
Scales (1995), Problem with Evolution: Microevolution and the Fossil Record (1995), The Real
Issue is Macroevolution (1997) and Not Long Enough for Evolution: A Response to Llewellyn
Jones (1997). Dr. Baumgardner is also a regular contributor to YET organizations AiG and
GlobalFlood.org.
According to Baumgardner (1994), he was able to use supercomputers to model what he
called Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. In this model a cold, dense ocean floor begins to sink into
the softer, less-dense mantle beneath; friction building up around the edges further softening the
adjacent mantle material making it less resistant to the sinking ocean floor, a phenomenon called
runaway subduction. Baumgardner (1994) posits that this condition would put so much stress on
the Earth’s crust elsewhere that the pre-Flood supercontinent would be violently and suddenly
torn apart. The contact of the colder ocean waters to the newly exposed molten mantle would
vaporize copious amounts of ocean water causing superheated geysers to explode into the
atmosphere only to return to the Earth in an intense global, 40-day rain storm (see Gen. 7:11,
12). Such a model would allow YET creationists to continue to reject an old Earth while at the
same time retaining their acceptance of a single, pre-flood supercontinent. However, neither
Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics nor runaway subduction zones (by which continental

98. [86]
plates supposedly broke apart and moved to their present position in a matter of a few weeks
versus million years) has any scientific credibility or corroboration. Of course, the YET
supporters defend this highly unlikely scenario by using their familiar argument, “you can’t
extrapolate anything from the past in a quest to understand the present or vice versa” and then
call their critics a “uniformitarian” while quoting to them 2 Peter 3:4,5.
However, those YET enthusiasts who celebrate the contribution of such an eminent and
legitimate scientist as Dr. Baumgardner need to ask themselves just how committed their hero
truly is to his belief in a YET. Baumgardner has been a contributing author to many impressive,
peer-reviewed scientific papers that support anything but a young universe. For example,
Baumgardner is one of the authors of the 2003 article, “An Early Lunar Core Dynamo Driven by
Thermochemical Mantle Convection,” that was published in the prestigious journal Nature. In
this article the authors discuss evidence for a lunar magnetic field that could date back nearly
four billion years [emphasis added] (Stegman et al., 2003). How exactly does such lunar
evidence fit with Baumgardner’s other essays and articles, in which he states that the Earth is
less than 10,000 years old? Does Baumgardner believe in his own unique GT, only the gap he
believes in occurred between the creation of the heavens (including the moon) 4 billion years ago
and the creation of the Earth only 10,000 years ago? Peradventure, what did the moon orbit for
those billions of years while waiting on the Earth to be created? Dr. Baumgardner co-authored
another scientific journal article entitled “Survival of Impact-induced Thermal Anomalies in the
Martian Mantle,” which conflicts with his alleged YET convictions. The article makes an
interesting observation about the planet Mars: If plate tectonics did occur on Mars, its duration
should have been no more than a few hundred million years [emphasis added], as indicated by
surface ages as well as 40Ar degassing models (Reese et al., 2003). Again we are left to wonder

99. [87]
if Baumgardner believes God created the planet Earth millions, if not billions, of years “after”
the rest of the solar system. On the contrary, a paper co-authored by Baumgardner several years
earlier states: Computer models that reveal a 150-million-year [emphasis added] time scale for
generating thermal heterogeneity in the [Earth’s] mantle (Bunge et al., 1998). At least before his
fellow scientist and the scientific community, Baumgardner does not hesitate to agree with and
use the standard geological timescale in his publications of an Earth and universe that is billions
of years old. However, he seems to sing a different tune when addressing the YET community,
where he has been crowned one of the most qualified YET defenders given his preeminent
scientific education and reputations. Do any of these discrepancies in his writings concern the
YET crowd? Evidently not, given the large number of his articles published in YET material
and the royal treatment he is given at YET speaking engagements. He has also been placed on
the Honorable Mention List in the YET Creation Science Hall of Fame in Kentucky
(http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/honorable-mention/).
In all fairness, Dr. Baumgardner is not the only member of this organization who has
been guilty of a hypocritical stance on the issue of the true age of the Earth. Baumgardner is a
member of Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE), a self-described group of physicists,
geophysicists, and geologists committed to proving a YET creation. Among its other members
are Dr. Eugene Chaffin, Dr. Steven Austin, and Dr. Andrew Snelling. All these men are
connected with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and regularly write in defense of a YET
by offering alternative explanations for scientific dogma and calling into question the accuracy
of radioactive dating.
Dr. Andrew Snelling received a Ph.D. from the University of Sydney in 1982 for his
research in uranium mineralization. In 1983, he entered the creation science ministry in Australia

100. [88]
and worked three years with Ken Ham. However, in addition to his work with churches,
homeschool organizations, educational communities, and organizations like ICR and AiG,
Snelling continues also as a consultant on uranium mineralization and author of articles in peer
reviewed scientific journals. While comparing these two sides of Snelling’s career, Dr. Alex
Ritchie, a paleontologist at the Australian Museum, noticed major contradictions (Ritchie, 1991).
In the presence of his YET creationists, Snelling (1983) promoted the idea that nearly all
fossilization occurred during the Flood of Noah and not over millions of years, claiming:
On the other hand, creationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary
rock of the Earth’s crust as testimony to Noah’s flood. . . Creationists do this because
they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah’s flood,
therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilization.
According to many articles Snelling wrote for ICR and AiG in defense of a YET, there was
never any room for doubt when it came to the physical evidence on Earth today and the YET
interpretation of Genesis. Snelling defended the doctrine that creation occurred some 6,000
years ago (~4004 b.c.) and was almost totally destroyed and then remodeled some 1,600 years
later (~2345 b.c.) by a world-wide flood. Snelling (2014) does not hesitate to explain how the
Chalk Cliffs of Dover could have been formed in as few as six days as a result of three major
algal blooms. As far as coal reserves, Snelling (2014) boldly stated, There was ample time, space
and vegetation for Noah’s flood to produce all of today’s known coal beds.
However, this same Andrew Snelling had quite different views when it came to his
consulting work and professional reputation. In an authoritative, two-volume anthology entitled
“Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea,” Snelling gives a

101. [89]
detailed, technical account of the Koongarra Uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of
Australia by reporting:
The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the
Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost
overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolites
grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550º to 630º C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr.
[emphasis added]. Multiple isoclinals recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism.
(Snelling, 1990).
While the technical jargon used by Dr. Snelling in this quote goes beyond this author’s
vocabulary in the area of Australian geology and landforms, the age given (i.e. 1870 to 1800
million years) for such landforms was hard to misinterpret. The two-volume work also references
eight earlier peer-reviewed scientific journal articles by Snelling, each written within the context
of an ancient Earth (i.e. billions of years old). Thus, we are left to wonder who is the real Dr.
Snelling? Which Snelling articles are we to believe? Is the YET community so pleased to have a
scientist write in their favor that they would purposefully overlook such blatant duplicities?
Incidentally, Dr. Snelling was also inducted into the Creation Science Hall of Fame in Kentucky
(http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/living/andrew-snelling/).
Reverse Polarity
As with many early discoveries about the ocean depths, reverse polarity owes its
existence to the Cold War. The U.S. Navy needed the ability to hear prowling Soviet
submarines patrolling close to U.S. harbors, which meant an accurate mapping of the ocean
floor was necessary for the placement of such listening devices. In 1955, the U.S. Coast and
Geodetic Survey (USCGS) was given the task of producing the first really high resolution map

102. [90]
of the sea floor using a new device called a
magnetometer to detect varying strengths of
magnetic fields (Lamb and Sington, 1998). It
was already known that magnetic fields varied in
strength (e.g. weaker at the equator than at the
poles), but what had never been documented
were changes in magnetic intensities as the ship
sailed back and forth across the north-to-south
running, mid-ocean ridge. Remember, it is from
this ridge that magma continually rises to the ocean floor to form new ocean crust (Figs. 5 & 6).
The intensities were displayed as black and white stripes making the map of the ocean floor
resemble a zebra pattern (Fig. 6). The parallel stripes were so extraordinarily uniform in each
direction of the mid-Atlantic ridge that many felt that they were the result of instrument
malfunctions.
However, the explanation for such mysterious uniformity in the data these Cold War
scientists had uncovered had already been solved in the work of a Japanese scientist from the
1920s named Motonori Matuyama. Matuyama (1927) noted that many rocks are permanently
magnetic due to their iron-rich minerals such as magnetite and haematite, but if heated to an
extremely high temperature ( >500ºC) lose their original magnetic orientation and instead take
on the magnetic orientation of the current magnetic field in which they cooled. Matuyama
(1927) collected volcanic rocks from many sites in Japan expecting all such rocks to be
magnetically oriented towards the North Pole; however, among those rocks collected from the
older volcanoes, the magnetism was oriented in exactly the opposite direction. Due to the work
Figure 6. Spreading ocean floor and
reverse polarity (Earth Science Australia,
1996).

103. [91]
of Matuyama and many other devoted geologists, by the 1960s most in the scientific community
accepted the theory that the magnetic field of the Earth had indeed changed many times in the
past due to the motion of the outer liquid core of the Earth.
Based on the number of pole reversal incidents recorded from various study sites
including ocean crust to cooled volcanic flows on land, the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) (2012) stated that changes in the Earth’s magnetic field can be traced back 3.5 billion
years. Therefore, on average, the Earth’s polarity reverses every 200,000 years; nevertheless,
these intervals can be highly irregular (Roach, 2010; USGS, 2012). For example, 72 million
years ago there were five reversals within a million-year span; 54 million years ago there were
10 reversals in a million-year span; and 42 million years ago evidence shows there were 17
polarity reversals within a 3-million-year period (Banerjee, 2001). The last reversal occurred
some 780,000 years ago (Roach, 2010; USGS, 2012). Intervals lasting more than 10 million
years are called Superchrons and thus far, the Earth has experienced three: the Cretaceous
Normal, the Kiaman, and the Moyero (Merrill et al., 1998). In just the last 83 million years,
there have been 184 magnetic pole reversal events (Cande and Kent, 1995).
Not surprisingly, those who support YET are forced to teach that all these hundreds to
thousands of pole reversals had to have occurred within a period of time no longer than 6,000-
10,000 years, an extent of time that would include the whole civilization of mankind. That
seems absurd. Thus, if YET is true in that man and this Earth is no more than 10,000 years old
and the last 184 reversals in polarity reported by Cande and Kent (1995) were restricted to just
the last 6,000-10,000 years as opposed to the last 83 million years, then why were there not any
historical records of such events? If YET advocates are correct, the Earth’s polarity could have
changed, on average, once every 32 years. Now consider that the use of compasses to point to the

104. [92]
magnetic north have been in use for the past 2,500 years beginning with the Chinese mapping
out their vast empire (Merrill & Mc
Elhinny, 1983) and moving on to the Arabs navigating their
trade routes through the deserts (Schmidl, 1997), Europe establishing trade routes across land
and sea to the East, and finally to the colonization of the new territories across the globe.
Do YET advocates honestly believe that reversals in the magnetic poles would not be
recorded in the captain logs of thousands of ships or that cartographers of the day would fail to
notate such drastic changes? The effects of magnet pole reversals would include such things as
changes in global climate (e.g. shifting of air and water currents), navigation (in both human and
migratory animals), commercial fishing and modern communication (satellite placement).
Common sense would dictate that the last polarity reversal predates the creation of man.
Remember: scientists date the last polar reversal to have occurred 780,000 years ago (Roach,
2010; USGS, 2012), which presents no problem for believers in the GT, but cannot be accepted
by the YET creationists.
Among the arguments used by the supporters of YET against these many ancient polarity
reversals is either a complete denial of the occurrence of magnetic reversals, which means
ignoring reams of evidence from multiple sources, or the contention that all these magnetic
reversals occurred rapid-fire over a relatively short period of time such as—you guessed it—
during the Flood of Noah (Barns, 1971; Humphreys, 1986; Humphreys, 1990). This amazing
short-lived, catastrophic flood is the explanation for everything that is ridiculous and illogical
about the YET doctrine. The Flood of Noah is the default position for all YET creationists when
they find themselves nailed to the wall with facts. Even their great “scientists” are not above
invoking the Flood of Noah when they find themselves in sticky situations. Consider the

105. [93]
response below of Snelling (1991) who falls back to the Flood in his explanation of the multiple
polarity reversals occurring over the period of a proposed 6,000 years:
Since the field reversals are recorded in the fossil strata, the reversals must have
happened when the strata were being laid down. Many creationists argue that Noah’s
Flood produced most of the fossil layers in a single year. Thus, these reversals of the
Earth’s magnetic field have to be envisaged as occurring on average every week or two
during the Flood year.
However, for these reversals to appear as a result of the Flood, the evidence would be laid down
vertically as each layer with reversed poles settled on top of one another and not horizontally as
we see in the formation of new crust that moves horizontally away from the mid-ocean ridge
(Fig. 6). Indeed, Austin et al. (1994) scrambled to find data on vertical pole reversals that they
could twist and pervert to mean that during the Flood, the Earth was in a year-long, constant
magnetic flux. Such an interpretation would allow YET creationists to compress all magnetic
reversals into a single year and thereby preserve their belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth.
However, there are at least two problems with the interpretation by Austin et al. (1994) of
the vertical, deep-core, ocean crust samples. First, the fact that pole reversal layers occurred
closer together in deep core samples than they did in the horizontal crust layers on the ocean
floor (Fig. 6) was neither surprising nor unexpected by the scientist doing the drilling. Scientists
already understood that cooling liquid rock takes on the magnetism of the environment in which
it solidifies (Matuyama, 1927). Thus, it was not surprising that the intervals between polarity
reversals in surface samples differed from the intervals of deep core samples. The magma
extruded onto the surface of the cold ocean floor cooled at a much faster rate than the magma
that remained closer to the upper mantle (lithosphere) where temperatures are much warmer and

106. [94]
cooling would naturally occur much more slowly (Fig. 5). The intervals between pole reversals
can be understandably much farther apart at the surface compared to those collected nearest the
hot mantle where rock remained liquid for longer periods of time as it traveled away from the
point of extrusion and could even show different polarity from that of its surface counterpart.
Therefore, the more accurate and consistent samples for determining the Earth’s history as told
by polarity reversals are the surface samples.
The second problem with teaching that all observed polarity reversals in the ocean crust
occurred during the Biblical flood is that radiometric dating of the ocean floor indicates that the
age of the ocean crust changed gradually, from its birth at the mid-ocean ridges to ~150 million
years old at the continental shores. If all observed polar reversals occurred during the Flood, the
entire ocean floor would be the same age, and clearly it is not. For those who refuse to accept
the validity of radiometric dating, a second method of dating the ocean floor also confirms a vast
age difference across the ocean floor—sediment build up. Ocean floor sediment thickness
varies from as much as 20,000 meters at the coast to no sediment buildup at the mid-ocean ridges
(Divins, 2003). According to Divins (2003) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the age of the underlying crust is among the top five reasons for
sedimentation variation on the ocean floor.
The Formation of the Grand Canyon
Young-Earth theorists have been very successful at pushing a false dichotomy between
creationism and science. Upon accepting Christianity, Tom Vail, a 15-year veteran Colorado
River guide, was convinced that he had to recant his lifelong belief in the pre-historic origin of

107. [95]
the Grand Canyon (Cart, 2004). Vail was convinced by a host of YET leaders to publish his own
guide book entitled, Grand Canyon: A Different View, in which he edits and illustrates 20
unscientific (i.e. unfalsifiable) essays from leading creationists convinced that the canyon was a
result of the Flood of Noah and thus, only a few thousand years old. Vail, like so many others
today, may not have even considered the GT, which would have allowed him to retain his
lifelong and logical belief that the Grand Canyon was the result of six million years of erosion by
the Colorado River. Sadly, Vail (like other naïve believers) was convinced by the YET leaders
that to believe in the prehistoric origin of the Grand Canyon was tantamount to rejecting the
entire Bible. On the topic Vail stated, If we can't believe the accounts of Genesis, which are
foundational to the entire Bible, why would we believe the rest to be truth? If the Word doesn't
really mean 'in six days,' then maybe it doesn't really mean 'thou shall not’ (Bailey, 2007).
Again, we seem to have found another YET advocate that would make the age of the Earth a
very definite test of fellowship.
Nevertheless, Vail’s new belief about the age and origin of the Grand Canyon did not
come without its financial rewards. In addition to his book, Vail and his wife founded the
Canyon Ministries, which offers creationist-based tours of the Canyon (Jaroff, 2004). According
to their website (2014), Canyon Ministries runs tours for both AiG and ICR, the two largest
creation-based ministries in the world. On the AiG website alone, there were at least eight
rafting trips advertised for 2014—these tailored towards various groups from families to college
students. Combining white-water fun and creationism makes this YET odyssey an ideal
destination for mega-church youth groups, Christian school class trips, and religious
homeschoolers! When it came to finding a new, untapped niche for his business, Vail struck it
big, with most trips costing $2,500 per person. Perhaps strategically, free trips are offered by the

108. [96]
non-profit arm of the ministry to church leaders, youth leaders, seminary teachers, and professors
in hopes of gaining their support and endorsement. These invited guests hold very influential
positions and their endorsement of the Canyon Ministry tours could bring in larger numbers of
paying guests.
Russ Miller and his organization, Creation, Evolution, Science Ministries (CESM) also
began offering their own YET tours of the Grand Canyon (http://www.creationministries.org/).
In addition, the CESM website advertises YET seminars as a great way for youth and other
church groups to raise money; by charging admission to these YET lectures the profits can then
be used to pay for a CESM tour of the Grand Canyon. (It appears that CESM profits twice: first,
from their share of the admission cost to the lecture and secondly, from the canyon tour itself).
The CESM group charges a flat fee per presentation (plus travel expenses to the site of the
presentation) and the church group keeps the rest of the admission fee or offerings to help pay
for their trip to the Grand Canyon (Creation, Evolution, Science Ministry, 2013).
The advertised rim hiking and rafting tours promise to increase your faith in Jesus as the
creator, judge, and redeemer for a nominal fee that ranges up to thousands of dollars per
group—“Jesus and white water” what could make the gospel more appealing or fear and guilt-
inducing, particularly to youth? And to demonstrate just how closed-minded and unwilling to
listen to reason such YET business men can be, consider the words of Mr. Miller, founder of
CESM, on the front page of the CESM website, “I am not attacking anyone who has been misled
[emphasis added] into believing in Darwinism, Theistic Evolution or Progressive Creation. I am
here to help them, just as someone helped me.” So, anyone who holds a different belief on the
age of the Earth is automatically considered a person who has been misled and in need of help.
Such inflexibility and arrogance seems to be a common attribute among YET believers, who

109. [97]
cannot grasp the fact that YET is an “interpretation” of Genesis and, as such, could be wrong
without the Bible being wrong.
As might be expected, the debate over the Grand Canyon revolves around the speed at
which the canyon was formed. Unwilling to accept the gradual six-million-year formation of the
Grand Canyon, YET creationists often turn in desperation to extremely scaled-down versions of
quickly formed canyons from throughout the world in an attempt to show how the Grand Canyon
could have been the product of the Flood of Noah’s day. One such attempt is on the part of John
Morris (2001), who points to the Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington. Initially, a
small ditch that engineers dug and used to divert water into while cleaning out an irrigation
channel, the ditch became a small canyon after only six days of continuous use. For Morris and
other YET creationists, such cases are enough evidence to prove the Grand Canyon could have
been formed during the year of Noah’s Flood. However, no such small-scale examples have
come close to showing the Grand Canyon could have been excavated in a single year. For
example, the amount of rocks displaced by the creation of the Burlingame Canyon was roughly 5
million cubic feet versus 448 trillion cubic feet of rock debris in the formation of the Grand
Canyon; roughly a difference of 89 million to 1 (Newman, 2001). Even if the Grand Canyon
eroded at the same rate as the Burlingame Canyon, it would have still taken 1.5 million years to
form—substantially more time than 6,000 years.
Other examples of swiftly forming canyons have been offered up by YET supporters
including volcanic flows from the 1980 Mount St. Helen eruption (Snelling and Vail, 2009). Of
course, nothing close to scale can be found in modern times for comparison studies. However, in
making comparisons to these miniature and swiftly made modern canyons, one very interesting
difference is overlooked. Consider the sweeping bends or meanders of the Colorado River and

110. [98]
the Grand Canyon it formed (Fig. 7) compared to the straight, nearly curveless trench of the
Burlingame Canyon formed by a sudden release of swift running water (Fig. 8). Once a stream
has cut its channel to base level and reaches a graded condition, the downward erosion becomes
less dominant and, at this point, the energy of the stream is directed from side to side creating the
meanders (Tarbuck and Lutgens, 1991a). Is it really that difficult to pick the canyon that took
the most time to form—the Grand Canyon (Fig. 7) or the Burlingame Canyon (Fig. 8)?
Another argument made by YET advocates is offered in the form of a question: namely,
if the Flood of Noah did not make the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River did, why didn’t
other rivers of equal or older age and size such as the Nile, Yangtze, and Amazon not form their
own grand canyons? The answer is not found in the flow rates or volumes of the rivers, but
rather in their locations (i.e. the geology below). When it comes to the Grand Canyon, nowhere
else on Earth can rocks from so many geologic eras be viewed on such a grand scale. Why?
Because nowhere else on Earth is there a river that has been flowing over a formation like the
Figure 7. Meanders of the Colorado River in
the Grand Canyon (Personal photo taken
from helicopter tour, 2010).
Figure 8. Burlingame Canyon lack of meanders
(Rowan Univ. Dept. Civil and Environmental
Engineering website).

111. [99]
Colorado Plateau (Fig. 9). According to the United States Geological Services (USGS, n.d.) the
basement material now at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is the remnants of an eroded
Proterozoic mountain range dating back roughly 1.7-2.5 billion years (Fig. 10). It is on this
basement rock surface that younger layers of sedimentary rocks (e.g. slate, shale, limestone, etc.)
were deposited (~40 major layers), a clear indication of a
prehistoric inland sea (Fig. 10) that underwent many cycles of
rising and receding water levels (Mathis and Bowman, 2005).
Over the next 300 million years, advancing water cycles left
deposits of limestone, some containing fossils of coral, mollusks,
worms and fish teeth, while receding water levels left behind
layers of slate, shale, and mudstone (Mathis and Bowman, 2005).
However, 250 million years ago, coinciding with the formation
of the super continent, Pangea, there is a disappearance of marine sediment layers and an
appearance of terrestrial deposits such as volcanic ash (USGS, n.d.). Beginning 20 million years
ago due to changes in plate motion to the West, the Colorado plateau experienced uplifts of as
much as 3 kilometers (1.8 miles). Streams and rivers responded by cutting ever deeper channels
into the rising plateau, but none so deep as the
Figure 9. Colorado Plateau
(Wikipedia, 2014).
Figure 10. Colorado Plateau and Great Inland
Sea NRC (2012).

112. [100]
Colorado River, which after six million years carved out and exposed rock layers dating back
billions of years (Fig. 11B).
Of course, YET creationists cannot accept the perfectly sound and widely accepted
explanation of the geology of the Grand Canyon. Their explanation again defaults to the Flood
of Noah and a geology of the Canyon that dates back less than 10,000 years (Fig. 11A).
However, keep in mind that limestone forms very slowly from the deposition of microscopic
marine creatures, making it an absurdity to teach that the hundreds of feet of limestone exposed
by the Grand Canyon was formed during the one-year Flood of Noah (Fig. 11A). The YET
creationists have shared numerous
assumptions to explain the much
accelerated formation of these limestone
deposits including the teaching that the
limestone in the Grand Canyon is a
special type (Austin, 1990; Layman,
1995). Then there are the vertebrate fossil
footprints made in Coconino Sandstone,
which was clearly deposited by winds
into dunes during dry periods in the long
formation of the Colorado Plateau
through which the Grand Canyon was cut (Young, 1990). Alas, YET scientists argue that these
Coconino deposits were formed from a special type of sand stone (unique size grain) that was
deposited by water (not wind) and the foot prints were made and preserved underwater by
aquatic vertebrates during the tumultuous Flood (Snelling and Austin, 1992).
Figure 11. Comparison of explanations of the
geology of the Grand Canyon between YET
creationists and modern geologists. A) YET; B)
modern geology.

113. [101]
There are other unmentioned assumptions made by YET advocates to persuade others to
believe in a newly constructed Grand Canyon. However, enough assumptions from YET writers
have been listed above to establish the group’s frequent violation of “Ockam’s Razor,” the 14th
century principle that has found application in nearly every academic field and simply states that
the explanation with the least number of exceptions or assumptions is the most correct. This
principle has also been referred to as the “principle of parsimony” (see pg. 74).
With all that has been learned about our Earth thus far, it is astonishing to read the words
of YET creationist, Emil Silvestru (2013), who writes, Despite the tendency of most geologists to
apply millions of years to the data, I have found that in reality the data ‘fits’ far more easily into
a YET/Flood model for Earth history (thus fulfilling Ockham’s requirement). Such statements
only indicate ignorance or dishonesty. Emil Silvestru earned his Ph.D. at a University in Cluj,
Romania, writing his dissertation from the perspective of an Earth that was billions of years old,
but later became a Christian and changed to the belief in a YET. Why? Once I became a
Christian, Emil said in an interview, I knew I had to TUNE UP my scientific knowledge with the
Scriptures (CMI, 2013). So by his own admission, it was not a deeper understanding of science
or any new scientific discoveries or personal scientific research that made Silvestru turn from his
belief in an old Earth to young Earth belief, but rather his personal interpretation of Genesis.
Like other YET scientists, Silvestru admittedly had to disregard his early education and make
multiple exceptions (i.e. “tune ups”) to the well-established scientific theories he had been taught
so that he could make the Earth fit into his new interpretation of Genesis. Thus, it is sad to see
that a YET creationist has no other alternatives, but to disregard the simplest, most probable
explanations (i.e. violate Ockham’s Razor).

114. [102]
For a vast majority of professionally trained geologists, the very idea of wasting time
debating the doctrine of a recently formed Grand Canyon is as absurd and frivolous as engaging
in discourse over whether the Earth is round or flat. This remains the reason why so few
scientists agree to debate YET creationists. YET theorists would have the public believe that a
growing number of scientists are now expressing doubt in the ancient age of the Earth and
coming over to the YET side. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A most generous
estimate of the number of YET creation scientists today is approximately 1/10 of 1% (Newman,
2001). Such a low estimate seems completely plausible given that most YET literature is written
by the same handful of authors (e.g. Ham, Morris, Thompson, Gish, Snelling, Austin) compared
to the thousands of articles filling peer-reviewed, scientific journals written by generation after
generation of scientists from various disciplines, backgrounds, nationalities, and institutions.

115. [103]
CHAPTER FOUR
DINOSAURS—SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION
Dinosaur National Monument
In the spring of 2014, my wife, Debbie, and I were blessed with the opportunity to visit
Dinosaur National Museum in Utah, one of the largest on-location dinosaur fossil displays in the
world at just over 210,000 acres. Hosted by local Missionary Baptist pastor, Jim Still, and his
wife, Cindy, we visited both on-site and museum displays of prehistoric fossil bones. Museum
curators and park interpreters were pleasantly surprised to find us genuinely interested in what
they had to say about the timeline they used to date these creatures.
At the Dinosaur National Monument Park (DNMP), over 1,500 fossil bones are on
display—just as they were found—on a quarry face simply called The Wall. The stunning sight
of tangled dinosaur bones represents a classic mass burial deposit that even the most casual
observer would find hard to forget. The park lies completely within a much larger formation of
upper Jurassic sedimentary rock (e.g. mudstone, sandstone, siltstone, limestone, etc.) called The
Morrison. The formation stretches from New Mexico to the
western provinces of Canada covering over 700,000 square miles
(Fig. 1). The formation is dated back over 150 million years ago to
when the super continent of Laurasia was splitting into the
continents of North America and Eurasia. Due to the location of
the North American plate in the subtropics during this period, the
climate was much warmer.
Figure 1. Morrison Formation.
(Hoesch and Austin, 2004).

116. [104]
Before 1924, well-articulated dinosaur bones were excavated and shipped to other parts
of the country. Over a dozen Sauropods and what was then identified as a Brontosaurus—N.B.
renamed later Apatosaurus due to its longer snout—were sent to museums across the United
States, but still the bone concentration within The Wall remains 2.9 bones per square meter
(Dodson et al., 1980). Despite this high concentration of dinosaur bones in The Wall, a group of
ancestral fresh water clams are by far the most frequently occurring fossils in the park (Chure
and West, 1994). This observation is enough for many YET supporters to proclaim without the
corroboration of any other observations that the Flood of Noah was the agent of death, transport,
and burial for all fossils (aquatic and terrestrial) found throughout the Morrison Formation.
However, such a premature conclusion on the part of YET believers fails to account for
the fossils of both dinosaurs and shellfish being found together in not one, but three distinct
intervals (layers) within 50’ thick, channel-shaped (meandering) quarry stone. The Wall at the
visitor center of the DNMP represents the lowest of the three intervals (Dodson et al., 1980).
Also, found in all three layers of Mesozoic rock is fossilized dinosaur excrement (coprolite) that
can be as large as 15L (BBC, 2010). This occurrence of coprolite in all three layers completely
discredits the YET argument that these layers of rock were the result of different sedimentation
events during the year-long Flood of Noah rather than three distinct periods of time (Austin,
1994). Common sense would surmise that if all of the dinosaurs were killed in this single
catastrophe (the Flood), all their coprolite should be found in the same layer rather than in three
different layers; in the same way, all dinosaurs fossils should have been found relatively in the
same general layer instead of three distinct layers. The fact that both dinosaurs fossils and their
coprolite are found together in three different layers would seem to be a strong indicator that

117. [105]
these fossils represent three different time periods during which each group walked this Earth. In
other words, it was not sedimentation rates during the flood of Noah that separated these distinct
fossil groups, but rather the time of their death. Adding further to the headaches of the YET
teachers is the fact that not only are there three distinct layers of dinosaurs and coprolite to
explain, there have also been found eggs in nests in each of the three layers; in other words,
fossil eggs/nests have been found in one site, and then several hundred feet of sediment below
and above that site, more eggs/nests are found (Norman, 2003). Other explanations for these
three fossil layers have been offered by those believing in a YET, but no explanation comes
close to being feasible when the Flood of Noah is used as the means of the destruction of
dinosaurs.
While on the Morrison formation outside Vernal, Utah, Bro. Still took me to observe an
area having many dinosaur prints (i.e. trackway) on the shore of Red Fleet Reservoir. The
Morrison formation has many of these trackways. YET theology would limit the time in which
these prints were made to the period of receding Flood water. Obviously, any muddy prints
made before the Flood would have been washed away, and dead dinosaurs make no prints such
as those that had succumbed to the Flood. Thus, if these prints are limited to a single
sedimentary layer laid down by receding Flood water, as taught by YET theorists, how can they
explain the sheer number of trackways worldwide? If only a pair of each species were spared
from the Flood in the ark, how could they be responsible for all these prints worldwide in the
temporary mud left behind by the receding Flood waters?
The mass accumulation of bones at DNMP is typical of the Morrison Formation with
around 20 other similar bone quarries existing throughout this formation. However, scientists
are still unsatisfied with their understanding of such sites. Admittedly, scientists do not

118. [106]
understand the distribution patterns of such sites, which normally could be understood based
upon the distribution of food, but not in this situation. Where are the plant fossils? A large
herbivore such as the Apatosaurus could eat more than a ton of green fodder each day, so
naturally, paleontologists are baffled by the rarity of fossil plants in these layers with abundant
dinosaur fossil and coprolite. According to White (1964), identifiable plant fossils were
practically nonexistent on the Morrison plain. For this reason, scientists are far from arrogant,
readily admitting that they do not have all the answers and many mysteries still abound
concerning these ancient creatures. If only the YET crowd would be so humble and honest;
instead, statements like these are made without hesitation or equivocation: 1) Jesus was a young-
Earth creationist (Mortenson, 2006); 2) Belief in millions of years undermines the Bible’s
teaching on death and on the character of God (Mortenson, 2006); 3) The idea of millions of
years did not come from the scientific facts (Mortenson, 2006); It [old Earth gap theory] cannot
be proven with the original language of the Scriptures (Thornton, 2010); and of course, 4) There
is no mystery surrounding dinosaurs if you accept the Bible’s totally different account of
dinosaur history (Ham, 2010a). Such divisive claims can do little else, but place churches and
pastors into two camps—old Earth creationists and young Earth creationists, where there was
only one camp before—creationists.
Dinosaurs 101
Dinosaurs lived on the Earth from the late Jurassic period (150 million years ago) to the
late Cretaceous (65 million years ago), with the oldest known dinosaur fossil being 230 million
years old (Litwin et al., 2001). These reptiles were the most dominant form of life for nearly 100
million years, with currently over 700 species identified and classified into 300 genera (USGS,
2007). If Noah took a pair of each species of dinosaurs with him in the ark as taught by YET

119. [107]
believers, just consider the amount of space that would be needed to accommodate, feed, and
water this one genus of animal. However, such a dilemma would not have faced Noah given that
the only primates that the fossil record shows were contemporaries with dinosaurs were not men,
but the tiny, insect-eating Archicebus achilles that reached only 3” in length and weighed in at
only 1 ounce (Litwin et al., 2001; Jha, 2013; Strauss, 2014). Dwelling in tree tops, its diet and
size would draw little, if any, attention from dinosaurs allowing A. achilles to fill its unique niche
among the reptilian giants.
Most scientists believe it was during the reign of the dinosaur that the continents of the
Earth went through a series of dramatic changes due to the process known as plate tectonics. At
the beginning of the dinosaur dynasty, the various continental plates were joined together over
the equator like a completed puzzle forming the one super-continent known as Pangaea (Ward,
2000). By the end of the existence of dinosaurs, the continental plates had pulled apart and were
nearing their present day locations (Litwin et al., 2001). It was during this period of continental
drift (~150 million years), when most continents moved away from equatorial regions, that
plants and animals on each fractured continent experienced major climatic changes (Litwin et al.,
2001). Some changes were so dramatic that there is little reason not to believe that there was
great loss of indigenous flora and fauna on most continents. Curiously, many YET defenders do
not object to the doctrine of continental drift with the obvious exception—the speed at which the
movement of continents occurred (Morris, 1993).
For the most die-hard YET supporters the words of Genesis 10:25 . . . one was named
Peleg, because in his time the Earth was divided. . . serve as additional proof of how quickly
major geological changes have occurred since creation (i.e. within a single man’s lifetime)
making it incorrect to estimate the age of the Earth in terms of millions of years. To convince

120. [108]
themselves and others even further, YET instructors explain that the Flood, which had occurred
four generations (i.e. ~100 yrs.) before Peleg, had already started the process of dividing the
Earth by fragmenting the single continent of Pangea (Morris, 1993; Galling, 2008). However,
such a conclusion begs the question, was 100 years enough time for this original pair of
dinosaurs to migrate from the landing site of the Ark on Mt. Ararat, Turkey into every corner of
Pangea before it broke into the various individual continents during the lifespan of Peleg? During
the short span of time from the Flood to the life of Peleg, dinosaurs would have not only had to
migrate thousands of miles to the boundaries of Pangea but also have had enough time for that
original, passenger pair from the Ark to rapidly reproduce. Why? Because fossils of the same
species of dinosaur and of relatively the same age have been found on multiple continents, even
Antarctica (Macleod et al., 1997).
There is little doubt that what happened in the life of Peleg was significant, especially
given that the Bible records this information not once (Gen. 10:25), but twice (I Chron. 1:19).
However, if context counts for anything (and it should), the more likely explanation for this
division of the Earth commemorated by even the very name Peleg (“to split”) would be the
division of the human race imposed by God at the tower of Babel (Gen. 11). Many linguistic
scholars and researchers, having no interest in confirming the accuracy of the Bible, have done
just that as their research confirms and reconfirms that the earliest known language originated
among those inhabiting the flood plains between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers that the Bible
referred to as . . . the land of Shinar. . . (Gen. 11:1-2; Hayes, 1990). Thus, the Earth divided in
the days of Peleg was most likely, the human race, and the cause of the division was not
geographical, but lingual. God had purposely confounded the once common language of man,

121. [109]
by placing language barriers among men (Gen. 11). Those groups of men of like language
removed themselves from Shinar to settle in different regions of the Earth (Gen. 11:8).
Unlike modern man, prehistoric dinosaurs were extremely susceptible to climate change,
especially those that were ectothermic (i.e. cold blooded). Originally, it was believed by most
researchers that all dinosaurs were ectothermic and depended upon the warm sun to maintain
their internal body temperatures and aid in metabolism. However, due to the ever-expanding
body of evidence from across the world, more and more scientists are coming to believe that at
least some of the larger, especially predatory dinosaurs were endothermic (i.e. warm blooded)
just like mammals (Litwin et al., 2001). For example, researchers have shown that the enamel
taken from 11 fossilized teeth of the 150-million-year-old dinosaurs, Brachiosaurus and
Camarsaurus, would only form at temperatures between 96°F and 100.4°F, the same
temperature as the mammalian body (Reardon, 2014). Furthermore, an increased number of
scientists have come to believe that for such large predatory animals to meet their own daily
caloric needs, they had to remain alert and agile at all times, something that would not be
possible if they had been ectotherms.
Upon being greeted by a Tyrannosaurus rex display on their first field trip to a museum
of natural history, what school child had to be convinced that this creature ate other dinosaurs?
With over 30 specimens of T. rex having been identified worldwide, the most complete specimen
of this largest of all land predators is found in the Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH) in
Chicago, Illinois, reaching a length of 40’ and standing 13’ tall at the hips, this specimen has
been estimated to have weighed between 10 and 20 tons (Hutchinson et al., 2011). Such species
as the T. rex had ~50 teeth, some measuring up to 8” long and all able to be regrown in under
two years (Lessem & Rowe, 2014). In addition, these teeth (some with serrated edges) were

122. [110]
sharp enough to pierce and cut meat and strong enough to crack bone (Lessem and Rowe, 2014).
This point is further proven by the presence of bone shards from the herbivorous Triceratops
being found in T. rex coprolite (Chin, 2002). How would a person of a rational mind find it hard
to believe that such an animal was made for eating meat? After examining the skull, jaw, and
cavities sizes that once contained the jaw muscles, T. rex is by far the animal with the greatest
bite force (35,000 to 57,000 newtons) that has ever lived on land. Its bite force is 3X greater
than a great white shark, 3.5X greater than a saltwater crocodile, and 15X greater than an African
lion (Bates and Falkingham, 2012). Additionally, based on jaw lengths as well as mouth and
stomach dimensions, these creatures could have easily taken single bites weighing in excess of
500lb. (Lessem and Rowe, 2014). Such a bite force and size would hardly be necessary for
removing leaves from branches or blades of grass from their roots.
When in Vernal, Utah, my wife and I along with Jim and Cindy Still took the opportunity
to visit the Utah Field House of Natural History State Park Museum where the curator kindly
showed us into the warehouse to view row upon row of fossils that the museum currently lacked
the room to display. Better still, we were shown into the fossil preparation room where field
specimens were being carefully cleaned and pieced together. Here we were shown several
examples of bite marks that went into the bone of the victim. Even for us novices, the injuries
and their causes were not hard to recognize.
For the modern believers in the GT, these ferocious lizards were never a threat to
mankind as they were part of a pre-Adamic world destroyed by the sin of Satan and his fellow
mutineers. To the contrary, many YET advocates argue strongly that the sharp, serrated teeth of
such predatory dinosaurs as T. rex, and their appetite for flesh were later adaptations that came
about as a result of the Fall of Man and therefore, did not exist before the Fall (Stambaugh, 1991;

123. [111]
Oard, 1997; Ham, 2006c, 2010a; Cuozzo, 2014). Before the Fall of Man, YET proponents
declare that all inhabitants of the Garden of Eden were vegetarians based upon Gen. 1:29-30 and
as such were created with physical and behavioral features characteristic of vegetarians (e.g. T.
rex with blunt, non-serrated teeth). Stambaugh (1991) wrote, If God completed His creation
according to His purpose, then one must acknowledge that God designed creation to eat
vegetation. So YET believers declare that after the sin of Adam these harmless, vegetarian
reptiles that God had created thusly, went through a series of dramatic changes (evolution?) in
their anatomy, physiology, and ecology. For the first time the Earth was divided into two
groups—predator and prey.
This change brings up interesting and disturbing questions that most YET supporters
would rather not think about. Nevertheless, Lenox (2011) asks the following series of questions
about this vegetarian-to-carnivore change:
… would it not make that sin the trigger of a creation process—a feature that seems very
unlikely, and on which the Bible appears to be silent? Or did God foresee the change, build the
mechanisms into the creatures in advance, and then do something to set them in operation?
No Christian on either side of this issue would ever agree that sin or Satan had creative powers,
which only leaves the YET advocates to believe that God created would-be predators with
enough morphological and physiological pliability to make the necessary changes God foreknew
would be needed.
If this is the case, that is, God created these organisms with the capacity to change and
then directed these changes to occur based upon environmental circumstances (i.e. sin of
Adam)—how is such a belief not “theistic evolution”? The YET proponents can no longer testify
or claim that God’s creation was immutable as did almost all of Christianity and most of

124. [112]
scientists up till the mid-1800s. Those scientists that began their careers as believers in the
immutability of species include Carolus Linnaeus, Charles Darwin, Louis Agassiz, and Georges
Cuvier. However, many scientists came to change their mind as more and more evidence pointed
to the evolution of organisms from their original forms. However, many churches today remain
firm in their belief in the immutability of creation (i.e. everything is as God created it in the
beginning). Nevertheless, as badly as YET believers would like to take their place with those
churches in the fight against evolution (i.e. change), in all clear conscience they cannot,
considering the changes they believe took place after the Fall of Man. The YET writer Francis
Collins (2006) describes theistic evolution as the position that evolution is real, but that it was
set in motion by God. Another YET leader, P. Garner (2008), strongly condemns the teaching of
“species fixity” by stating that, new species have even been shown to arise within a single human
lifetime, and goes on to say, . . . the Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging
. . .”. Further questions arise now as leaders of the same group, such as Ken Ham (2006d), write
just the opposite, Another result of believing that God used evolution or that millions of years of
Earth history can fit into the Bible is that God’s Character comes into question. Thus, it is quite
apparent that the YET group is not in agreement among themselves over the doctrine of
evolution; their mixed messages serve to further confuse Christian young people who once again
find themselves caught in the middle of this great debate—creationism vs. evolution.
Before leaving the basics of dinosaurs and their existence on this Earth, there is one final
aspect to consider. How intelligent were these creatures? Experts have come to teach the
general public that not all dinosaurs were equally dumb. Some species of dinosaurs, especially
predators, had larger amounts of grey matter. Such predators needed sharper senses of sight,
sound, and smell. Memory was important for these hunters to recognize which hunting sites

125. [113]
were more productive than others. Since going back in time to administer a traditional I.Q. test
to these animals is out of the question, another simple test is used to determine their intelligence.
It involves the ratio of brain size to body size and is called the Encephalization Quotient (EQ)
test (Strauss, 2014). The EQ scores range from man at 5.0, African elephants at 0.63,
wildebeests at 0.68, monkeys at 1.5, and bottlenose dolphin at 3.6. Among all dinosaurs, the
class geniuses Triceratops are 0.11 and Brachiosaurus are 0.1 (Strauss, 2014). Now for the
predatory dinosaurs such as T. rex, the score is a little higher than their plant eating cousins, but
lower than a modern-day chicken (Strauss, 2014).
Nevertheless, take the intelligence of these dinosaurs and add it to the average
intelligence of the most fanatical YET supporters and you end up with ignorant statements about
the domestication of dinosaurs by men. For
example, We know that animal husbandry goes
back thousands of years. . . If people found out
that there was a dinosaur that they were able to
feed and domesticate, why not expect that they
used that knowledge to better their standard of
living (Kelly, 2013)? That is exactly what man
did— domesticate dinosaurs—according to the
beliefs of Ham and the other founders of the
Creation Museum, who promote the idea with
displays of children playing with dinosaurs and saddled dinosaurs for visiting children to ride on
(Fig. 2). The domestication of dinosaurs and playful companionship with Adam and Eve in the
Garden is a recurrent theme and is actually illustrated in several homeschool science textbooks
Figure 2. A family blog with a caption,
If he'd went to the Creation Museum, he
wouldn't have been scared. He would
have known that we domesticated
dinosaurs 5,000 years ago.

126. [114]
(Ham, 2000; Wheeler, 2013; Lack, 2014). Ham (2000), in his homeschool textbook, explains
how dinosaurs helped gather fruits from tree tops . . . and used their incredible strength to turn
lemons into delicious, fresh, lemonade (Fig. 3). Ham (2000) goes as far as to blame scientists for
misrepresenting dinosaurs as vicious creatures to scare children and even makes the outlandish
claim that it is no coincidence that most of these scientists were atheists or even homosexuals
who are possessed by an intense hatred of
young boys and girls. How does a rational mind
make such a leap or association—a person’s
belief about the diet of dinosaurs is an indicator
of their sexual preference and disposition
towards children? Preposterous! Insulting!
Consider Lyon and Thompson (2005),
who in attempting to justify domesticated
dinosaurs to their readers, gave examples of
elephants, killer whales, and lions, all of which man has trained to do rudimentary tricks for the
purpose of entertaining crowds. However, they conveniently fail to point out that all their
examples are mammals (the most intelligent group of all the animal kingdom). Why didn’t Lyon
and Thompson give examples of domesticated turtles, snakes, alligators, lizards, or any other
modern reptiles? Wouldn’t that be a fairer, more accurate and scientific comparison to
prehistoric dinosaurs? Could it be that Lyon and Thompson could not find any examples of
modern domesticated reptiles? Could it be that whether prehistoric or modern, reptiles have
always lacked the intellectual ability to be domesticated?
Figure 3. Dinosaurs of Eden. Ham (2000)
Homeschool textbook illustration.

127. [115]
Dinosaurs and Kids
The YET advocates have convinced themselves that dinosaurs are being used today by
evolutionary atheists in a grand conspiracy to win the hearts and minds of children. Dinosaurs
have been repeatedly referred to as “the poster child for evolution” or “the sugar stick” that
evolutionists use to capture the attention of kids and adults alike (Ham, 2013a; Lyons, 2014). In
the video trailer for his book, Dinosaur for Kids, Ham (sounding more like a combative child
than a theologian) argued that if science can use dinosaurs to teach kids evolution, than he can
use dinosaurs to teach them the authority of the Bible. Such a statement perfectly illustrates the
type of pseudoscience that is regularly practiced by Ham and others like him; namely, have a
conclusion in mind—such as dinosaurs lived at the same time as man—and then interpret all
evidence to fit that preconceived conclusion. When it comes to dinosaurs, YET leaders have
spent lots of money, time and manpower trying to bend and twist their square peg into a neat,
round hole.
Rather than use dinosaur skeletons and fossils as a tool to better understand the Earth’s
past biology, geology, climate, geography, etc., YET leaders draft them as unwitting soldiers in a
fight against evolution. In Ham’s Creation Museum dinosaurs have been rechristened
"Missionary Lizards" and recruited to fight the demons of evolution and historical geology
(Phelps, 2008). Other YET leaders such as Davis (2008) expressed the same sentiments: These
missionary lizards uphold the authority of Scripture, and they can be powerful tools in sharing
the salvation message, which should be the ultimate goal of every Christian. Such statements by
these YET leaders are not only unintelligible to the scientific world, but extremely insulting to
true churches, which were the true recipients (not individual Christians) of the Lord’s
commission to preach the message of salvation (Mark 16:15). Such words would seem

128. [116]
blasphemous to the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to teach the Ephesian Church that to withstand
the wiles of the devil and wrestle against principalities and rulers of the darkness of this age they
needed only the armor of God and the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:10-20). As Christians are we
to believe that by adding dinosaurs to the Garden of Eden, or placing them onboard the Ark of
Noah, we make the Bible more credible or authoritative? Are we to accept the idea that adding
dinosaurs to the gospel of Christ makes the preaching of the Cross more convicting and
effective? God Forbid!
YET teachers openly and unapologetically use dinosaurs to attract children to their
worldview. Nevertheless, without parental permission, YET teachers have little to no access to
children. Such parental consent, sadly, is easier to
come by as more churches of all denominations
open their doors to these peddlers of nonsense
(Fig. 4). At church meetings, an enormous amount
of effort goes into convincing parents that placing
their children into the public schools system is
doing a great spiritual disservice to them. Parents
are convinced that the Bible alone can provide
their children with all the skills and knowledge
necessary to succeed beyond the classroom. Here is how the CEO of AiG explains the
educational value of the Bible: Many people think the Bible is just a book about religion or
salvation. It is much more than this. The Bible is the History Book of the Universe and tells us
the future destiny of the universe as well. It gives us an account of when time began, the main
events of history . . . The Bible gives us a framework for explaining dinosaurs in terms of
Figure 4. Ham speaking in 2009 to the First
Baptist Church of Atlanta at Charles
Stanley’s invitation. (AiG website).

129. [117]
thousands of years of history, including the mystery of when they lived and what happened to
them (Ham 2007b).
Such a claim leaves one to wonder, then, why such groups still insist on publishing and
selling additional Christian homeschool literature, if the Bible is all sufficient in all areas of
education. Why the need for Christian textbooks on math, chemistry, computer skills, American
History, grammar, Spanish, etc.? Could it be that they don’t really believe their own hype about
the Bible being the only textbook a child would ever need? Or could it be that there are millions
of dollars to be made in the sale of textbooks specifically tailored to church schools and Christian
homeschoolers? Could money be a motivating factor? God forbid.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2012), nearly 3% of U.S. children are
homeschooled, which means that nearly 2 million household budgets must include homeschool
curriculum at an average annual cost of $900 per student (Bentley, 2014). Incidentally, these
figures do not include the 5.3 million students attending private Christian schools (U.S. Dept. of
Education, 2012) and the cost of their curriculum. Not surprisingly, it is extremely hard to find
material in Christian school curriculum that contains an old-Earth world view; in fact, this author
was unable to find any such curriculum for sale. On the other hand, the YET viewpoint is
abundantly accessible in Christian homeschool curriculum. It is the worldview used by three of
the largest homeschool publishers—Alpha Omega, Saxon, and Bob Jones University Press.
Sadly, homeschool material from all three publishers can be purchased from the American
Baptist Association (ABA) bookstore in Texarkana, which may be the only type material the
ABA bookstore can find given the lack of old-Earth homeschool material. Nevertheless, this
author contends that such material should only be sold with a disclaimer or warning stating that
the material is written from a YET worldview and does not necessarily express the views of all

130. [118]
Missionary Baptist churches of the ABA. To do otherwise clearly identifies the ABA with the
YET movement.
Unfortunately, a growing number of ABA churches are making the switch among their
young people to a gap-less view of creation. There was certainly no mention of a gap or pre-
Adamic Earth in the 2014 summer Young Teen Quarterly on Creation. This should be alarming,
considering it represents a definite change in ABA doctrine. While Adult Quarterlies from 1937
(Jackson) and 1961 (Guinn) both presented the gap as an unmitigated truth, most recent Adult
Quarterlies present the gap and pre-Adamic Earth as debatable issues. Furthermore, there have
been ABA youth group trips taken to the Creation Museum, the epicenter of the YET movement
(per. comm.). There are young people from ABA churches who are sent to Christian schools that
teach all subjects from a YET viewpoint (per. comm.). It is astounding and upsetting that a view
of creation that was once widely accepted and taught in ABA homes, churches, and seminaries is
increasingly not reaching a new generation, which needs to understand GT more than previous
generations due to the escalation of scientific evidence of an old Earth. It baffles the mind to
think about how much more of a grasp the past generation had on both Bible hermeneutics and
basic science than present and future generations will have.
Despite the effort of YET creationists and the unwillingness of some ABA parents to
teach their children the historic GT, the absurdities and even dishonesty of YET leaders, writers,
and teachers will one day be exposed. For most young people this enlightenment will occur
while away from home for the first time earning an undergraduate degree at a university.
Whether or not such a revelation will cause a major crisis of consequence or spiritual breakdown
will depend upon many factors including student personality, background, peers, and more. As a
Christian college professor in the biology department of a four-year state university, this author

131. [119]
is greatly concerned with the reactions such students will have to their faith, the Bible, and the
church after this enlightenment occurs.
Consider the testimony of Hannah Smith (2014), a homeschooled young lady who was
attending a community college close to her home and church. After a fellow student, during a
break between classes, was able to tear apart all that she had been taught about the carbon-14
dating methods by her homeschool textbooks, she went home determined to brush up on the
subject just in case she had made some mistakes in that day’s debate. Here is what she had to say
after going back through her homeschool library:
After reading the articles and chapters, I did what my father always said to do and
“checked the source” – probably more to see if there were books completely dedicated to
the topic of carbon-14 dating that I could look up in the local library. Flipping to the end
of the book with the citations I was shocked that pretty much all of the sources for their
proof was from other Christian YET-believing books. So I quickly determined that they
were just quoting what other people who believed similarly were saying, rather than
going to scientific journals and scholarly articles written by secular authors and
scientists. . . This kind of circular reasoning raised (and honestly still raises) major red-
flags for me from a logical and scientific standpoint. If they can’t find outside sources,
how does them quoting from their friends make it true? This was the starting point of me
doubting my faith. I never recovered from it [emphasis added] (Smith, 2014).
And how could her faith have recovered when YET writers had pounded into her mind such false
dichotomies as . . . it is impossible to consistently believe in both an old Earth and inerrant
scriptures . . . those who believe in old-Earth creationism have given greater allegiance to the
supremacy of science than the supremacy of the Bible (Roach, 2010) and Did these reptiles

132. [120]
evolve millions of years ago or did God create them? (Lennox, 2014). Are we prepared to issue
the same injurious ultimatum to our youth? Are we as Missionary Baptist people prepared to
ostracize and criticize our young adults because they believe that both science and the Bible
teach of an ancient Earth on which man and dinosaurs never cohabited? Apparently some ABA
pastors are ready to draw that line in the sand of a 6,000-year-old Earth. In doing so, they will
most certainly cause a loss of faith in many outstanding young adults. As members of ABA
churches we need to think long and hard before abandoning the GT that has served our churches
so well for so long by allowing our youth to enter and excel in so many fields including the
sciences while still serving God through His churches in meaningful and sincere ways.
Unfortunately, Hannah’s experience is not unique; there are Missionary Baptist students
who are just as embarrassed, disappointed, confused, and angered by the unsubstantiated,
unintelligible things that are being written and preached by those in leadership positions in the
ABA (per. comm.). While these young college students do not believe Adam descended from an
ape, they do grow tired of pastors who declare with absolute certainty that scientists teach man
came from a monkey (Fig. 5) and then smugly ask, if this
were true why are monkeys not still turning into men today
(Fig. 6A)? This author is, quite frankly, just as puzzled at
this question/accusation. In all the biology classes this
author had to take in order to earn a Ph.D. in Biology, I
have never heard it taught that man descended from an ape
or monkey.
I am not surprised, sadly, when the president of the Missionary Baptist Seminary Koon
(2010) writes: there are no fossils of an ape-man nor have any bones been found to suggest such
Figure 5. Illustrates the most
popular misconception of the
evolutionary relationship of man
and ape.

133. [121]
a
creature lived. Koon, like many other pastors, needs to seriously set aside some time to take a
few biology classes or an anthropology course so that he might correctly point out what is wrong
with science’s conception of the origin of man. In a freshman biology course, students are taught
that man did not descend from apes, but that man and apes shared an ancient common ancestor
(Fig. 6B). The Last Common Ancestor (LCA) shared by man and chimpanzee has been
estimated to have lived anywhere from 13 million years ago (Arnason et al., 1998) to as recently
as 4 million years ago (Patterson et al., 2006). Such a doctrine on the origin of man is just as
unscriptural as teaching that man came from apes, but at least it is accurate as to what science
teaches. In other words, pastors would do well to learn exactly what science teaches before
attempting to refute it.
Even if an argument is made with the best intentions of defending the truth, it needs to be
made precisely if pastors and spiritual leaders have any hope of retaining youth through their
challenging college years. Having done Ph.D. work in genetics and still continuing to teach and
do research in genetics, this author is embarrassed and angered when reading articles written by
men who supposedly represent our best seminaries, wittingly or unwittingly, feel it necessary
Figure 6. A) If we come from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? B) Evolution teaches that
man, monkeys, and apes all shared common ancestors at various times. Each node represents last
common ancestor (LCA). The most recent common ancestor was shared between man and
chimpanzees according to science.
B
A

134. [122]
to lie about scientific issues. Koon (2010) in his Searchlight article wrote that the 98%
similarity between the DNA sequences of man and apes is all propaganda, that no true
comparison has ever been made between man and ape, and that the genome of an ape has never
been sequenced.
First, based upon the statistics Koon
(2010) gave of a 98% similarity to man, he
must have meant chimpanzee instead of ape
(Fig. 7). The great apes are not even in the
same genus as chimpanzees. Second, where
are the references for Koon’s bold scientific
claims that no comparisons have been made
between man and other primates? In truth, the
textbooks this author teaches from in both cell biology and genetics include ample examples of
such comparisons. As preachers of the Word of God, such men would not think about preaching
a sermon on the crucifixion of Christ without reading or referencing a scripture in the Bible
pertaining to that event. Why? Because no eyewitnesses to this event are still alive, but the Bible
contains inspired and 100% accurate testimonies of people who were present at the crucifixion.
Preachers are not ignorant of the purpose and importance of using references. Why, then, do
many ABA preachers often expect their reputations to suffice for references no matter what the
field or topic under consideration? Indeed, some are offended when asked the source of the
statements they have made in writing or from the pulpit. As more and more of our young people
earn college degrees, we can expect (and should be pleased) to have congregations that think
more critically about what is preached and taught each Sunday and Wednesday night.
Figure 7. Phylogenetic tree showing the
relationship between the human and the great
apes based on nucleotide sequence data
(Alberts et al., 2002). Diversity Human-
Orangutan= 3%; Human-Chimpanzee=1.2%

135. [123]
To avoid needless and embarrassing errors in the future when it comes to such blanket
accusations against science, it would be worthwhile for pastors to either refrain from making
unsubstantiated statements or to spend time studying the topic and looking at both sides of the
issue before speaking. If Koon (2010) had truly been looking for both sides of this issue of DNA
comparisons, he could have gone (free of charge) to the government website, the National Center
for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). At this website, a search of the databases of the National
Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health for the topic a comparison of the genome
of humans to apes (the thing Koon wrote never happened) would have resulted in more than
4,000 independent articles dating back 30 years. Many such articles (Fig. 8) have been written by
teams of international scientists. Now who is the propagandist?
Koon (2010) also writes that while the human genome has been “mapped,” the genome of apes
has not. It is doubtful given his demonstrated lack of genetic understanding that Koon knows the
difference between a genome that has been “sequenced” and one that has been “mapped,” the
lack of which makes his argument hard to follow. Basically, DNA is a very long molecule (i.e.
Figure 8. NCBI. Satellite DNA comparisons. One example of human and ape DNA comparison.

136. [124]
polymer) made up of millions to billions of individual subunits called nucleotides (i.e.
monomers) of which there are only four different types in DNA. The linear order in which the
nucleotides occur in a molecule of DNA is simply called a sequence. Mapping a genome is
incredibly more difficult and time consuming because it requires identifying genes (sections of
DNA that code mostly for proteins) and their location (loci) within a chromosome (Fig. 9). With
very few exceptions, the human genome has been both sequenced and mapped as Koon (2010)
points out; however, his outright denial that the genome of apes have been mapped is wrong.
Consider the two map examples of both a gorilla and chimpanzee (Fig. 10).
Figure 9. A) Karyotype of all human chromosomes
B) map of the very small section of the male Y
chromosome. The gene and its locus are given.
Gene is hyperlinked to its sequence and various
articles written about said gene. NCBI
A
B

137. [125]
Figure 10. Maps of Western Gorilla and Chimpanzee. 6A) Gene map of Y chromosome of a chimpanzee 6B) Gene map of
chromosome 2A of a western gorilla;. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/?term=ape
10A
10B
A
B

138. [126]
Figures 9 and 10 are included not to confuse or impress the reader but to show that the
information does exist and to demonstrate how much more difficult DNA mapping is than DNA
sequencing. It is somewhat analogous to being able to identify the letters and their order on a
page versus identifying the word the letters spell and its meaning. Koon (2010) misspoke when
accusing scientists of justifying their belief that a close kinship between man and ape exists
because the two creatures share a similar “number” of chromosomes. Nevertheless, Koon (2010)
correctly points out that if similar numbers of chromosomes were an indication of close kinship
than man would be closer kin to particular species of voles, rats, bats, rabbits, and antelopes, all
of which have exactly the same number of chromosomes as man—46. Kinship with these
animals would be closer than that of man and chimpanzee since the former has 46 and the latter
48. Remember, chromosomes are just strands of DNA wrapped around clusters of proteins
called histones, and along that strand of DNA are sections called genes that code for proteins
(fig. 11). Which protein a gene codes for depends upon the particular sequence of the DNA in
that section; humans have in the neighborhood of 35,000 genes spread out over 23 pairs of
chromosomes.
Figure 11. Relationship of DNA
to Chromosomes.

139. [127]
This is a rather lengthy explanation, so this writer must implore the reader to go through
this explanation multiple times if needs be. Although humans and chimpanzees differ by an
entire pair of chromosomes (humans 46 vs. chimps 48), it is not the number of chromosomes that
lead scientists to believe in their close kinship, but rather the similarity of the sequences found on
these chromosomes. Humans and chimps only differ overall by only 1.2 % in gene sequence,
while comparing the gene sequences of all humans on Earth to each other yields a difference of
0.1% (Watanabe, 2004). Mikkelsen (2004) explains the genetic difference between humans and
chimps in this way—humans are more alike to one another than to any chimp, but humans are no
more different from chimpanzees than a rat is different from a mouse when it comes to sequence
similarities. So again, what we need to understand as Christians is that the similarity in
chromosome number is not what scientists are comparing as much as they are comparing actual
gene sequences.
In terms of the “chromosome number” difference that exists today between man and
chimpanzee, evolutionary scientists go back to what they refer to as the Last Common Ancestor
(LCA) that existed 13-4 million years ago (Figs. 6 & 7). It has been shown that chromosomes
can snap apart and fuse back together to the same chromosome or a totally different chromosome
(Flavell, 2005; Gardner et al., 2011; Griffins, 1999). Such is the reason for several human
genetic conditions like the less common Familial Down Syndrome, Ring Chromosome 14, and
Emanuel Syndrome. Thus, most evolutionary biologists resolve the difference in chromosome
number between man (46) and chimpanzee (48) as a past fusion event. It is taught that the LCA
of man and ape had 48 chromosomes and sometime after the human branch began to diverge
from the ape line, two chromosomes fused together leaving the human branch with one less pair
of chromosomes than the ape line. Scientist have identified chromosome 2 as that fused

140. [128]
chromosome in humans, not just because it is one of the longest chromosomes in humans, but if
sequenced, it is nearly identical to a segment of chimpanzee DNA that spans over two separate
chromosomes. This is a clear indication to scientists that at some time in the past these two
shorter, chimp chromosomes did fuse together to form chromosome 2 in humans. Despite this
change in chromosome number, the change in gene sequence remained miniscule (1.2%), and
that is what leads evolutionary biologists to see man, chimp, and ape as sharing a common
ancestor and not because they have close to the same “number” of chromosomes (Watterson,
2005).
As a Christian, this author rejects the above mentioned explanation of science for the
origin of modern man, but instead accepts the ancient Genesis account of creation for modern
man. For a growing number in the ABA and for most members of the scientific community, this
stand is more of a predicament than a position. Satan has done an excellent job of intertwining
the age of man with the age of the Earth and then of making the answer to this question a test of
fellowship. While it might be too late to reach some members of the scientific community with
the truth of creation, it is not too late to retain many young people in our churches and keep them
from going spiritually AWOL during their college years never to return.
For this reason more than any other, this book was written. A working knowledge of the
GT is the only means by which our young adults can biblically, honestly, and sincerely reconcile
the Bible with true science. The gap theory allows our young college students, even those who
are hardcore science majors, the opportunity to receive their degrees without feeling as though
they have abandoned or denied their faith in Christ and His Word. Equally, it allows these same
students not to feel singled out or ridiculed in their own churches simply for their love of science.
If the GT doctrine can do such wonderful things for our young adults, why is it being abandoned

141. [129]
by so many of our churches today in favor of the YET doctrine with its absurd, baseless
teachings of dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden and on the Ark of Noah?
If there has ever been a time when our churches need to have pre-collegiate Sunday
School classes or Sr. High Church Camp classes preparing our young people for the challenges
to come in college, it is now! With the United States preforming so poorly among other
developed countries in the area of science (21st
out of 34) and less than 30% of high school
seniors in the U.S. ready for college level work in science, the push for more science education is
not going to disappear (Stem Ed. Coalition, 2014). Advanced science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) courses are being pushed onto local schools by state and federal
governments in hopes of narrowing the gap with competing nations. The central mission of the
STEM Education Coalition is to inform federal and state policymakers on the critical role that
STEM education plays in U.S. competitiveness and future economic prosperity (Stem Ed.
Coalition, 2014). Thus, we can expect our students to spend more and more time in the pursuit of
the sciences in their public schools and the manifestation of more questions about science and
the Bible in our Sunday Schools. If the answers to their questions are going to be a complete
demonization of secular sciences or a dogmatic defense of a 6,000-year-old Earth, we can expect
to lose more and more of our talented young people. These young people may abandon church
altogether or (just as bad) see a huge disconnect between reality and the Bible.
Thankfully, our Landmark forefathers did not feel the need to fight lies with lies or
ignorance with ignorance. Early Landmarkers such as Dr. John Clarke, J.M. Pendleton, A.C.
Dayton, and J. Louis Guthrie as well as this author’s mentors, Drs. John Owen and John Penn,
never discouraged secular education because of the danger of picking up false doctrines. Such
men had confidence in the Word of God that had been taught to each student. Never once was

142. [130]
this writer discouraged by his mentors to avoid the hardcore sciences when seeking a graduate
degree. Even though entering the field where evolution had its origin and reigned supreme, this
writer was never made to feel as though he was turning his back on the truth. This author had
high hopes of being able to help students navigate scripturally through the sciences and the
Bible. Sadly and amazingly, in the few short years it took this writer to complete his degrees in
New England and return to Arkansas, the YET had already began to take root and was bearing
fruit in some very strategic places. Certain men had claimed to have changed their minds
through further prayer and study of the Word of God (Thornton, 2010). They are not the first to
abandon what they were taught nor will they be the last to change their beliefs as the Lord’s
return draws near (2 Thess. 2:3). Some of these deserters of the GT claim to have a newer, better
understanding of the Bible and looked to YET scientists to support their new stand. Despite the
fact that most of them have not a single science course to their credit, they feel strongly that their
Bible knowledge gives them the insight to know which groups of scientists have produced good,
unbiased science and which have not.
Those preachers who expanded and diversified their education once completing their
seminary degrees, will be better prepared to face the quickly changing demographics of our
churches in this new millennium. For example, according to the Institute of Educational
Sciences (2014), between 1991 and 2001 there was an 11% increase in college degrees in the
United States and between 2001 and 2011 that increase nearly tripled (+ 32%). For those today
who insist on preaching a gospel that includes the YET, the numbers of college degrees in this
nation can only mean their task is going to become more and more difficult, especially as more
church members, their children, and grandchildren are acquiring college degrees. For these
members with higher educations, teaching as a doctrine the “YET” interpretation of Genesis will

143. [131]
seem absurd, unreasonable, and embarrassing. Even the most well-known charismatic preacher,
Pat Robinson, who hosts the 700 Club with an annual viewing audience of 360 million in over
138 countries, found the idea of a 6,000-year-old Earth beyond his ability to imagine. In
reporting on the Ham v. Nye debate held at the Creationism Museum, Robinson had the
following to say on national TV about the teachings and beliefs of YET Creationists: . . . you
have to be deaf, dumb, and blind [emphasis added] to think that this Earth that we live in only
has 6,000 years of existence . . . There ain’t no way that’s possible [emphasis added]. . . .To say
it all dates back to 6,000 years is just nonsense [emphasis added]. . . Let’s be real, let’s not
make a joke of ourselves [emphasis added]. . . So, there was a time when these giant reptiles
were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make
like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible. And so if you fight revealed science you’re
going to lose your children [emphasis added], and I believe in telling them the way it was. . . I
know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this (Bruinius, 2014; Tashman, 2014).
Missionary Baptists have historically disagreed with Robinson and his organization (and still
should) over such doctrines as universal church, spiritual gifts, and tales of healings and
miracles, and yet, even Pat Robinson sees YET as stretching the truth too far! Even Robinson
recognized the danger this YET doctrine presents to the future of the next generation of
Christians—particularly if young people are forced to choose between true science and the YET
interpretation of creation.
Up to this point, there was a large overlap in the supporters between the 700 Club and
Ham’s AiG group with all their projects (Creation Museum, Ark Encounter, Canyon Float Trips,
etc.). However, this stand against the YET was going to cost one side dearly; no longer would
supporters be shared, but rather divided. Ham made sure of that by making such statements

144. [132]
about Robertson as the following: Not only do we have to work hard to not let our kids be led
astray by the anti-God teaching of the secularists, we have to work hard to not let them be led
astray by compromising church leaders like Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson gives more fodder to
our enemies. . . Such leaders — including Pat Robertson — have a lot to answer to the Lord for
one day, such leaders are guilty of putting stumbling blocks in the way of kids and adults in
regards to believing God’s word and the Gospel (Zaimov, 2012). Without a doubt, Satan is
enjoying the confusion, division, and lack of continuity he has created within Christianity and
especially in the presence of the lost world.
Behemoth and Leviathan
When you mention the creatures referred to in Job 40 and 41 as the Behemoth or
Leviathan to a YET supporter you had best be prepared for a lesson in paleontology. From the
descriptions found in Job, YET leaders have ascertained not only that such creatures were
dinosaurs living alongside Job (post-flood), but also which species of dinosaur each word
describes!
In their scramble to prove their view of creation, which requires all creatures including
dinosaurs to exist at the same time as man, how many YET teachers ever stop to consider the
context of Job 40 and 41? Rest assured, the context was not paleontology. God describes
creatures that were well beyond the ability of man to control—a reminder of man’s place in
creation. The message was this: if the order of creation was based upon size and strength, man
was far from being in first place. Thus, Job is reminded of the superiority of God as creator of
the universe. In fact, if man’s scientific understanding would have been advanced enough at this
time, God could have gone to the other end of the spectrum and showed Job microscopic

145. [133]
organisms, a billionth of his size, which had the power to bring entire armies to their knees (e.g.
Ebola virus, Marburg virus, influenza, dengue, malaria, etc.). Nevertheless, God wanted to use
those members of his creation whose existence had always paralleled that of man and whose
greater size and strength was apparent to all generations of man.
Many Bible scholars teach that the Behemoth and Leviathan likely referenced the
hippopotamus and the crocodile due to their geographical and chronological overlap with
civilized man (Gesenius, 1979; Keil and Delitzch, 1988). Because the earliest and greatest
civilizations were agrarian societies forced to live alongside major equatorial rivers (e.g. Nile,
Tigris and Euphrates, Amazon, Ganges, etc.), man has been encroaching upon the habitats of
both creatures, the hippopotamus and the crocodile, for thousands of years. The hippopotamus,
with its gigantic mouth containing 20” canines and the surprising ability to sprint to speeds of 20
mph, constantly earns this animal the number one spot on the African travel expert Anouk
Ziglma’s 10 Most Dangerous African Animals list. Ancient Egyptians feared the hippo’s large
size that today can reach 6,000 lbs. and its aggressive nature that still leads to the tragic death of
humans today in rather gruesome ways—heads bitten off, bodies bitten in half, gorging,
trampling, and drowning (Raffaele, 2006). Competing for the same resources in the same
habitats as both hippos and humans is the crocodile, an animal as dangerous as it looks. Found
in fresh and salt water, the crocodile reaches lengths of 22 feet and weighs as much as 4,500 lbs.
Understandably, it is even more of a threat to human life than hippos given its much broader,
multi-continental range (Wikipedia, 2014). In Australia today, the killing and eating of humans
by crocodiles happens with much regularity (Bland, 2011).

146. [134]
However, one only needs to make a cursory examination of YET literature to discover
how strongly these authors believe Job was shown dinosaurs by God in chapters 40 and 41.
These dinosaurs were not just any dinosaurs, but extant dinosaurs that were still roaming the
Earth with man before the flood. Even the very slightest possibility that the Behemoth could
have been any other creature such as a hippopotamus or even a bull elephant is ruled out because
of the size of their tails! Steel (2001), a typical YET writer and scholar, insists that a Behemoth
must have been a dinosaur because of the descriptive phrase in Job 40:17, . . he moveth his tail
like a cedar. Steel (2001) shows his readers the different translations for the verb “moveth”
found in numerous examples of newer and older English translations of the Book of Job. Steel
(2001) also describes in detail the small sizes of the tails
of hippos and elephants as compared to the diameters of
various cedar tree species. His expert conclusion was
the impossibility of the tiny tails of hippos or elephants
being described as a cedar swaying in the wind. To
illustrate just how incorrect their old-Earth adversaries
are in the belief that the Behemoth could be an elephant
or hippo, YET writers love to include cartoons in their literature showing a hybrid hippo and
elephant with normal bodies, but the tails of a giant Brachiosaurus (Fig. 12).
However, if there is anything humorous in search for the true identity of the Old
Testament Behemoth, it is the lack of hermeneutics skills being exercised by the “best” scholars
of the YET ministry. For example, it almost unbelievable that Steel (2001), Ham (2006c), and
Figure 12. AnswersinGenesis.
Answer book 1 (Ham, 2006c).

147. [135]
their colleagues did not take as much time and effort
investigating the Hebrew word for “tail” ( ‫ז‬
ָ
‫נ‬
ָ
‫ב‬ ) as they did
for the word “cedar.” The Hebrew word, ‫ז‬
ָ
‫נ‬
ָ
‫ב‬ , simply
means “end, tail, or stump” and in no way can be restricted
only to mean “the flexible, post anal, extension of the
backbone in mammals” as YET would have others believe.
The word ‫ז‬
ָ
‫נ‬
ָ
‫ב‬ can simply mean the tail end (posterior) as
opposed to the head end (anterior) or front versus back half
(Fig. 13).
Thus, when one considers the girth of either a full grown bull hippopotamus or elephant,
is it hard to imagine a great difference between such girths of these animals and a tree trunk? In
fact, in his book on the hippopotamus, Eltringham (1999) found that the average girth is
relatively equal to the hippo’s overall length and the average girth of the animals he measured
averaged 262.2 cm or ~8’6”. Now compare the girth of the hippo to the diameter at trunk level
of the most common cedar of the region called the Cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani), which is
reported as 3 m or 9’ (The Gymnosperm Database, 2011). Given these close similarities in size
of the girth of the hippo and the diameter of a cedar tree trunk, one would think for the sake of
fairness that YET leaders would have referred to the aforementioned interpretation as at least a
viable substitute to that of a dinosaur. But such is not the case when there are preconceived
notions to prove.
The Hebrew word translated Leviathan ( ‫ל‬
‫ו‬
‫י‬
‫ת‬
‫ן‬ ) has as its core meaning an animal that can
“gather itself into folds or pleats or can be wreathed” (Wilson, 1990) of which there can be
several. Leviathan appears to come with a much broader set of symbolisms and contexts as
Figure 13. Anatomical terms for
quadrupeds. Anterior vs.
Posterior. UWL A/P lab website.

148. [136]
compared to the Behemoth. However, staying within the same context as the story of the
Behemoth in the last few chapters of Job, Bible language scholars have no problem agreeing that
the creature shown to Job by God was that of a crocodile (Smick, 1980; 1988; Keil and Delitzch,
1988; Wilson, 1990; Elliot, 2011). Just like with the hippopotamus, man is equally unable to
fully subdue this brute beast, the crocodile.
Unfortunately, to maintain the belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth, YET supporters force the
Behemoth and Leviathan into animals they are not. To convince others that the Behemoth and
Leviathan are dinosaurs is a warping of the teachings and tenets of paleontology, as well as an
extremely poor display of hermeneutical skills and fairness.
Dragons and Dinosaurs
It is as embarrassing as it is humiliating that this section must be included in this chapter.
Nevertheless, in his book, Dinosaur for Kids, Ham (2009) claims he can give children and their
parents a Bible-based timeline of dinosaur history in what he calls the most up-to-date and
complete dinosaur book for kids today. The timeline of dinosaur history that YET leaders like
Ham and others want children and adults to be taught is summarized by Taylor (2010): 1)
Dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of creation along with other land animals as herbivores;
2) after the fall of man some dinosaurs became carnivores, but continued to live side by side with
mankind up to the days of Noah who along with every other living things preserved male and
female of every species/kind of dinosaur on his ark; 3) the book of Job written after the flood still
describes both aquatic (leviathan) and terrestrial (behemoth) dinosaurs; and 4) dinosaurs
existed even into the middle ages, but were referred to in literature as dragons [emphasis
added]. You read that right: YET creationists insist that some dragons from the pages of

149. [137]
fantasy, fiction, and folklore were in fact real-life accounts of the last remaining few endangered
species of dinosaurs.
Consider one of the earliest pieces of Western literature to include dragons, the Greek
Epic poem, Appollonius of Rhodes, Argonautica, (3rd
century BC) that reported a dragon guarded
the golden fleece and could sow its teeth to make other dragons. By the Middle Ages more and
more stories became filled with the combinations of dragons and men, including the famous
Beowulf (8-11th
century). YET creationists Lyons and Thompson (2005) insist that the dragon-
like creature killed by Beowulf could very well have been a Tyrannosaurus rex. There was the
Life of Euflamm (12th
century) in which King Arthur kills a dragon. Jacobus de Voragine, The
Golden Legend (c. 1260) in which the dragon is killed by St. George. And the list goes on as one
of the favorite topics in Middle Age English. Lyons and Thompson (2005) are also quick to
point out that dragons were among some of the favorite subject matter in eastern literature in
places such as China and Japan. The YET creationists’ argument on this issue remains the same:
how could dragons be so popular in literature and culture in different places and multiple
generations unless they were real? The more a character is written about, the more likely such a
character is not fictitious. If such an argument is valid why are we not finding our night skies
filled with alien mother ships? Why are the “undead” not crowding our streets by night and
vampire bats not flying through our windows each night? And how about Bigfoot or Skunk Ape
or Fouke Monster or Yeti or Sasquatch? There have always been times and places in history
when certain topics became the latest fad. That does not make them true. Remember how
popular dinosaurs were among children of 1990s, from Barney and Friends to Jurassic Park?
The logic does not hold up.

150. [138]
Still some YET scholars are instructing their followers to remove dragons from the list of
mythological beasts and place them into the field of science and the Bible! Why dragons and not
unicorns, mermaids, or leprechauns? The answer is obvious enough—although the evidence is
completely lacking—nearly every ancient culture had some sculpture or drawing of these beasts
that superficially resembled certain dinosaurs (Lyons and Butt, 2008). Many YET writers insist
that dragons were not myths because they can be found recorded in the historic tales and legends
of civilizations from Great Britain, Western and Eastern Europe, China, Japan, India, North and
South America, Africa, Russia, and the Middle East. (Ham, 2006; Lyons, 2007; Lyons and Butt,
2008; Hodge and Welch, 2011). Thus, how can something so well reported from so many
locations not be true? How can drawings, carvings, and descriptions be so similar among the
various civilizations that were so isolated from one another unless dinosaurs were still walking
the Earth? The YET leaders desperately want such questions to be answered with the belief
dinosaurs still inhabited the Earth. However, the true answer is not as exciting and spectacular as
that. Here it is—that all of these civilizations shared common areas rich in dinosaur fossils
(Neyman, 2006). Isn’t it possible that from the skeletons, footprints, and fossils of these
prehistoric animals, ancient cultures could imagine what they may have looked like and then
made figures, carvings, and pictures of said creatures? Unfathomably, such is not even a
possibility for many YET researchers and writers who have spent thousands of dollars and hours
tracking down every drawing, carving, figurine, or painting that resembles a dinosaur to add to
their war chest of evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed (Lyons and Thompson, 2005; Butt,
2008; Lyons, 2008; Lyons, 2008a; Lyons 2008b; Lyons and Butt, 2008; Lyons and Butt, 2008a).
No, the YET leaders would have the world believe that only today’s modern society has the
skills and imagination to recreate in sculptures, figurines, film, or drawings what one of these

151. [139]
extinct dinosaurs might have looked like from its skeleton or fossil, but less talented, ancient
man had to have live models. Does such reasoning seem reasonable?
Arthur Conan Doyle, the writer who introduced the literary character Sherlock Holmes to
the world, is credited as the first writer to introduce dinosaurs to the world of science fiction in
his 1912 novel, The Lost World. Less than 100 years from the discovery and identification of the
first dinosaur skeletons, modern man was already inventing stories of man and dinosaur
encounters. To this present day, science fiction movies featuring dinosaurs crossing paths with
men have been wildly successful—from Godzilla to Jurassic Park. Are we to believe ancient
societies were any less interested in or capable of inventing stories of heroic members of their
society encountering and conquering these ancient beasts whose fossils and skeletons they had
found? The giant skeletons became trophies of their ancient heroes.
And what of dragons that breathed fire? Doubtless, some YET supporters simply omit
such dragons from the conversation, hoping others will do the same. However, there are YET
enthusiasts who are up for the challenge of explaining this unique ability. For example, Lyons
(2004) took a biological shot gun approach, spouting off the unique abilities of a variety of
unrelated animals. He mentions the electric eel and its ability to deliver an electric shock, the
bioluminescence of certain fish and fireflies, the toxic bacterial brew in the saliva of Komodo
dragons, and the super-heated stream of noxious gas that bombardier beetles can deliver. What
any of this has to do with fire-breathing dragons of the Middle Ages, one has to wonder. Lyons’
(2004) article smacks of desperation and ends with the all too common “copout” designed to
make their opponents appear ungodly, If Jehovah wanted to create one or more dinosaurs that
could expel fire, smoke, or some deadly chemical out of their mouths without harming
themselves, He certainly could have done so. Again, I remind the reader that there is no

152. [140]
disagreement in the creative powers of God Almighty, but keep in mind the issue here is not
whether God could have created fire-breathing dinosaurs, but rather did God create fire breathing
dinosaurs.

153. [141]
CHAPTER FIVE
THE PALEOCLIMATOLOGY OF AN ANCIENT EARTH
Mass Extinction Events
Paleoclimatology is the study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire
history of Earth. While YET creationists believe the “entire history” to be no more than few
thousand years, paleoclimatological evidence extends the scale of the entire history of the Earth
to hundreds of millions of years. Because paleoclimatology data are derived from a wide range
of natural sources such as tree rings, pollen, volcanic ash, ice cores, corals, and ocean and lake
sediments, paleoclimatologists are able to do so much more than just attempt to age the Earth.
These natural sources provide scientists with information referred to as “proxy data.” Since
historical records of instrument readings or human observations of climate change fall a few
billion years short of covering the scale of the entire history of the Earth, preserved physical
characteristics of the environment found in these natural sources can stand in for instrument
measurements and eye-witness testimony. For example, despite the lack of data collected by
either a rain gauge or a thermometer, most people understand and accept the proxy data supplied
by the thickness of tree rings to infer the environmental conditions during the lifespan of the tree.
Depending on the limiting factor for growth in the habitat of that tree (e.g. precipitation, length
of growing season, fire, etc.) scientists can use tree-ring patterns to reconstruct regional climate
patterns. This process is exactly what paleoclimatologists do, but on a much grander scale.
Massive proxy data sets are constantly being generated and updated from the various natural
sources and used to generate computer models of ancient Earth climates.

154. [142]
In addition to the dating of the Earth well beyond 10,000 years, the YET crowd would
also take extreme umbrage to the multiple mass extinction events shown in nearly all
paleoclimate models (Fig. 1). For those who reject the GT and insist death of any species of
plant and animal did not begin until after the sin of Adam and Eve, there has only been one mass
extinction dating back some 4,000 years to the Flood of Noah. However, to defenders of the GT,
paleoclimate models with multiple mass extinctions are not in disagreement with the Scriptures
when factoring in the first of at
least two mass extinctions that
would have occurred when the
pre-Adamic creation became
without form and void (Genesis
1:2). This author has often
wondered if the chaos caused to
the Earth by the fall of Lucifer
(Isaiah 14:12-18; Luke 10:18)
coincides with what scientists
from every field including
paleoclimatology have referred to
as the mass extinction event with the most severe loss of marine and terrestrial biota that
occurred at the end of the Permian period (Fig. 1) some 542 million years ago (Kiehl and
Shields, 2005; Burgess et al., 2014; Clarkson et al., 2015; Hand, 2015). However, the Permian
extinction predates the extinction of dinosaurs believed to have occurred nearly 500 million
years later according to the fossil records in the much less severe and less extensive Cretaceous-
Figure 1. Five mass extinctions occurring during
the last 600 million years and their extinction rates
(Raup and Sepkoski, 1986). Cretaceous-Tertiary =
K/T extinction.

155. [143]
Tertiary (K/T) extinction event. It was during the K/T extinction that authors and Bible scholars
like Foreman (1955c) suggested the fall of Lucifer occurred, albeit the scientific evidence for the
Permian extinction during the time of Foreman was virtually non-existent. Nevertheless, the
belief in more than one mass extinction event is enough to separate the scientific community and
the GT supporters from the YET creationists.
Unlike the K/T extinction event, scientists in various fields have widely agreed upon the
cause of death during the Permian extinction—a major disruption to the global carbon cycle.
Interestingly, what is not widely agreed upon nor understood by these same scientists is what
caused this major disruption to the carbon cycle. Certainly there is a laundry list of items that
can cause climate change including changes in solar output or in the orbit of the Earth, volcanic
activity, the distribution of continents, buildup of greenhouse gases, etc. However, could the
ultimate cause have been of Satanic origin? Proxy data for this period show high levels of
atmospheric CO2 levels, which would have caused a rise in global temperatures and the
acidification of the oceans. According to the fossil record this deadly combination was
responsible for the extinction of nearly 97% of the species living at the time (Hochuli, 2010).
The fossils of these species abruptly disappeared from the fossil record never to be seen again,
which certainly should rule out any notion that the Flood of Noah was responsible for this mass
extinction unless Noah utterly failed in his task to preserve the species of his day. Additionally,
proxy data show the carbon cycle remained volatile for the next 500,000 years before returning
to preextinction values (Burgess et al., 2014). Gap theorists do not necessarily agree or disagree
with such a lengthy estimation given that the duration of the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is
not found in the Scriptures. Another piece of information not found in the Scriptures is how long
it took for the Earth to become chaotic and abiotic (Gen. 1:2). Was the wrecking of the first

156. [144]
Earth by Lucifer instantaneous or was it more of a process? As a consequence of sin in their life,
Adam and Eve experienced the destruction of their bodies (i.e. physical death) as a slow and
methodical process. Was it the same for the creation of Genesis 1:1? If so, could the multiple,
pre-Adamic mass extinctions as described by science (Fig. 1) have been all part of a single
process culminating with the final state of the Earth as described in Genesis 1:2? It is unknown.
Sources of Proxy Data
Historical Data. Observations of relatively recent weather and climate conditions can be
found recorded in a variety of places. Some of the most reliable and helpful information has
been collected from ship journals, farmer logs, travel diaries, and newspapers. For example,
despite the lack of direct instrument measurements, paleoclimatologists have been able to
reconstruct the change in average mean summer temperature in Paris by knowing: 1) the
temperature at which grapes ripen and 2) having two overlapping ledgers of grape harvest dates
for the region of Dijon, France, from the years 1370-1525 and 1484-1879 (Schlesinger, 1991).
Tree Rings. Most people from an early age were taught that each tree ring represented a
year’s growth and the thickness of these rings corresponded to weather conditions during that
year of growth. If the tree is old enough, climatic patterns can even be revealed during the
lifetime of that tree. The study of the relationship between climate and tree growth in an effort to
reconstruct past climates even has a name—dendroclimatology.
The oldest trees on Earth are bristlecone pines (Pinus longaeva) found in the ancient
bristlecone pine forest growing in the rainshadow of the Sierra Nevadas of Eastern California.
These trees regularly live for more than 4,000 years. Even the dead bristlecone trees are so well
preserved in the dry terrain that rings can be easily counted and studied. Using tree rings as
proxy data, there have been several individual specimens of bristlecone pines found in excess of

157. [145]
6,000 years old, which extends beyond the age of the Earth as given by Bishop Ussher and his
YET disciples (Ferguson, 1969; Pakenham, 2002).
As usual YET teachers offer up their basket of alternative explanations for the
discrepancy. Lorey (1994) of the YET organization Institute for Creation Research (ICR),
satisfies himself and his readers with the explanation that in wet years these trees produced not
one, but two rings! This explanation is as convenient as it is unsubstantiated—especially since
the National Park Service (2015) states: Bristlecone pines in these high-elevation environments
grow very slowly, and in some years don't even add a ring of growth. So if anything, the proxy
data from these pines would be an underestimation. While missing rings and extra rings due to
environmental conditions are not unheard of in certain species such as willow, alder, and some
pine species, it is ironic that Lorey (1994) uses as his example of such a phenomenon European
oaks. According to Mason (2015) who earned his B.A. in archeology and his M.A. in landscape
archeology from the University of Exeter in England, oak is the most reliable tree type for tree
rings—with not a single known case of a missing annual growth ring. In fact, the European oaks
of Germany using the proxy data of only their rings have been shown to be as old as 12,500
years as compared to the U.S. bristlecone pines at 8,680 years old (Friedrich et al., 2004; Mason,
2015). What is even more interesting to science and what should rebut all the negative things
said about carbon dating is that the proxy data supplied by the European oaks was used to
calibrate the radiocarbon dating of the U.S. bristlecone pines with only an eight-year discrepancy
between the age of a bristlecone pine tree using only proxy data (number of tree rings) and the
age of the same bristlecone pine tree using only radiocarbon dating (Friedrich et al., 2004). This
eight year discrepancy can easily be explained by the climate differences one would expect
between the bristlecone pines of East California and the oaks of Central Germany.

158. [146]
As if anticipating that the multiple annual ring growth explanation might not standup
under the scrutiny of real science, Lorey (1994) retreats from the realm of science and back into
the realm of private interpretation of the Scriptures by stating that just as God created animals in
a sexually mature state so did God create mature reproductive trees (Gen. 1:11, 12) that already
possessed growth rings. However, reaching sexual maturity for trees is a matter of decades of
growth, not millennia of growth! Does Lorey (1994) honestly believe that God created 4,000-
year-old oaks and 2,000-year-old pines? The lengths that the YET crowd will go to support not
the Bible, but their own twisted interpretations of the Bible never cease to amaze and embarrass
this author, given that many unbelievers lump all so-called “Christians” together. This
embarrassment became more acute upon learning that the Missionary Baptist Seminary in Little
Rock (this author’s alma mater), has now accepted the absurdity of the YET doctrine.
Clones. With the advances in technology of recent years, sequencing DNA has almost
become a cookbook process. College students are given the tools to genetically identify
individual organisms within a single population, a process more commonly known as “DNA
profiling” when done among humans. It was just such technology that led to the discovery that
certain trees have been more successful at asexual reproduction than sexual reproduction. Rather
than having to dilute their DNA by mixing it with another individual (i.e. sexual reproduction),
certain organisms reproduce by making many exact copies of themselves (i.e. asexual
reproduction). These genetically identical copies are called “clones.” Certain plants have the
ability to use both sexual reproduction (via a seed) and asexual reproduction (via clones).
Anyone who has started a new plant by taking a cutting from a plant they admired and placed it
in water until that cutting had grown roots and then planted it in soil to grow into an adult plant
has been involved in the process of artificial “cloning.” Anyone who doubts how successful

159. [147]
“natural” cloning can be should recall the last time they cut down an unwanted tree in their yard
only to find the stump surrounded by suckers (i.e. basal shoots) the next year. Good examples of
trees in our area that are prolific cloners (i.e. surculose plants) would be sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua) and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Even without being cut
down, such trees are constantly sprouting clones from their roots.
However, the single most successful cloning event when it comes to trees is found in a
106-acre stand of quaking aspens (Populus tremuloides) found in central Utah named “Pando.”
The entire forest is, genetically speaking, a single male organism (DeWoody et al., 2008). Even
without the genetic evidence, this stand can be identified as clones based upon all trees having
the same branching patterns and by their uniform color changes in the leaves each year from
green to yellow. The National Park Service (2015a) goes as far as to state: By examining this
different color patchwork along a mountainside you can distinguish individual clones from each
other. In other words, each colony of quaking aspen clones are genetically unique enough to be
distinguished from one another with the human eye.
Since this forest is a single organism, conventional tree-ring counting will not work for
aging this organism. However, if tree ring counting was done on all 40,000 clones in this stand,
the average clone would be 130 years old (National Park Service, 2015a). Furthermore, by
looking at both the radial growth of the independent clones and the growth rate of the colonial
root system as compared to other stands of aspens of a known age, at the same elevation, and of
the same sex, scientists have aged this colony between 800,000 and one million years old
(Mitton and Grant, 1996; National Park Service, 2015a). While there may be other colonial
organisms close to the same age, Pando holds the record for the largest Earth organism at 6,615
tons.

160. [148]
Now are we to apply the same argument that Lorey (1994) made with the bristlecone
pines and believe that God created these quaking aspens as a mature, established colony? It is
extremely hard to believe that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago and then filled it with
evidence to the contrary. Are we to believe God is deceitful?
Pollen. Another type of proxy data is pollen, which all flowering plants produce.
Scientists can use the distinctive shapes and sizes of pollen grains to identify the type of plant
from which they came. Since pollen grains are well preserved in the sediment layers in the
bottom of a pond, lake, or ocean, an analysis of the pollen grains in each layer tells scientists
what kinds of plants and how many were growing at the time the sediment was deposited. Such
information about vegetation distributions will also tell scientists something about the animal
types and distributions for that same time and place. Having both pieces of information, plant
and animal distributions, allowed climatologists to recreate long-term weather patterns for the
same area and time period.
Coral. This rock-like deposit consists of the calcareous skeletons secreted by various
marine invertebrates, chiefly anthozoans. Most of these anthozoans are in a necessary symbiotic
relationship (i.e. partnership) with algae. The algae are given a safe place to live among the
anthozoans, while the algae share their photosynthetically produced sugars with the anthozoans.
Coral deposits often accumulate to form reefs or islands in warm seas. Corals build their hard
skeletons from calcium carbonate, a mineral extracted from sea water. The carbonate contains
isotopes of oxygen and trace metals that can be used to determine the temperature of the water
during the time of coral growth. These temperature recordings can then be used to reconstruct
climate during the lifespan of the coral. One of the largest coral reefs in the world is the Great
Barrier Reef located in the Coral Sea off the coast of Queensland, Australia. Coral has existed in

161. [149]
this area for as long as 25 million years and formed the reef we see today around 600,000 years
ago (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2015). Thus, coral can exist individually or in
colonies called reefs. Furthermore, while most people associate coral with the shallow, warm,
clear-water reefs of tropical regions, it also occurs individually in the cold, dark, deep waters of
the oceans, which for obvious reasons (e.g. little light) are not in a symbiotic relationship with
photosynthetic algae. These individual corals can live hundreds of years, while the coral reefs
have been shown to be thousands of years old.
The occurrence of super-rapid-growth corals is as much a part of the YET fantasy as
dinosaurs roaming the Earth alongside modern man. However, despite using their own
handpicked experts on super-rapid-growth coral, YET advocates have found themselves refuted
by their own witnesses. Consider the legal challenge to Arkansas Act 590 of 1981, otherwise
known as “the Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science Act.” The YET
forces sent in their expert witness on coral reefs whose master’s thesis was on rapid-growth coral
and the possibility of such a coral type requiring significantly less time to form massive reefs.
This expert proceeded to take 70 minutes of the court’s time defending his thesis on rapid-
growing corals. However, under cross examination this witness was only asked two questions:
Q1: "What is the last sentence of your article on the growth of coral reefs?" A: "...this
does not establish rapid growth of coral development." Q2: "Is there any evidence that
coral reefs were created in recent times?" A: "No." (Matson, 1995).
Nevertheless, YET leaders still love to use coral to support their YET and can do so, if
certain facts are ignored about coral reefs and their history. The growth rates and those things
that interrupt growth have been studied for nearly one hundred years (Mayor, 1919). It has been
well documented that the following have been responsible for not only retarding growth, but

162. [150]
under certain conditions killing coral reefs: 1) silt and mud washing over and smothering coral
colonies, 2) high temperatures due to hot sun during low tides, and 3) drenching tropical rains
which not only smothered and killed many coral colonies by the resulting mud, but diluted the
sea water to such low salinity levels that the coral could no longer live in it. This author
observed first hand large patches of dead and dying coral while taking a marine biology course in
Jamaica. The expansion of sugar cane farms, destruction of mangrove forests, and construction
of ocean front properties had greatly contributed to the problem of erosion and subsequent
blanketing of large expanses of coral reef with sediment. Hurricanes and typhoons can be
especially damaging to reefs combining the factors of torrential rains, wind, erosion, and heavy
wave action. Thus, for YET teachers to cherry-pick raw, unadjusted ages for individual reefs is
less than honest.
To show that these words have not been concocted from the demented mind of one lone
Missionary Baptist preacher drunk on the teachings of science and determined to destroy the
Biblical account of creation, this writer bring to the readers’ attention the writings of Daniel
Wonderly. Wonderly earned his bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College and graduate degrees
in Theology from the Central Baptist Seminary in Kansas City and a Master’s of Science degree
from Ohio University, where part of his research on sedimentary geology was conducted at the
Bermuda Biological Station. Wonderly (2006) has extensive teaching experience in both the
fields of theology and science and, like this author, maintains a deep-seated belief in the
inerrancy of the Scriptures. Furthermore, Wonderly shares with this author and other supporters
of the GT today a serious concern over the damage being done by over-zealous promoters of
YET. Wonderly (2006) states: they have neglected the data of Earth-science research to such an
extent that disgrace has now descended upon the doctrine of biblical creation throughout the

163. [151]
nation. . . It would be a serious tragedy if we were to keep people from coming to Christ because
we convinced them that the Bible teaches a YET while they remained convinced that the Earth is
actually quite old.
The Eniwetok atoll (ring-shaped island chain formed from coral) is located in the Pacific
Ocean and is part of the Marshall Islands. In his last footnote, Wonderly (1977) informs his
readers that geologists have placed the earliest deposits at Eniwetok within the Eocene Epoch
meaning that the true age of the reef is somewhere around 40 million years. For this age to be
accepted one would have to accept that there were periods in the lifetime of the coral during
which growth was suspended for one or all of the aforementioned reasons. Obviously, the
estimated age of 40 million years old is rejected completely by the YET along with any reason
given for an interruption of this coral’s growth. Recall that one of those reasons given for the
suspension of growth was hot temperatures during low tides. But what if hot temperatures were
the result of no tides? What if there were periods of time (e.g. during the ice ages) when sea
levels dropped to the point that this reef was no longer submersed at low tide or high tide? Can
the YET agree that coral growth, especially in the upper regions, would be suspended during
such a period? Out of water, the coral would immediately lose any remaining symbiotic partners
(i.e. the algae) that had not already succumbed to the rise in water temperature along the way.
Wonderly (1977) points out that the Eniwetok coral is loaded with evidence that supports the
argument that this coral was once above water and as a result growth had to be suspended for an
unknown period of time. However, the period of time was long enough for populations of trees
to become established on the exposed coral and leave behind multiple signs of their existence.
Concerning this body of evidence, Wonderly (1977) writes: Thus a reasonably good
reconstruction of the history of the Eniwetok atoll has been made, by taking note of the rock and

164. [152]
sediment types, the many kinds of marine fossils, the distinct unconformities, and the kinds of
pollen and other remains of terrestrial life. All of these tell us that the reef has had a long and
varied history, with numerous major interruptions in its development. It was said of Wonderly
that he undertook this kind of work because he felt that the YET creationists, by associating the
Bible with their ridiculous arguments for a YET, were making the Bible a target of ridicule and
that given his knowledge of science and love for the Word of God, he could not sit silently by
and watch it continue to happen without doing what he could to educate both sides of the aisle to
the harmony that existed between true science and a correct interpretation of the Scriptures
(Mason, 1995).
Varves. In an attempt to understand the paleoclimate and age of the Earth, geologists
study varves, another form of proxy data. Varves refer to the layers of clay and silt deposits in
the bottoms of deep glacial lakes. One band of varves is light in color and composed of sand,
pollen, and spores washed into the lakes during the summer months of rain when greater water
flow occurs through the watershed of these lakes. However, in the long, cold winters when such
lakes are frozen over, the heavier clay particles can settle to the bottom forming the dark bands
that alternate with the light bands (Fig. 2). Thus, the light-colored silt layer along with the darker
Figure 2. Varves from glacial lake. Website Helena High School, http://formontana.net/glacier.

165. [153]
clay occurring adjacent to it, like tree rings, represent a single year in the life of these lakes
(Hussey, 1947; Morris et al., 1973). For example, core samples from multiple sites in the Salido,
Castile, and Bell Canyon formations in West Texas contained 260,000 couplets indicating the
number of years it took to form was approximately the same—260,000 years. Anderson (1982,
1984, 1988, & 1991) points out that this canyon forms the longest continuous climatic records
from any time interval in the current Phanerozoic geologic era. YET supporters are left with no
alternative but to argue that the canyon formations were the result of Noah’s Flood, which lasted
only one year (Genesis 7 & 8). If the 260,000 varves were formed in just one year, it would
mean that 720 couplets had to be laid down each day or about one pair of couplets every two
minutes—an implausible scenario by anyone’s estimation.
However, if the Flood of Noah is left completely out of the picture and instead the
argument is made that varves were being produced from the beginning of creation, which
according to YET is no longer than 10,000 years ago, there are still big problems for the YET
teachers. The Green River Formation located in Western Colorado, Eastern Utah, and
Southwestern Wyoming was once home to a group of intermountain lakes existing in a much
warmer, sub-tropical climate. The varves deposited in the 2000 ft. Green River beds date back
6.5 million years (Clark and Stearn, 1960). Even with the supporters of YET arguing that there
could be multiple varves created per year due to storms or other unusual conditions (Morris,
2012), for the Earth to be 10,000 years old this would mean the varves of the Green River basin
would have had to be deposited at an average rate of over 650 varves per year! Consider also that
more modern estimations on the age of this formation based upon the number of varves are now
estimated to be upward of 20 million years old with each varve equal to one year (Dyni, 2000).

166. [154]
Nevertheless, it is not just the number of varves in the Green River Formation that creates
a problem for the YET creationists, but what lies between these varves (Fig. 3). If the fossil
collection from this area is examined, it is clear to see that some of these fossils were of
organisms that today live in temperate regions and the second group of fossils were of organisms
that would have thrived only in a sub-tropical climate. Among the floral fossils, tree species
range from palms (both sub-tropical and tropical) to maple and sycamore (temperate) and among
aquatic organisms, species range from rays and skates (marine sub-tropical to tropical) to gar,
catfish, and trout (sub-tropical to temperate). Additionally, the collection of reptilian fossils
from the same area range from crocodiles and snakes to snapping turtles (Bartels, 1993), while
mammalian fossils include three-toed horses and the oldest known fossil of a bat (Jepsen, 1966).
Again, the likelihood that such a diversity of organisms was living in the same place at the same
time is not very high. A more accepted scenario is that as the Earth grew gradually cooler over
the next few million years the sub-tropical organisms moved south or became extinct and were
Figure 3. Fossils found
within the varves of the
Green River
Formation. Over 300
species of plant
specimens found so
far. Plants from
tropical to temperate
regions.
http://www.ucmp.berkl
y.edu/tertiary/eoc/gree
n river.html.

167. [155]
replaced by the more temperate species, all of which would have left fossils in different layers of
sediment.
As foreign oil becomes more and more difficult to secure, the Green River formation will
likely be the subject of more study and debate. Because of the amount of time these prehistoric
lakes existed (5 million years) and the amount of silt and organic debris (e.g. cyanobacteria) that
were deposited on the floors of such lakes over these vast expanses of time, this region is now
the world’s largest deposit of oil shale in the world, a sedimentary rock containing bituminous
material called kerogen that can be processed into oil. Based upon current estimates of this area,
it is believed that anywhere from 1.8 to 3 trillion barrels of oil are locked up in this shale deposit
of which the U.S. government owns over 70% (Bartis et al., 2005). To put that into perspective,
1.5 trillion barrels of oil is about equal to the world’s proven oil reserves (Torgerson, 2014). The
very idea that such a massive source of energy was produced during the 4,000 years since the
Flood of Noah is simply not possible according to the laws that now govern this universe.
Ice Cores. Since the 1960s, scientists have been drilling long cores out of ice sheets in
Greenland and Antarctica. By the 1990s these scientists pulled a nearly two-mile long core from
the Greenland ice sheet, which provided an impressive weather record for the past 110,000 years.
However, the Greenland data was little by comparison to the Antarctic data that produced a
weather record reaching back as far as 750,000 years (McManus, 2004). This Antarctic sample
taken in 2004 by the European Project for Ice Core in Antarctica (EPICA) reported having taken
the longest ice core in history (McManus, 2004). This ice core was nearly double that of any
previous ice cores and covered a climate span that included the last eight ice ages and their inter-
glacial periods. Since the successes in these Polar Regions, scientists have now begun to extend

168. [156]
their efforts to include mountain glaciers in the Andes of Peru and Bolivia, Mt. Kilimanjaro in
Tanzania, and the Himalayas in Asia.
Robert Mulvaney (2004), a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey, explains that
the cornerstone of the success achieved by ice-core scientists reconstructing climate change over
many thousands of years is the ability to measure past changes in both atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations and temperature. The measurement of the gas composition is direct: trapped
in deep ice cores are tiny bubbles of ancient air, which can be extracted and analyzed using mass
spectrometers. Temperature, in contrast, is not measured directly, but is instead inferred from the
isotopic composition of the water molecules released by melting slices of the ice cores.
However, YET theorists attack the ice-core evidence by misrepresenting what scientists
consider an annual ring in these long ice cores (Wieland, 1997). The advocates of YET accuse
these paleoclimatologists of being part of a growing global ring of sinister, scientific conspirators
out to prove the Earth is old and thereby disprove the Bible. However, what needs to be kept in
mind is that an old Earth only contradicts a “particular interpretation” of the Bible held by a
“particular segment” of Christianity.
With global warming being an almost household phrase today, a tremendous amount of
attention and money has gone into the study of ice cores in hopes of determining if this
phenomenon is of recent origin or simply part of a larger climatic cycle of which man has played
no part. Entire governments, global industries and markets, worldwide consumers, and
environmentalists from every nation have a vested interest in the results of these ice-core sample
studies and thus, are constantly looking over the shoulders of these scientists to be sure no data is
ignored or skewed in the direction of any one group. Seeing that such international bodies have
historically demonstrated a large amount of distrust and dislike for each other, would it be

169. [157]
reasonable to think that these organizations would set aside their agendas and conspire together
with scientists to lie about the age of the Earth just to disprove a particular interpretation of a
particular group of Christians? Only those with an overinflated view of themselves and their
particular brand of theology would reach such a conclusion. Where is it in the best interest of
any of these groups or of scientists to inflate or overestimate the age of the Earth based upon
these ice cores? What corporation or nation would invest the large amount of money necessary
to drill such cores just to determine what the climate has been like in the last 6,000 years,
especially when the historical records go back nearly half that distance?
The science of ice-core drilling was conceived in 1952 when Willi Dansgaard discovered
that the amount of heavy oxygen isotopes in precipitation correlates with the temperature at the
location where the precipitation is formed (Dansgaard, 1954). This meant that ice cores could
conceivably give us a window into past climates. The falling snow captured the atmosphere
through which it traveled, collecting the chemistry, particles and compounds that were present in
the air including bits of dust, trace metals, or radioactivity. Thus, the concept of ice-core drilling
went from the chalkboard to the field in 1964. Currently, the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program,
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), and the World Data Centers for Paleoclimatology
and for Glaciology jointly maintain archives of ice core-data from throughout the world.
Contrary to what many supporters of the YET believe, scientists do not merely count the
number of dark and light rings in core samples like they were tree rings. The tabulation of
annual rings in ice cores is much more complicated. To begin with, the locations of drilling sites
are carefully chosen in terms of current rates of ice buildup and snowfall (e.g. interior regions
with little precipitation). In extreme climates the snow remains all year, with each year's snow

170. [158]
contribution being sealed with each subsequent year's snow accumulation. As snow is layered it
compresses (i.e. more snow, more compression) and over time the lower layers are turned into
ice, capturing small samples of the atmosphere as air bubbles. Figure 4 is an example of
seasonal and annual ice layering within an ice core. This 19 cm
section of a Greenland ice core (GISP 2) was extracted from a
depth of 1855 m meaning the rings would be more compressed
than what would be seen closer to the surface. In Fig. 4, the ice
section contains 11 annual layers of various thicknesses, which
are illuminated with special lighting to show the narrower
summer layers farrowed (i.e. sandwiched) between darker, wider
winter layers. However, the dating of ice cores is not solely
dependent upon the tabulation of annual rings. Collaboration for
ice-core dating is also provided by measuring the concentrations
of a particular isotope with a known half-life such as tritium
(Petite, 1981; Yiou et al., 1997). The dates of historic volcanic
eruptions can also be used to calibrate the dating of ice-core
samples. At specific sites on the ice-core sample called
“reference horizons,” electroconductivity readings can be used to
detect acidic tracers left by these historically dated volcanoes
(Bender et al., 1994; Vinther et al., 2005). Great care is taken to triangulate these independent
sources when possible to arrive at an accurate date for each ice core.
Ignoring all of this extraordinary effort on the part of science to get the dates correct for
each ice-core sample, certain YET supporters proclaimed they had a golden bullet that showed
Figure 4. Annual rings
image credit Anthony Gow
United States Army Corps
of Engineers, Cold
Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
paleo/slides/slideset/

171. [159]
conclusively that ice-core dating was based on a false premise (Wieland, 1997). The golden
bullet was the discovery of a missing group of WWII airplanes lost for 50 years under 263 feet of
Greenlandic ice. Wieland (1997) snidely remarked that the amateur salvagers were
dumbfounded to find these planes this deep since scientists had left the “general public” with the
impression that it took thousands of years to build up only a few meters of ice. This was not the
first time nor would it be the last time that the “general public” got the wrong impression about
the work of scientists. In their constant rating wars, the media plays a significant role in
confusing aims of science with the accomplishment of science, leaving their audiences with
erroneous and sensationalized stories of scientific discoveries. Thus, to have followed general
public impressions on the rate of ice formation and thereby, miscalculate the depth
of these prized aircraft can hardly be the fault of science since there were no scientists involved
in this salvage (not science) expedition.
Yes, the YET enthusiasts took this as an opportunity (in various publications,
presentations, and public debates) to poke fun at scientific dating of ice-core samples (Wieland,
1997; Oard, 2004). However, it is in such vocal, thoughtless attacks that YET advocates reveal
their ignorance in the areas of science and logic. Wieland (1997) was quick to do the math
taking the 48 years the planes had been in Greenland and dividing it into the 263 feet of ice
under which the planes were found. This gave Wieland (1997) and his fellow YET advocates an
average of 5.5 feet of ice accumulation per year. Behold, the magic bullet! Using their newly
calculated annual ice accumulation scale, the YET creationists challenged the 7,000 feet ice
cores that scientists had dated back some 160,000 years. Wieland (1997) simply divided the
7,000 feet ice cores by his annual ice accumulation figure of 5.5 and arrived at a much more
agreeable age of 1,300 years. For the first time YET advocates felt they had struck a significant

172. [160]
blow against science and, just as importantly, against those traitorous old-Earth creationists. But
was that the case?
It seemed that Wieland (1997) and friends conveniently forgot to consider the most important
calculation—the difference in annual precipitation totals between the two sites—the site of the
plane crashes versus the ice core drilling sites (Yang et al., 1999). No greater contrast in annual
precipitation totals could be found in all of Greenland than between the southern coastline
(wreck site) and the interior highlands (drill sites). Given that the area where the vintage planes
were found receives 20 times more annual precipitation than the ice core drilling sites would
very easily explain why the thickness of the ice alone
cannot be used to determine age (Fig. 5). This solitary
and illogical premise of ice thickness being used by
the YET advocates to defend their YET argument
cannot compare to the over 40 different analyses used
by teams of scientists to calibrate and date each
section of each ice core sample to ensure as accurate
and unbiased results as possible.
Certainly no finger of fault is pointed at the
WWII enthusiasts that located, raised, and restored
these magnificent planes. Their mission had been
wildly successful. However, the idea that this salvage
team was also comprised of scientists seeking to
analyze the ice under which these planes were found is simply untrue. There were no extensive
scientific tests done and no data collected. This was a salvage operation from beginning to
Figure 5. Annual precipitation totals
in mm. crash site drill sites.
Ohmura and Reel (1991).

173. [161]
ending. Nevertheless, this did not deter Wieland (1992) and his colleagues from hijacking this
marvelous story to promote their brand of theology. In writing his article, Wieland (1992)
readily admits that most of the information for his article came from Life magazine (Petrow,
1992) and Compressed Air magazine (Saunders, 1996). While both articles are respectable in
their own ranks, they are far from the peer-reviewed articles found in scientific journals. So once
again the YET supporters like Wieland are left to wonder why no one in the scientific
community takes them or their arguments seriously.
Ice Ages
When it comes to the YET supporters and their teachings about the ice age, this author
could not agree more with Nelstead (2013) who after considering the explanations of AiG (one
of the most prominent YET organizations), observed, I continue to wonder whether the folks at
AiG are working to make Christianity look as foolish as possible, even while claiming their aim
is to promote it. Oard (2007), YET author and chief writer on the ice age for AiG, complains
that most people look at the ice age from a secular/uniformitarian viewpoint rather than from a
biblical perspective (meaning his perspective). Could that not be because there is no Biblical
perspective of an ice age? However, if the timeline of the Bible presented by Oard (2007) and
his YET companions is taken seriously, one has to wonder why such a long- term, catastrophic
event with its drastic change in weather patterns, ocean levels, and in animal and plant
distributions are not clearly referenced in the Old Testament at least once. Oard (2007)
confidently argued that there was only one ice age on Earth and it was the fault of the flood, even
though he dates the ice age some 500 years after the ark landed on Mt. Ararat. Furthermore, Oard
(2007) states that the ice age was considerably shorter than what science teaches; rather than
lasting thousands of years, Oard estimates his ice age as no longer than 700 years. When one

174. [162]
does their math with the
Flood occurring in 2500 B.C.
and the ice age not beginning
until 500 years later and
lasting 700 years, this solitary
ice age would have lasted
from the lives of Noah’s sons
(Shem, Japheth, & Ham) to
the times of the Judges of Israel. In all that time not a single word about the ice age or its effects
can be found in the Bible or any other historical document of the day. Not a single word in the
recorded histories of any great empire about immigrations of northern populations of people or
animals; not a word about changes in weather patterns from agrarian societies; and nothing about
changes in sea levels from maritime nations. Such silence seems rather strange!
According to the USGS survey notes of Eldredge and Biek (2010), at least five major ice
ages have occurred throughout the history of the Earth (Fig. 6): the earliest was over two billion
years ago and the most recent began approximately three million years ago and continues today.
An ice age is a long-term reduction of temperatures on the surface of the Earth as well as in the
atmosphere, resulting in the presents or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine
glaciers. Within each ice age are periods that are warmer and more temperate (i.e. inter-glacial)
as well as periods that are colder and more severe (glacial). Figure 6 is not magnified enough to
show the inter-glacial and glacial periods that make up each ice age. Currently, the Earth is in a
three-million year old ice age as proven by the continued presence of ice sheets over both the
continents of Greenland and Antarctica, polar ice at the North Pole, and alpine glaciers.
Figure 6. Ice Ages during the past 2.4 billion years Eldredge
and Biek (2010).

175. [163]
However, the Earth would appear to
have entered into inter-glacial period
11,000 years ago with warmer
temperatures and receding ice over
land and water. Of course, what the
modern world wants to know is
whether or not man’s activities have
contributed anything to the timing,
duration, or severity of this latest inter-
glacial period. The number and dates of each ice age as well as the number, dates, and durations
of each glacial and inter-glacial period have been partially ascertained from ice core samples.
Amazingly, such data has been rather consistent between the drill sites of Greenland and
Antarctica (Eldredge & Biek, 2010).
Since the YET believers have limited themselves to only 6,000-10,000 years to work
within which they have to place a global flood and its aftermath, it is completely understandable
why their authors and noted speakers insist that there has only been one very short, recent ice
age. Both Vardiman (2015) and Oard (2007), YET ice-age scholars, insist on a single, post-
flood ice age with a very short duration. However, the physical evidence for multiple ice ages
with different periods of glaciations is not hard to find or interpret. During glaciation period,
sheets of ice thousands of meters thick covered North America (Fig. 7). As these massive blocks
of ice moved over land, the sheer weight of these glaciers sunk down to the bedrock where the
rocks and debris picked up by these sheets of ice carved parallel grooves and gouges into the
Figure 7. Ice coverage over city skylines during last
glacial maximum. Toronto 200m; Chicago 900m;
Boston 1250m; and Montreal 3300m (Condliffe,
2013).

176. [164]
bedrock. Once the glaciers retreat back during inter-
glacial periods these markings called striations
became visible in the bedrock (Fig. 8). Striations
act as glacial footprints revealing where glaciers had
been and how many different glaciers may have
traveled over that same area. Multiple striae that
cross each other can be a strong indicator of glaciers
moving in different directions during different
periods of ice advances (Fig. 9). Weathering
between the different striations can be a further indication that the striations were made during
different glacial periods or in a totally different ice age (Fig. 9). For obvious reasons YET
teachers must come up with alternative explanations for the multiple and multidirectional
striations. If one does not mind having their imaginations exercised and stretched, they can read
Oard and Reed (2009). In an effort to defend YET and a single ice age they offer multiple
alternative explanations for the crossing striations. The explanations for these second set of
striations include: scrapes from drifting ice bergs,
outflow of melting glaciers, soft sediment
deformations—even the Flood is somehow
implicated in causing these secondary striation even
though the YET advocates agree that the Flood
came hundreds of years before their proposed
solitary ice age. It is amazing that the first striations
took millions of tons of ice to cut, but the secondary
Figure 8. "Glacial grooves" by Rmhermen
- photo taken by Rmhermen Licensed
under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia
Commons.
Figure 9. Crossed Striations. Chaberline
(1888).

177. [165]
set on the same rock formations could be cut by such easy means as a passing ice berg or snow
melt which somehow turned nearly 90 degrees from the receding ice sheet. And just where soft
sediment comes in, this author still does not understand, as it just seems to appear from nowhere
in Oard and Reeds’ (2009) explanations.
In addition to the ice-core data and the crossing sets of striations, another proof of
multiple glaciations is seen in a moraine. A moraine is the accumulation of rock debris (till)
carried and deposited by a glacier. Till can range in size from blocks or boulders (usually
striated) to sand and clay (unstratified) when dropped by the glacier at their farthest point of
advancement. Think of a bulldozer pushing a line of debris and leaving it at the point where the
dozer stops and backs up; the line of debris is a moraine. Glacial moraines are not difficult to
identify, appearing as ridges that can reach a thicknesses of 15m curving convexly down a valley
(Figs. 10a & 10b) and extending up the sides of mountain in the case of alpine glaciers (Figs. 11a
& 11b) in a parallel direction to the ice movement. The fact that there are cases of multiple
moraines occurring in the same area leaves only one feasible explanation—there have been more
than one glacial period.
Figure 10a. (left)
Multiple moraines
(McMaster Univ.,
2007). Figure 10b.
(right) Multiple
moraines (Dragon’s
Foot forum, 2015).

178. [166]
The multiple terminal moraines across North America (Fig. 12) and Europe (Fig. 13)
provide even further proof that the YET theory of a single ice age with a single glaciation period
is wrong. It is not only the number of moraines that disprove the YET model, but what is
contained within the moraines (till). Glacial moraines are found on every continent except
Antarctica; however, the composition of these tills are different from one moraine to the next
moraine (Neyman, 2003). These differences in the compositions provide valuable information as
to the time, route, and origin of the glaciers that made these moraines.
In South Africa the moraines, called the Dwyka formations, in addition to containing
sediment carried with them rock and rock fragments from local and distant locations (Newyma,
2003). In Australia there are dozens of moraines in the southeast corner of the continent that
Figure 11a (left) Lateral
Moraines (Youtube,
2015). Figure 11b
(right) Lateral Moraines
Science Bulletin (2013).
Figure 12. Moraines of North American. Univ.
of Maryland. Geo. Dept. (2015).
Figure 13. List of ice sheets each
having terminal moraines
Encyclopedia Britannica (2015).

179. [167]
were made during the Permian period (251-299 mybp) containing a mixture of igneous and
metamorphic rocks (Newyma, 2003).
While living in New Hampshire working on my graduate degree, my family and I saw
firsthand the evidence of a land once covered in ice. Massive boulders littered the surface of the
forests and fields of New Hampshire unlike anything we had seen in Arkansas (Figs. 14a & 14b).
These boulders had edges that were worn and smooth to the touch. The look and composition of
these large boulders were unlike those rocks and cliffs around them. It did not take a geologist to
notice that these boulders seemed out of place compared to their current surroundings. Only ice
sheets thousands of meters thick could have carried such massive rocks hundreds of miles from
their point of origin. On that same note, consider that the largest boulder transported by a glacier
in North America is located just outside Madison, New Hampshire, weighing 6,000 tons (Fig.
15). Such boulders are called “erratic” and could have traveled hundreds of miles via ice before
Figure 14. Boulders deposited by glaciers ~10,000 years ago in the what has been designated today
as “The Flume” by the Parks and Recreation dept. of New Hampshire. The Flume is a natural gorge
formed 200 million years during the Jurassic period: a) Two of this author’s children next to one of the
larger boulders in the park; b) The author pointing out how these massive boulders were in place
before the mature northern, hardwood forest. Note how the roots of this tree had to grow around
this boulder that was in place before it.
A.
B.

180. [168]
being deposited in a new area (Fig. 16).
Another phenomenon of past glacier advancement and retreat are the thousands of “kettle
lakes” located in areas once covered by glaciers. As these massive ice sheets scoured the
landscape they would leave many pot holes in their wake. As glaciers retreated such large
blocks of ice would become caught in these deep depressions where after many centuries the
blocks would melt filling in their depressions and creating smaller, mostly circular lakes and
ponds (Fig. 16). Larger, deeper lakes (e.g.
Green Lake near Syracuse, NY) are the result of
plunge pools (Fig. 17). Surface ice would melt
first creating rivers of meltwater that would
cascade off the edges of the still-thick ice sheets
and dig deep pools into the newly exposed land
below (Fig. 17). In the United States compare
the number of natural bodies of water in those
states that were once covered in ice to those
Figure 15. Largest boulder in North
America located just outside Madison, N.H.
(Martin et al., 2014)
Figure 16. Kettle Lakes. Photo by Daniel Kerr.
Photo courtesy of the Geological Survey of
Canada, Canadian Government
Figure 16. Tripod Rock, N.J. A glacial erratic
remains exactly where the glacier left it—
perched on top of three smaller boulders
(photograph: Wally Gobatz)

181. [169]
states that were never covered by glaciers (e.g.
Arkansas). Consider the state of Minnesota, “the land of
10,000 lakes,” that actually has over 11,800 lakes larger
than 10 acres (Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources,
2015).
Understanding the amount of change and the time
such changes took to occur in just one ice age, how can
any reasonable person believe this Earth is a mere 6,000
years old? When one considers the clear evidence for the
occurrence of multiple ice ages on this Earth, it makes
the idea of a YET not just unbelievable, but also
bordering on the absurd.
Figure 17. Plunge pool from waterfall
of meltwater in Iceland (www.
elston.com)

182. [170]
CONCLUSION
In concluding this treatise there are certain things this writer wants the reader to clearly
understand. First, this is by no means an exhaustive defense of the GT doctrine and its
consistency with both the Bible and true science. There are some areas left completely untouched
including cosmology and the reams of scientific papers written about the primordial universe that
continues to reveal the scars of an ancient, pre-Adamic catastrophe. Those interested in more on
cosmology might consider the books of the astrophysicist, Christian apologist, and old Earth
creationist, Hugh Ross Ph.D. Although not a gap doctrine believer, Dr. Ross’ evidence
presented for an old universe in his books Why the Universe is the Way it is? and Hidden
Treasures in the Book of Job might be of interest.
Second, it is important, especially for young readers, to realize just how recently the
long-held belief in an old creation (i.e. GT) became a matter of contention among Missionary
Baptists (of which this author has been one all of his life). As pointed out in the first chapter, our
spiritual forefathers held a settled belief in an ancient creation long before such sciences as
geology and paleontology, and certainly centuries before Darwin and Wallace presented their
theories of evolution. Conversely, many date the idea of a young earth back only to 1961 with
the publication of the John Whitcomb and Henry Morris book, The Genesis Flood.
As a personal testimony to how suddenly this controversy arose among Missionary
Baptists, consider this writer’s experience. While attending the Missionary Baptist Seminary in
Little Rock in the early 1980s, the controversy over the age of the Earth did not exist; this writer
cannot remember a single discussion (heated or otherwise) over the topic of the age of creation—
a fact that is unusual for any Bible topic among a group of preachers. Even through the next

183. [171]
couple of decades after graduating and pastoring throughout Hot Springs County, this writer saw
no inkling of a creation timeline controversy.
Years later, after returning from graduate school in New Hampshire this writer was told
by a fellow pastor that having spent a couple of weeks in Israel studying the language, he had
changed his mind on the existence of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This brother also
announced that he had been invited by a YET organization to take a fully-paid trip white-water-
rafting down the Colorado River. As this book mentions, during such YET-financed trips, YET
leaning, pseudo-geologists explain how an enormous lake left behind by the Flood of Noah
suddenly burst through its earthen dam, leaving in its wake the magnificent, mile-deep, 277-mile
long, 8-mile wide Grand Canyon in just under 3,000 years versus the accepted scientific
timeframe of 3-6 million years.
At the time, this author was preoccupied with settling into his new position at Henderson
State University and had just taken over as pastor of a church. The thought that the GT was in
any real jeopardy because of this one defection never crossed his mind. The true extent to which
Missionary Baptists were falling away from GT or at best becoming apathetic toward the dangers
of the YET began to hit home in 2010. That Spring, an article appeared in the Missionary Baptist
Searchlight in which its writer (a senior faculty member of the Missionary Baptist Seminary)
publically apologized for ever having taught the GT doctrine or that the creation was older than
6,000 years (Thornton, 2010). No public outcry or reprimand was forthcoming even when, in
the same article, GT believers were equated to skeptics or non-believers in the authority of the
Scriptures. The hermeneutical skills of former seminary faculty were also called into question.
Admittedly, the extent and speed at which the YET interpretation had so stealthily and
strategically replaced the age-old, textbook doctrine of a pre-Adamic creation among some

184. [172]
Missionary Baptists sent chills down the spine of this author. In what seemed like a matter of
months, an age-old Landmark doctrine had been completely removed and replaced in the minds
of a growing number of men entrusted with teaching the next generation of pastors. Still hardly
an eyebrow has been raised in response for what can only be assumed as the usually reasons—
fear of being labeled a trouble-maker, an inciter of division, an agitator.
After earning the reputation as a supporter of the GT, this author has noticed an abrupt
end to invitations to speak at revivals and was told by youth camp officials not to preach on
creation in their services. At the last church this author was invited to preach, the sermon topic
was the resurrection, but during the closing portion of the service, the church’s pastor openly
rebuked this author for his old earth views. This author found this event rather strange given that
he had never met this man before that night and had not mentioned the GT during the sermon.
Even the Missionary Baptist Student Fellowship (MBSF) on the very campus where this author
works rejected his offer to speak at any of their meetings. YET supporters it seems, have worked
quickly and efficiently to ostracize this writer for his belief in the GT. If a 35-year, veteran
pastor of Missionary Baptist Churches can be so widely and unfairly shunned, what can those
young people returning from college expect for their discovery and acceptance of an old Earth?
In conclusion, this writer is very concerned. Truly, Peter’s admonition to, Be sober, be
vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he
may devour: (I Peter 5:8) has been and continues to be ignored. Where is our vigilance as
Missionary Baptists? What can we now expect from a coming generation of pastors and churches
converted to a 6,000 year old earth? How quickly will the next Landmark doctrine fall in the
name of those who profess to have a better understanding of the Scriptures than their
predecessors?

185. [173]
Consider what our churches stand to lose if members are compelled to accept the notion
of a 6,000-year-old Earth. The “whoosh” that will follow will be the sound of a brain drain, as
the educated and the possessors of common sense exit our churches in search of places to
worship—especially since their refusal to accept the doctrine of a new Earth may well indict
them as failing to accept the authority of the Scriptures (Thornton, 2010).
Of those members who remain out of a sense of loyalty for their home church and its
YET pastor, how many will feel comfortable or capable of discipling new members using the
Bible only to teach new converts:
• that Adam and Eve cohabited with and domesticated certain dinosaurs
• that Noah took pairs of each type of dinosaur into the ark
• that the dragons (even the fire-breathing ones) featured in ancient and Middle
Age folklore were actually the last remaining remnants of dinosaurs
• that there was only one ice age
• that the ice age occurred somewhere around the time of the Flood of Noah
• that the two-mile thick sheet of ice advanced from the poles to cover half of
North America and then retreated back to its original position leaving thousands
of lakes and debris in its wake over a period of a few hundred years
• that no fossil is older than 6,000 years, no matter the depth at which it was found
or in what rock type it was found
• that any tree found with more than 6,000 annual rings was created by God with
the extra annual rings already present
• That the carbon-based fuel in the vehicle that brought them to church and is
heating the building was converted from living plant and animal matter in a few
thousand years.

186. [174]
Such examples may sound harsh, but are they not real? Is the absurdity of this position not
evident?
Consider the struggle facing YET church members who have been convinced by their
pastors that the GT is an error and that a Pre-Adamic Earth could not have existed in which these
prehistoric animals (e.g. dinosaurs) experienced disease, pain, and death because of what Paul
wrote in Romans 5:12, Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. When these members, in turn, use
said argument when witnessing to others, how will they respond when asked about Lucifer, did
he and his angels not sin before Adam? If so, could there not have been a pre-Adamic Earth in
which chaos and death came to reign supreme (Gen. 1:2) because of the sin of Lucifer and his
angels? After all in Rom. 5:12, did not Paul restrict his discussion of death to mankind?
Churches today who have turn their backs on the GT and God’s ancient creation, can
expect more questions from the lost world than they have answers. They can expect to be guilty
turning the Bible into something it was never intended to be—a science book and they can
expect to distract unbelievers from the Cross of Calvary. YET will contribute unnecessarily to
the ridicule God’s churches and God’s Word suffers already. In addition, fellowship among
Missionary Baptist churches will be weakened, if not completely severed as churches that remain
faithful to the GT and an ancient creation are openly accused by the new breed of YET
Missionary Baptists of denying of the authority of the Scriptures.
As aforementioned the key objective among some YET promoters is to remove from the
teaching of evolution its required ingredient—time! Such a motivation may seem as
commendable, but is unnecessary and would seem to indicate a lack of faith in the Truth’s ability
to defend itself. As much as YET believers and leaders would disagree, it is a false dilemma to

187. [175]
suggest that man must choose between Christianity and science. In fact as this author quoted in
the Preface from Job 12:7-9, God challenged man to use as a resource of His divine existence
and creative works all living things—whether living on land, air, or sea—and even the non-living
Earth itself.
This author ends with this challenge to YET teachers and YET believers: Be honest with
the world by calling the YET what it is—an “interpretation” of the Genesis account of creation.
For other Christians to disagree with the YET does not automatically make them lacking in
hermeneutical skills, rejecters of the authority of the Word of God, or supporters of hardline
evolution. Furthermore, Christians that believe in an ancient Earth should not be judged “DAY-
AGE” or “Theistic” creationists, as GT falls into neither category. Such harsh responses from
YET teachers towards anyone who disagrees with them reflects an attitude that stifles productive
debate, unnecessarily divides churches and destroys fellowship among believers. Please consider
how difficult it is for GT believers to maintain fellowship with those who question their skills,
integrity and their faith as men and women of God. Consider our youth who are led to believe
that the acceptance of an ancient Earth will place them in the camp of the unbelievers. Consider
the lost who hear YET preachers proclaiming that the gospel begins at creation (Thornton, 2010),
as to imply that one’s salvation is dependent upon the acceptance of the correct interpretation of
how and when God created the Universe. The YET teachers among the Missionary Baptists
should, and can, do better.

188. REFERENCES
ABER, J.S. (2013): Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz. GO521 © J.S. Aber.
AGER, D. V. (1975): Introducing Geology. 2nd
ed. (London:Faber and Faber). 174.
ALBERTS, B., BRAY, D., HOPKIN, K., JOHSON, A., LEWIS, J., RAQFF, ML, ROBERTS,
K. and WALKER, P., (2014): Essential Cell Biology 4th
ed. Ch. 3. (New York: Garland
Science). Pp.85-95.
ANDERSON, R.Y., 1982, Deformation-dissolution potential of bedded salt, Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant site, Delaware Basin, New Mexico, in Lutze, W., ed., Scientific Basis for Radioactive
Waste Management, V: New York, NY, Elsevier Science Publ. Co., p. 449-458.
ANDERSON, R.Y., 1984, Orbital forcing of evaporite sedimentation, in Berger, A., Imbrie, J.,
Hays, J., Kukla, G., and Saltzman, B., eds., Milankovitch and Climate, Part 1: NATO ASI Series
C, Vol. 126: Dordrecht (Netherlands), D. Reidel Publishing Co., p. 147-162.
ANDERSON, R.Y., 1986, The varve microcosm: propagator of cyclic bedding:
Paleoceanography, v. 1, p. 373-382.
ANDERSON, R.Y., 1991, Solar variability captured in climatic and high-resolution
paleoclimatic records: a geologic perspective, in Sonett, C.P., Giampapa, M.S., and Mathews,
M.S., eds., The Sun in Time: Tucson, AZ, University of Arizona Press, p. 543-561.
ANDREWS, A.H., CAILLIET, G.M., KERR, L.A., COALE, K.H., LUNDSTROM, C., and
DEVOGLEARE, A. (2005a): Investigations of age and growth for three species of deep-sea
coral from the Davidson Seamount off central California. In: Cold-water Corals and Ecosystems.
A. Freiwald and J.M. Roberts eds. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Deep
Sea Corals. Erlangen, Germany. September 8 - 13, 2003. pp. 965-982
ANDREWS, A.H., TRACEY, D.M., NEIL, H., CAILLIET, G.M., and BROOKS, C.M. (2005b):
Lead-210 dating bamboo coral (family Isididae) of New Zealand and California. Third
International Symposium on Deep-Sea Corals: Science and Management. University of Miami,
Florida. November 28 - December 2, 2005.
ARMSTRONG, J. R. (1989): Seeking Ancient Paths. American Scientific Affiliation. 33-35.
Retrieved December 15, 2013.
AUSTIN, A. S. (1988): Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods. Impact
#178 (April).
AUSTIN, A. S. (1990): Were Grand Canyon Limestones Deposited by Calm and Placid Seas?
Acts & Facts. 19(12).

189. AUSTIN, S. (1994): Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Institute for Creation Research.
AUSTIN, S., BAUMGARDNER, J. R., HUMPHREYS, D. R., SNELLING, A. A.,
VARDIMAN, L., and WISE K. P. (1994): Catastrophic plate tectonics: A global model of earth
history. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism. (Pittsburgh, PA:
Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.). 609-621.
BAILEY, R (2007): Faith Based Geology: Resolving a Flood of Nonsense at the Grand Canyon.
Reason.Com. Jan 26. www.reason.com/archives/2007/01/26/faith-based.
BANERJEE, S. K. (2001): When the Compass Stopped Reversing Its Poles. Science (American
Association for the Advancement of Science) 291 (5509): 1714–1715.
doi:10.1126/science.291.5509.1714
BARNHOUSE D., (1965): The Invisible War. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). 21-26.
BARNA. (2011): Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church. https://www.barna.org/teens-
next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church.
BARNS, T. G. (1971): Decay of the earth's magnetic moment and the geochronological
implications. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 8:24-29.
BARTELS, W. S. (1993): Niche separation of Fluvial and Lacustrine reptile from the Eocene
Green River and Bridger formations of Wyoming. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 13(3):
25.
BARTIS, J.T., LATOURRETTE, T., DIXON, L., PETERSON, D. J. and CECCHINE, G.
(2005): Oil Shale Development in the United States Prospects and Policy Issues. Rand Corp.
BARTOLI, G. (1926): The Biblical Story of Creation. (Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times
Co.). (129, 154, 122-130, 155).
BARTZ, P. (1984). Questions and Answers on Creationism. Bible-Science Newsletter . July.
Vol. 22 (4). 16.
BASIL, ST. (340): The Hexaemeron Homily I. www.fisheaters.com/hexaemeron1.html
BATES, K. T. and FALKINGHAM, P. L. (2012): Estimating Maximum Bite Performance in
Tyrannosaurus rex using Multi-body Dynamics. Biological Letters. Doi:10.1098/rsbl.2012.0056.
BAUGH, C. (2011): Creation Evidence Museum website. www.creationevidence.org.
BAUGH, C. (1983): Enemies Survived Together for a While. (Video Tape). Crystal City, MO.
International Bible College.
BAUGH, C. (1986): Creation Evidences in Color. Creation Evidences Museum. Glen Rose, TX.

190. BAUGH, C. (1997): Dinosaur: Scientific Evidence That Dinosaurs and Men Walked Together.
(Orange, CA: Promise Publishing).
BAUMGARDNER, J. R. (1994): Computer modeling of the large-scale tectonics associated with
the Genesis Flood. Proc.Third ICC. 49-62.
BAUMGARDNER, J.R. (1995): Problem with Evolution: Microevolution and Fossil Record.
Los Alamos Origins Debate. GlobalFlood.org
BAUMGARDNER, J.R. (1995): Creationists Believe in Shorter Time Scales. Los Alamos
Origins Debate. GlobalFlood.org
BAUMGARDNER, J.R. (1997): The Real Issue is Macroevolution. Los Alamos Origins Debate.
GlobalFlood.org
BAUMGARDNER, J.R. (1997): Not Long Enough for Evolution: A Response to Llewellyn
Jones. Los Alamos Origins Debate. GlobalFlood.org
BAUMGARDNER, J. R. (2012): Do radioisotope methods yield trustworthy relative ages for the
earth’s rocks? Journal of Creation. 26(3). http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j26_3/j26_3_68-
75.pdf
BAUMGARDNER, J.R. and BARNETTE, D. W. (1994): Patterns of Ocean Circulations over
Continents during Noah’s Flooding. Proceedings of the third international conference on
creationism. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, pp. 77-86.
BAXTER, J. S. (1987): Explore the Book, a Basic and Broadly Interpretative Course of Bible
Study from Genesis to Revelation. (Grand Rapids, MI : Zondervan). 34-50.
BEJDER, L. and HALL, B. K. (2002): "Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates:
mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss". Evol. Dev. 4 (6): 445–
58. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142X.2002.02033.x. PMID 12492145.
BENDER, M., SOWERS, T., DICKONS M., ORCHRD, J. GROOTES, P. MAYEWSKI, P. and
MEESE D. (1994): Climate correlations between Greenland and Antarctica during the past
100,000 years. Nature. 372: 663-666.
BENIOFF, H. (1954): Orogenesis and deep crustal structure: Additional evidence from the
seismology. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America. 65:385-400.
BENTLEY, VICKI (2014): What does it Cost to Homeschool? Homeschool Legal Defense Assc.
(HSLA). http://www.hslda.org/EarlyYears/Costs.asp
BIELLO, D. (2009): The Origin of Oxygen in Earth’s Atmosphere. Scientific America. 14.

191. BIOLOGOS (2013): How have Christians Responded to Darwin’s Origin of Species?
http://biologos.org/questions/christian-response-to-darwin
BIOLOGOS (2013a): How was the account of Creation interpreted before Darwin?
http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis.
Bishop of Hippo Saint Augustine (1982): The Literal Meaning of Genesis. Ancient Christian
Writers (New York: Newman Press). No. 41.
BLAND, A. (2011): Best Bet to See Big Predators. Smithsonian.com.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/best-bets-to-see-a-big-predator-1-180948350/
BLANK, C. (2002): Could Cyanobacteria have provided the source of oxidants needed for
banded iron formations? Geological Society of America Meeting. Presentation.
BLANTON, J. (1998): Creation Science Education. North Texas Skeptics. July. 12:6.
BOARDMAN, R. S. (1987): Fossil invertebrates. (Hoboken NJ:Blackwell). 714.
BOARDMAN, D. R. III, and HECKEL, P. H. (1989): Glacial-eustatic Sea-level Curve for Early
Late Pennsylvanian Sequence in North-Central Texas and Biostratigraphic Correlation with
curve for Midcontinent North America. Geology. 17: 802-805.
BOARDMAN, R. S., CHEETHAM, A. H. and ROWELL A. J. (1987): Fossil Invertebrates.
(Boston, Blackwell Scientific Publications). 713.
BOGARD, BEN M. (1925): The Bible Proved by Science. (Little Rock: Missionary Baptist
Institute). 11.
BRASIER, M. D., GREEN, O. R., JEPHCOAST, A. P. ET AL. (2002): Questioning the
evidence for Earth’s oldest fossils. Nature. 416:76-81.
BRITISH BROADCASTING COMPANY (2010): Walking with Dinosaurs.
http://www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com/dinosaurs/detail/argentinosaurus/
BRITISH DRAGON GAZATEER (2014): http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/england
/legends/british-dragon-gazetteer.html
BROMELY, R. G. (1967): Some observations on burrows of the thalassininden Crustacea in
chalk hardgrounds. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. 123:157-182.
BROMLING, B. T. (1993): Dinosaurs in the Bible. Reason and Revelation. 13(8):60.
BROWN, (1849): Quart, Jour. Geol. Soc. Lon. 6: 130.
BROWN, J. (2006): Tax-Evasion charges Baseless says Ministry Leader. Agape Press. July 21.

192. BROWNE, H. (1873): Genesis: Or the First Book of Moses (New York: Scribner). 32.
BRUINIUS, H. (2014): Pat Robinson rejects ‘young earth’ creationism, ‘nonsense’ he says. The
Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2014/0206/Pat-Robertson-
rejects-young-earth-creationism.-Nonsense-he-says.-video
BUCKLAND, W. (1837): Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural
Theology (Bridgewater Treatise Number VI). (London: William Pickering, second edition). 22-
25.
BUICK, R. (1992): The antiquity of oxygenic photosynthesis: evidence from stomatolites in
sulphate-deficient achean lakes. Science. 255:74.
BULLARD, E.C., EVERETT, J.E. and SMITH A.G. (1965): Fit of the Continents around the
Atlantic. In P. M. S. Blackett, E. C. Bullard and S. K. Runcorn (eds.) A Symposium on
Continental Drift, 41-75. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A
248.
BUNGE, H. P., RICHARDS, M. A., LITHGOW-BERTELLONI, C., BAUMGARDNER, J. R.,
GRAND, S. P., and ROMANOWICZ, B. A. (1998): Time Scales and Heterogeneous Structure in
Geodynamic Earth Models. Science. 280 (5360):91-95. DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5360.91
BURGESS, S., BOWRING, S., and SHU-ZHONG, S. (2014): High-precision timeline for the
Earth’s most severe extinction. PNAS. Vol. 111(9):3316-3331.
BUSH, G. (1838): Critical and Practical on the Book of Genesis. (London: Ward). 25.
BUTTS, K. (2004): Dinosaurs: They’re Everywhere! They’re Everywhere! Apologetics Press.
www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1321&topic=59.
BUTTS, K. (2005): What the Bible says about the Baptist Church. (Montgomery,
AL.:Apologetics Press, Inc.). p. ii.
BUTTS, K. (2008): Dinosaur Art and Imaginary Creatures. Apologetics Press.
www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=605&topic=59.
BYBELL, L. (2003): Corals. U.S.G.S. http://geology.er.usgs.gov/paleo/corals.shtml.
CAEDMON (1915): Genesis: Excursus A, translated from the Old English by Lawrence Mason,
in the Yale Studies in English series edited by Albert S. Cook, Henry Holt, N.Y., lines 14-35, 68,
79, 80, 92f., 114.
CALAHAN, J. J. (2014): What is the meaning of the Dragon in the Bible?
http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/bible-questions/answer00011-what-is-the-meaning-of-the-
leviathan-dragon.html (accessed 2014).

193. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY, DARWIN CORRESPONDENCE PROJECT: (accessed 2013).
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwins-introduction-to-geology
CAMPBELL, J. F. (1911): The Celtic Dragon Myth. www.sacredtext.com; (accessed 2011).
CANDE, S.C. and KENT, D. V. (1995): Revised calibration of the geomagnetic polarity
timescale for the late Cretaceous and Cenozoic. J. of Geophysical Research. 100: 6093–6095.
CART, J. (2004): Grand Canyon made by Noah’s Flood, Book says Geologists Skewer Park for
Selling Creationism. The Los Angeles Times. Jan. 8.
CATUNEANUO, O., WOPFNER, H., ERIKSSON, P., CAIRNCROSS, B., RUBIDGE, B.
SMITH, R., and HANCOX, P. (2005): The Karoo Basins of South Central Africa. The Journal
of African Earth Sciences. 43 (1-3):211.
CHAFFEY, T. and LISLE, J. (2008): Old-Earth Creationism on Trial the Verdict is In. (Green
Forest, AR.: Master Books). 13.
Ibid. 165.
CHAMBERS, R. (1860): Revised Edition of Chamber's Encyclopedia. (Edinburg: W. & R.
Chambers).
CHARITY NAVIGATOR (2014):
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5214#.VA2Uf_8o6cw
CHATTERJEE S. and ZHENG, Z. (2005): Neuroanatomy and dentition of Camarasaurus
lentus. In Thunder-lizards. The sauropodomorph dinosaurs (ed. V. Tidwell and
K. Carpenter) (Bloomington, IN:Indiana University Press). 199-211.
CHIN, K. (2002): Analyses of Coprolites Produced by Carnivorous Vertebrates. Paleontological
Society Papers. 8:43-49.
CHOI, C. (2012): Last Meal Found in Stomach of Fuzzy Dinosaur. Livescience.
http://www.livescience.com/22809-diinosaur-gut-contents.html
CHURE, D. and WEST, L. (1994): Dinosaur: the Dinosaur National Monument Quarry:
Vernal, Utah. Dinosaur Nature Association. p. 40.
CLARK, T. H. and STEARN, C. W. (1960): The Geological Evolution of North American. A
Regional Approach to Historical Geology. (NY: Ronald Press Co.). 219.
CLARKSON, M., KASEMANN, S., WOOD, R., LENTON, T., DAINES, S., RICHOZ, S.,
OHNEMUELLER, F., MEIXNER, A., POUTON, S. and TIPPER, E., (2015): Ocean
acidification and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction. Science. 348(6231):229-232.

194. CMI (2013): Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/Karstrologist. Creation Ministries International.
http://creation.com/emil-silvestru.
COLE, J. R. (1985): If I had a Hammer. Creationist/Evolutionist. 5 (1):47-56.
COLLINS, F. (2006): The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New
York: Free Press).
COLLINS, F. (2006): Building Bridges. Nature 442 (7099): 110. 2006. doi:10.1038/442110a.
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP (2004): Human Persons Created in the Image of God,
plenary sessions held Rome 2000-2002, 63:1
CONRAD, E. (1982): True Vestigial Structures in Whales and Dolphins. Creation Evolution
Journal. 3(4):8-13.
CORSTJENS, P. L. A. M., and GONZALES, E. L. (2004): Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus
availability on the expression of the coccolith V-ATPase (subunit C) of Pleurochrysis
(Haptophyta). Journal of Phycology. 40:82-87.
COWEN, R. (2000): History of Life. 3rd
ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, Inc.). p.185.
COWEN, R. (2000a): History of Life. 3rd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, Inc.). pp.171-
214.
COWEN, R. (2000b): History of Life. 3rd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, Inc.). pp.143-
200.
COWEN, R. (2000c): History of Life. 3rd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, Inc.). p.93.
CREATION, EVOLUTION, SCIENCE MINISTRIES (2013):http://www.creationministries.org/
index.aspx
CREATION SCIENCE HALL OF FAME (2013): http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/
creationist-defenses/
CREATION TODAY (2013): Eric Hovind Bio. https://web.archive.org/web/20120413151854/
http://www.creationtoday.org/about/eric-hovind/
CRISTIE, R. L., and MCMILLIAN, N.J. (1991): Tertiary Fossils of the Geodetic Hills, Axel
Heiberg Island, Arctic Archepelago. Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 403. 227.
CRICHTON, M. (1993): The Lost World. (New York: Ballantine Books). 122.
CRISWELL, D. (2009): Speciation of the animals on the ark. Acts & Facts. 38(4):10.

195. CUMMINGS, A. B. (1960): Diatomite in Industrial Minerals and Rocks. 3rd
ed. (American
Institute of Mining, Metallugical, and Petroleum Engineers).
CUOZZO, J. (2014): Humans and Animals were Originally Created to Eat Only Plants.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carnivores.html
CUSTANCE, A. C. (1970): Without Form and Void. (Canada: Classic Reprint Press). 19.
DALTON, R. (2002): Microfossils: squaring up over ancient life. Nature. 417:82-84.
DANSGAARD, W. (1954): The O18-abundance in fresh water, Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta
6.
DATHE, J. AUGUSTE (1791): Libre VI. Ex recesione textus Hebaei at Versionum antiquarum
Latine versi, notisque philologicis et criticis illustrate, Halle.
DAVIDSON, B. (1848): The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. (London: Samuel Bagster
& Sons).
DAVIS, B. (2004): The New Answers Book 1. Ham Gen. Ed. Bonus. How Can We Use
Dinosuars to Spread the Creation Gospel Message? (Green Forest, AR:Master Books). 348-353.
DARWIN, C. R. (1859): On origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation
of favoured races in the struggle for life. (London: John Murray).
DAWKINS, R. (1986): The Blind Watchmaker. (New York: Norton). 5.
DAWKINS, R. (2004): Liberty University is looking for Biology Professors.
Richarddawkins.net. 6 November 2006. Retrieved 17 March 2014
DAWSON, J. W. (1868): Acadian Geology. The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and
Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. (London:
MacMillian & Co.). 694.
DELITZCH, F. (1888): Commentary on Genesis. (London: T & T Clark).
DEWOODY J., ROWE, C., HIPKINS, V., and MOCK, K. (2008): “Pando” Lives: Molecular
Genetic Evidence of Giant Aspen Clone in Central Utah. Western North America Naturalist.
68(4):493-497.
DIVINS, D. L. (2003): Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans & Marginal Seas.
NOAA National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, CO.
DODSON, P., BEHRENSMEYER, A., BAKKER, R., and MCINTOSH J. (1980): Taphoney and
Paleoecology of the Dinosaur Beds of the Jurassic Morrison Formation. Paleobiology. 6(2):208-
232.

196. DRUMMOND H. (1894): The Ascent of Man. (NY: James Potts & Co.). 333.
DUBOSE, W. (2014): A Problem in Paradise. Teen Summer Quarterly. June 8. 17:3.
DUTKO, B. (2012): Evidence Dinosaurs Lived with Man (and yes, went on Noah’s Ark).
http://toptenproofs.com/article_dinosaurs.php Access 3-Feb., 2012.
DYNI, J. R. (2000): Verification that Green River Varves are Annual Layers. USGS Report,
June 6. http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/varve.ev.pdf.
EARTH SCIENCE AUSTRALIA (1996): http//earthsci.org/index.html.
EDERSHEIM, A. (1870): The World before the Flood and the History of the Patriarchs.
(Columbia: Religious Tract Society). 1:18,19.
EICHER, D. (1968): Geologic Time. (New Jersy:Prentice-Hall Inc.). 120.
Eldredge, S. and Biek, B. (2010): Survey Notes. V. 42 no. 3. Online.
http//geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm.
ELLICOT, D. (2011): A Bible Commentary for English Readers. (Peabody MA. 0
ELTRINGHAM, S. K. (1999): The Hippos. (London:AC Black Publishers Ltd.). 13.
ERICKSON, G.M., ROGERS, K. C. and YERBY, S. A. (2001): Dinosaurian growth patterns
and rapid avian growth rates. Nature. 412(6845):405-433l.
EXELL, J. S. (1897): Pulpit Commentary on Genesis. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, and
Trubner). 4.
FAIL, A. (2006): Evangelist Trial Begins: Dinosaur Adventure Land owners wife faces 58
counts of tax fraud. Pensacola News Journal. Oct. 18.
FERGUNSON, C. W. (1969): A 7104-year annual tree-ring chronology for bristlecone pine,
Pinus aristata, from the White Mountains, California. Tree-Ring Bulletin. 29(3-4):13-29.
FERGUSON, L. (1988): The Fossil Cliffs of Joggins. Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Nova
Scotia.
FERRIC, F. and CASADEVALL, A. (2012): Intense Competition among Scientists has gotten
out of Hand. Scientific American. Online.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=intense-competition-among-scientists-gotten-
out-of-hand.

197. FEUERBACHER, A. (2014): Jehovah's Witnesses and Young Earth Creationists. Website
accessed Jan. 2014. http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/jehovahs-witnesses-and-young-
earth.html
FORD, L.E. (2011): Celebrating 400 Years of Influence. Acts & Facts. April. 10.
FOREMAN, L.D. (1955): The Bible in Eight Ages. (Texarkana: Bogard Press). 1-495.
FOREMAN, L.D. (1955a): The Bible in Eight Ages. (Texarkana: Bogard Press). 81-100.
FOREMAN, L.D. (1955b): The Bible in Eight Ages. (Texarkana: Bogard Press). 101-110.
FOREMAN, L.D. (1955c): The Bible in Eight Ages. (Texarkana: Bogard Press). 81-110.
FORMAN, L.D. and PAYNE, A. (1977): The Church that Jesus Built. (Mabelvale,
AR:Foreman-Payne Publishers). 336.
FORTEY, R. (1999): Life--A Natural History of the First Four Billion Years of Life on Earth.
(New York: Knopf). 346.
FITZGERALD, T. (1938): Transactions of the Victoria Institute. LXX. 86.
FLAVELL, R. A. (2005): Discovery Illuminates Surprising Flexibility of Chromosomes. HHMI
News. May 8, 2005.
FRIEDRICH, M., REMMELE, S., KROMER, B., HOFMANN, J., SPURK, M., KLAUS, F.K.,
ORCEL, C., and KUPPERS, M. (2004): The 12,460-year Hohenheim oak and pine tree-ring
chronology from Central Europe; a unique annual record for radiocarbon calibration and
paleoenvironment reconstructions. Radiocarbon. 46:3.
FROEDE, C. R. JR. and REED J. K. (1999): Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence
from the Gulf of Mexico. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 36(2). Sept.
FROST, W. G. (1925): Religion and Evolution. (Berea, KY: Berea College Press).
GAEBELEIN, A. C. (1913): The Holy Scriptures Analyzed and Annotated, The Annotated Bible.
(New York: Our Hope Press). 16-17.
GALLING, A. P. (2008): Polar Dinosaurs Could They Survive the Cold? AnswersinGenesis.
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/types/polar-dinosaurs/
GARLAND, G.V. (2010): Genesis With Notes. (Reprint) (US:Tradepaper).
GARNER, P. (2008): Do Species Change? AnswersinGenesis.
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/

198. GASTALDO, R. A. (1990): Early Pennsylvanian swamp forests in the Mary Lee coal zone,
Warrior Basin, Alabama. in Carboniferous Coastal Environments and Paleocommunities of the
Mary Lee Coal Zone, Marion and Walker Counties, Alabama. Guidebook for the Field Trip VI,
Alabama Geological Survey, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 41-54.
GETTENS R. J. (1961): Mineral Alteration Products on Ancient Metal Objects. Studies in
Conservation. 6 (suppl. 1): 89-92.
GESENIUS, W.(1979): Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, translated by S.P. Tregelles, (Grand
Rapids:Baker Book House). p. 105.
GEST, H. and MANDELSTAM J. (1987): Longevity of microorganisms in natural
environments. Mircobiological Science. 4:69-71.
GENESIS MOVIE WEBSITE (2014): Website. www.genesismovie.com (accessed 7/2014).
GIFFIN, E. B. (1991). Endosacral enlargements in dinosaurs. Modern Geology. 16:
101–112.
GISH, D. T. (1978): Evolution: The Fossils say No! (San Diego: Creation Life Publishers). 61.
GISH, D. T. (1993): Dinosaurs by Design. (New Leaf Publishing).
GLOVER, C. N. (1976): Three Worlds. (Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press). 7-23.
GOULD, S. J. (1991): Fall in the house of Ussher. Natural History. 100: 12-21.
GRAMAH, BILLY (2010): Billy Graham's My Answer, retrieved from billygraham.org, Nov
26, 2010, http://www.billygraham.org/articlepage.asp?articleid=4153.
GRAVES, J. R. (1884): The Work of Christ Consummated in Seven Dispensations. (Texarkana,
TX: Bogard Press) Reprint 1971. 58-63.
GRAY, J. (1849): The Earth’s Antiquity in Harmony with the Mosaic Record of Creation.
(London: John Parker West Strand). 5, 211,146, 148.
GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK (2015): Real Facts for Tour Guides.
http://www.australia.com/en-us/places/great-barrier-reef.html/?cid=paid-search|us|us-local-
fy2015|brand|google|google|textad|167-icons-exact-greatbarrierreef|great-barrier-reef-
facts|exact|info||||
GRIFFITHS, A. J. F., GELBART W. M., MILLER, J. H. (1999): Modern Genetic Analysis.
(New York:W.H. Freeman). Ch. 8.

199. GUARINI, D. (2012): The Creation Science Hall of Fame to Expand with Kentucky Museum.
The Huffington Post. On-line. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/creation-science-hall-
of-fame_n_1833434.html
GUCCIONE, M. J. (1993): Geological History of Arkansas Through Time and Space. National
Science Foundation. Geology Department OZAR-118, U of A, Fayetteville, AR 72701
GUINN, L. C. (1961): Studies in Genesis. Sunday School Adult Quarterly. Jan.-March. Pp. 2-4.
GUTHRIE, J. L. (1940): The Bible in 8 Periods. (Publisher: unknown). 24.
GUTHRIE, J. L. (1943): Christ in Creation. (Little Rock: M.B.I. Printery). 16.
Ibid., 1-128.
HALL, M., and HALL, S. (1974): The Truth: God or Evolution. (Nutley, N.J.: The Craig Press).
50.
HALLAM, A. (1981): Facies Interpretation and Stratigraphic Record. (Oxford:Wilt Freeman &
Co. Ltd.).
HAM, K. (1999): Dinosaurs and the Bible.
http//www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the-bible.
HAM, K. (1999a): The god of the Old Earth! Does the Bible teach that Disease, Bloodshed,
Violence, and Pain Have Always Been Apart of Life? Creation. 21(4):42-45.
HAM, K. (2000): Beware of Anti-Evolutionism? Answers in Genesis. September 15.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/09/15/beware-of-anti-evolutionism
HAM, K. (2006): The New Answers Book 1. Ham Gen. Ed. Ch. 5 What about the Gap and Ruin-
Reconstruction Theories? K. Ham. (Green Forest, AR:Master Books). 47.
HAM, K. (2006a): The New Answers Book 1. Ham Gen. Ed. Ch. 27 How Can I use this
Information to Witness? K. Ham. (Green Forest, AR:Master Books). 339-353.
HAM, K. (2006b): The New Answers Book 1. Ham Gen. Ed. Ch. 5. What about the Gap &
Ruin-Reconstruction Theories? K. Ham. (Green Forest, AR:Master Books). p. 47
HAM, K. (2006c): The New Answers Book 1. Ham Gen. Ed. Ch. 5. What really happened to the
dinosaurs? K. Ham. (Green Forest, AR:Master Books). p. 149-151.
HAM, K. (2006d): The New Answers Book 1. Ham Gen. Ed. Ch. 3. What really happened to the
dinosaurs? K. Ham. (Green Forest, AR:Master Books). p. 35.

200. HAM, K. (2006e). "Graduation day at Liberty University". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 7
January 2009.
HAM, K. (2007a): What about the God and Ruin-Reconstruction Theories? Sept. 6,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/gap-ruin-reconstruction-theories
HAM, K. (2007b): What really Happened to the Dinosaurs? Answers in Genesis. Oct. 25.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/namb/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs.
HAM, K. (2009): Dinosaurs for Kids. Masters Books. Pp. 1-64.
HAM, K. (2010): What really happened to the Dinosaurs? In A Pocket Guide to Dinosaurs Is
there a biblical explanation? (China: Answersingenesis). pp. 9-40.
HAM, K. (2010a): What really happened to the Dinosaurs? In A Pocket Guide to Dinosaurs Is
there a biblical explanation? (China: Answersingenesis). p.10.
HAM, K. (2012): The New York Times Reviewers Fail to Recognize Poor Scholarship. Answers
in Genesis. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/01/08/new-york-times-
review-fails-to-recognize-poor-scholarship/
HAM, K. (2012a): The ‘Disease’ of Millions of Years. Answers in Genesis. May—July.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/disease-millions-of-years
HAM, K (2012b): The Global Epidemic. AnswersinGenesis.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/global-epidemic
HAM, K. (2012c): Young Earth Creationist Ministry's Biggest Critics: Christians.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/young-earth-creationist-ministrys-biggest-critics-christians-
86624/#V5PddGIRqhqUePR0.99
HAM, K. (2013): Does the Gospel Depend on a Young Earth? AnswersinGenesis.
http://answersingenesis.org/creationism/young-earth/does-the-gospel-depend-on-a-young-earth/
HAM, K. (2013a): Should your Children be Walking with Dinosaurs? AnswersinGenesis.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/12/21/should-your-kids-be-walking-with-
dinosaurs/
HAM, K (2014): Sanballat—Alive and Well? AiG. https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-
news/ark-encounter/sanballat-alive-and-well/
HAM, K. and LOVETT T. (2006): Was there Really a Noah’s Ark and Flood? In The New
Answers Book 1. (Green Forest, AR:Masters Books). 131.
HAM, K., SARFATI, J., and WIELAND, C. (2000): The Revised & Extended Answers Book.
(Green Forest, AR:Master Books).

201. HAM, K. and LOOY, M (2014): A Myth About Ark Encounter Funds that Won’t Die.
AnswersinGenesis. April 22, 2014.
HAND, E. (2015): Acid oceans cited in Earth’s worst die-off. Science. 348(6231):165-166.
HARRIS, J. (1851): PreAdamic Earths—Contributions to Theology Science. (NY: Gould,
Kendall, & Lincoln). 1-294.
HARRUB, B. (2005): Dinosaur Discovered in a Mammal’s Stomach?!. Apologetic Press.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1482
HASTINGS, R. J. (1988): The Rise and Fall of the Paluxy Mantracks. American Scientific
Affiliation. 144-154. Retrieved 12/19/13.
HAYES, J. (1990): A Manual of Sumerian: Grammar and Texts. Malibu, CA.: UNDENA. pp.
268–269.
HECKEL, P. H. (1986): Sea-Level Curve for Pennsylvanian Eustatic Marine Transgressive-
regressive Depositional Cycles along Midcontinent Outcrop Belt, North America. Geology. 14:
330-334.
HELFINSTINE, R. F. and ROTH J. D. (1994): Texas Tracks and Artifacts: Do Texas Fossils
Indicate Coexistence of Men and Dinosaurs? (No publisher listed).
HENKE, K. R. (2015): How Serious are Errors in Ar40-Ar39 Dates and How Good are Their
Monitoring Standards? Old Earth Ministries. http://www.oldearth.org/ar39ar40.htm
HENRY, M. (1991): Mathew Henry Commentary of the Whole Bible. (Amhert, NS, Canada;
Hendickson Publisher).
HITCHCOCK, E. (1851): The Religion of Geology and the Connected Sciences. (Glasgow:
Collins). 50-52. Full on-line copy see below site:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/afy7120.0001.001/19?page=root;rgn=full+text;sid=6730fe66e2
4262cb615a418fad16efb8;size=100;view=image
HOARE, W. H. (1860): Veracity of the Book of Genesis. (London:Longman, Green, Longman,
Roberts). 179.
HOCHULI, P., HERMANN, E., VIGRAN, J., BUCHER, H., and WEISSERT, H. (2010): Rapid
demise and recovery of plant ecosystems across the end-Permian extinction event. Global and
Planetary Change. 74:144-155.
HODGE, B. (2006): The New Answers Book 1. Ham Gen. Ed. Ch. 5. Why don’t we find Human
and dinosaur fossils together. (Green Forest, AR:Master Books). 178-185.

202. HODGE, B. (2008): Who Sinned First? https://answersingenesis.org/sin/who-sinned-first/
(accessed 2014).
HODGE, B (2010): Why Don’t We Find Human and Dinosaur Fossils Together? In A Pocket
Guide to Dinosaurs. Is there a Biblical Explanation? Answers in Genesis, Hebron, KY.
HODGE, B. (2011) The Fall of Satan, Rebels in the Garden. Answers in Genesis.
http://cdn.answersingenesis.org/doc/prod/etc/chapter/10-2-396.pdf
HODGE, B and WELCH, L (2011): Dragons Legends and Lore of Dinosaurs. (Green Forest,
AR.:Master Books). Pp. 1-24.
HODGE, C. H. (1863): The Bible in Science. New York Observer. March. 98-99.
HOESCH, W. A. and AUSTIN, S. A. (2004): Dinosaur National Monument: Jurassic Park or
Jurassic Jumble? Impact. April 2004.
HOPSON J. A. (1977): Relative brain size and behavior in archosaurian reptiles. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 8:429–488.
HOPSON J. A. (1979): Paleoneurology. In Biology of the Reptilia, vol. 9-A (ed. C. Gans,
R. G. Northcutt and P. Ulinsky) (London: Academic Press) 39-146.
HOVIND, K. (2013): Evolution, Dinosaurs, The Bible. Truth in Genesis.
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/dinosaurs-and-the-bible/
HOVIND, K. and LOWWELL, S. (2006): The Gap Theory.
HU, Y., MENG, J., WANG J., and LI, C., (2005): Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young
Dinosaurs. Nature. 433:449-453. Jan. 13.
HUGO, ST. VICTOR (1141): De Sacramentis Christia Fidei, Bk. I, Part 1 Ch.1
HUMPHREYS, D. R. (1986): Reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Genesis Flood,
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship,
Pittsburgh, 2:113–126.
HUMPHREYS, D.R. (1990): Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field
during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Creation
Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, 2:129–142.
HUSSEY, R. C. (1947): Historical Geology: the Geological History of North America. (NY:
McGraw-Hill). 382.

203. HUTCHINGSON, J. R., BATES, K. T., MOLNAR, J., ALLEN, V., and MAKOVICKY, P. J.,
(2011): A Computational Analysis of Limb and Body Dimensions in Tyrannosaurus rex with
Implications for Locomotion, Ontogeny, and Growth. PLoS ONE. 6 (10): e26037.
HUTTON, J. (1788): Theory of the Earth; or an Investigation of the Laws observable in the
Composition, Dissolution, and Restoration of Land upon the Globe. Transactions of the Royal
Society of Edinburgh. 1:209–304.
ICHOKU, C. (2015): Polar Ice. NASA Earth Observatory. EOS Project Science Office. NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
INDUSTRIAL MINERALS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA (2011): Website.
retrieved from http://ima-na.org/calcium-carbonate.
INSIDE POLAND (2014): SmokWawelski—the Legend of the Dragon of Wawel in Krakow.
http://insidepoland.com (accessed 7/14).
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCE (2014): National Center for Education Statistics.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91
ISAAC, R. (2007): Assessing the RATE Project. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.
59(2):143-146.
ISENBERG, E. (2007): What have we learned about Homeschooling? J. Ed. 82(2-3):387-409.
JACKSON, C. (2004): When Giants Roamed—A Florida Theme Park Sells Creation with Anti-
government Twist. Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report. 114.
JACKSON, D. N. (1937): The Creation of the World. Adult Sunday School Quarterly of the
American Baptist Association. Lesson I for April 4, 1937.
JACKSON, W. (1975): The Gap Theory. Gospel Advocate. Sept 25.
JACKSON, W. (1981): Frauds in Science. http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?
category=9&article=413 (accessed 2014).
JACKSON, W. (1984): Evolution & Creation: Are They Compatible? Christian Bible Teacher.
JACKSON, W. (2009): Frauds in Science. http://www.apologeticspress.org
/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=312 (accessed 2014).
JAMEISON, R. (1871): Critical and Expository: Genesis – Deuteronomy. (London:Nisbet). 3.
JAMIESON, FAUSSET, and BROWN (1871): Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and
Practical. Vol. 1. Genesis-Deuteronomy. (Glasgow: Collins). 3.

204. JANENSCH, W. (1935–1936): Die Sch¨adel der Sauropoden Brachiosaurus, Barosaurus
und Dicraeosaurus aus den Tendaguruschichten Deutsch-Ostafrikas. Palaeontographica
Supplement 7(2), 147–298.
JAROFF, L. (2004): Faith-Based Parks? Time. Nov. 17.
JEPSEN, G. L. (1966): Early Eocene bat from Wyoming. Science. 154(3754): 1333-8.
JERISON, H. J. (1969): Brain evolution and dinosaur brains. American Naturalist 103:
575–588.
JERISON, H. J. (1973): Evolution of the brain and intelligence, New York.
Jewish Encylopedia.com. The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.
www.jewishencylopedia.com/articles/1084-albo-joseph. (accessed 30 June, 2013)
Jewish Virtual Library; A Division of the American-Israeli Enterprise.
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/source/biography/IbnEra.html (accessed 30 June, 2013).
JHA, A. (2013): Tiny, Insect-eating Animal becomes Earliest Known Primate.theguardian. June
5. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jun/05/earliest-known-primate-archicebus-achilles
JIN, Y.G., GLENISTER, B.R., KOTLYAR C.K., and SHENG, J.-Z. (1994): An operational
scheme of Permian chronostratigraphy. Palaeoworld 4:1-14.
JIN, Y.-G., WANG Y., HENDERSON, B.R. WARDLAW, SHEN S., and CAO. C. (2006). The
global boundary stratotype section and point (GSSP) for the base of Changhsingian Stage (Upper
Permian). Episodes 29(3):175-182.
JOHNSON, C. J. E. (2012): Lies of Evolution: K-AR Dating. Creation Liberty Evangelism.
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/kardating.php
JONHSTON, P. (1964): The Geology of Kansas. (Kansas: The Kansas State Teachers College of
Emporia). 10(3).
JORDAN, D. S. (1906) D. S. Jordan to G. M. Price, 28 August 1906 (Price Papers, Andrews
University, Berrien Springs, Mich.).
KEIL, C.F. and DELITZSCH, F. (1988): Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. IV, Job,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing). Vol. IV: 357.
KEIL, C. F. and DELITZSCH, F. (1991): Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing). Vol. I: 87.

205. KELLEY, M. B. (2013): Creationist Explain How Humans Could Have Hunted the
Tyrannosaurus Rex. Business Insider: Science. http://www.businessinsider.com/how-humans-
and-dinosaurs-coexisted-2013-4
KENNEDY, W. J. (1967): Burrows and surface traces from the chalk of Southeast England.
Bulletin for the British Museum of Natural History (geology). 15:125-167.
KENNEDY, W. J. (1970): Trace fossils in the Chalk environment. In Trace Fossils. T. P. Crimes
and J. C. Harper (eds.). Geology Journal. Special Issue 3:263-268.
KENNEDY, W. J. and GARRISON, R. E. (1975): Morphology and genesis of nodular chalk and
hardgrounds in the Upper Cretaceous of southern England. Sedimentology. 22:311-386.
KENNETT, J. P. (1982): Marine Geology. (Englewood, CA:Printice Hall). 1-813.
KENNING, C. (2014): Noah’s Ark Park in Kentucky will be Built, Officials Say. USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/27/ark-encounter-theme-park/5881323/
KERBY C. (2013): What About Carl Baugh? AnswersinGenesis.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm.
KIEHL, J. and SHIELDS, C. (2005): Climate simulation of the latest Permian: implications for
mass extinction. Geology. 33(9):757-760.
KNOLL F., GALTON, P. M., LOPEZ-ANTONANZAS R. (2006): Paleoneurological
evidence against a proboscis in the sauropod dinosaur Diplodocus. Geobios 39:
215–221.
KOON, C. (2010): Creation. Missionary Baptist Searchlight. 66(62):1.
KUBAN, G. J. (1989): A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials. NCSE Reports
9:6. Nov-Dec.
KUBAN, G. J. (1999): The London Hammer: an alleged out-of-place artifact. Website.
Retrieved from http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm.
KUBAN, G. J. (2008): "The "Burdick Print"". The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy.
Retrieved 2008-08-19.
KUKAL, Z. (1990): The rate of geological processes. Earth Science Reviews. 28:109-117.
LACEY, T. and CHAFFEY, T. (2012): The God of the Old Earth. https://answersingenesis.org/
hermeneutics/the-god-of-old-earth/
LANG, W. (1983): Lab Test Report on Hammer!: Paluxy Progress. Bible-Science Newsletter.
Vol. 21(12). 1.

206. LAMB, L. and SINGTON D. (1998): Earth Story. The Shaping of Our World. (Princeton:
Princeton Univ. Press). 20.
Ibid., 45.
LAMBERT, D. (1983): A Field Guide to Dinosaurs. (New York: Avon Books). 127.
LAYMAN (1995): Grand Canyon Limestone—Fast or Slow Deposits?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v17/n3/limestone
LAWRENCE, J. (2012): Number of Homeschoolers Growing Nationwide. Education News.
May 21st
, 2012.
LENOX, J. C. (2011): Seven Days that Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis
and Science. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan). P. 79.
LESSEM, D. and ROWE, T. (2014): All about T. Rex. Scholastic.
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/dinosaurs-t-rex
LEVIN, H. L. (2009): The Earth Through Time 9th
ed. John Wiley & Sons. p. 41.
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. (2005): Liberty University and Answers in Genesis To Co-Sponsor
2005 Creation Mega Conference. Liberty University, VA. 8 July 2005. Retrieved 7 January
2009.
LIGHTFOOT, J. (1642): A few and new Observations upon the Book of Genesis. 1-3.
LIPPARD, J. (2006): Trouble in Paradise: Answers in Genesis Splinters. National Center of
Science Education. 6:4-7.
LITWIN, R. J., WEEMS, R. E., and HOLTZ, T. R. (2001): Dinosaurs: Facts and Fiction.
USGS. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/when.html
LOMOLINO, M., RIDDLE, B.R., and BROWN, J.H. (2006): Biogeography 3rd
ed. (Sunderland:
Sinauer Associates, Inc.). 231.
Ibid., 285.
Ibid., 293.
LONDAU, M. (1982): Whales: Can evolution account for them? Creation Evolution Journal.
3(4):14-19.
LOREY, F. (1994): Tree Rings and the Biblical Chronology. Acts & Facts. 23:6.
LOU, Z., CROMPTON, A. W., and SUN, A. (2001): Large Mammalianform from early Jurassic
and Evolution of Mammalian Characteristics. Science 292:1535-1540. May 25.

207. LUTHER, M. (1557): Luther’s Bible. (Wittenburg).
LYELL, C. (1830): Principles of Geology or the Modern Changes of the Earth and its
Inhabitants, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation. (London: John Murray). Vol. 1.
LYONS, E. (2004): No Dinosaur. . . Ever Breathed Fire. Apologetics Press, Inc.
www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1504&topics=59.
LYONS, E. (2005): What’s the Big Deal about Dinosaurs? Apologetics Press, Inc.
www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1504&topics=59.
LYONS, E. (2007): Dragon Legends and Dinosaurs. Apologetics Press, Inc.
www.apologeticspress.org/APCContent.aspx?category=9&article=1504&topics=59.
LYONS, E. (2008): Did the Ancients Base their Dinosaur Drawings on Fossils? Apologetic
Press, Inc. www.apologeticspress.org/APCContent.aspx?category =9&article=2444&topics=59.
LYONS, E. (2008a): Another “Dragon” Discovered. Apologetic Press, Inc.
www.apologeticspress.org/APCContent.aspx?category =9&article=1442&topics=59.
LYONS, E. (2008b): Another Antiquated Dinosaur Engraving. Apologetic Press, Inc.
www.apologeticspress.org/APCContent.aspx?category =9&article=2423&topics=59.
LYONS, E. and BUTT, K. (2008): Physical evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and
Humans [Part I]. Apologetics Press, Inc. www.apologeticspress.org/APCContent.aspx?category
=9&article=1504&topics=446.
LYONS, E. and BUTT, K. (2008a): Physical evidence for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and
Humans [Part II]. Apologetics Press, Inc. www.apologeticspress.org/APCContent.aspx?category
=9&article=1504&topics=2416.
LYONS, E. and THOMPSON, B. (2005): Dinosaurs and Humans—Together? Apologetic Press,
Inc. www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1493.
MATSON, D. (1995): How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? The Secular Web.
http://infidels.org/
McMANUS, J. F. (2004): Paleoclimate: The Great Grand-daddy of Ice Cores. Nature. 429:611-
612.
MACKAY, J. (1983): Fossil Hammer. Creation Ex Nihilo. Vol. 1(4).
MACKAY, J. (1984): Ordovician Hammer Report. Creation Ex Nihilo. Vol. 2 (3).
MAJOR, T. (1994): Haeckel: The Legacy of a Lie. http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.
aspx?category=9&article=596 (accessed 2014).

208. MARTIN, J. H., GORDON R. M. and FITZWATER S. E. (1990): Iron in Antarctic waters.
Nature. 345:156-158.
MARTIN, J. H. and FITZWATER S. E. (1988): Iron deficiency limits phytoplankton growth in
the northeast Pacific subarctic. Nature. 331:341-343.
MASON, J. D. (2014): Serious Problems with Radiometric Dating: How Old are those Rocks?
Sword and Shield Online Newsletter. http://swordandshield.biz/Serious-Problems-With-
Radiometric-Dating.pdf
MASON, M. (2015): Dendrochronology: What tree Rings tell us about the Past and Present.
EnviromentalScience.org. http://www.environmentalscience.org/dendrochronology-tree-rings-
tell-us
MATHIS, A. and BOWMAN, C. (2005): What's in a number? Numeric ages for rocks exposed
within the Grand Canyon, Part 2: Nature Notes. (Grand Canyon National Park ), v. 21, no. 2, p.
1-5.
MATUYAMA, M. (1927): On the Subterranean Structure Around Sakurazima Volcano
Considered from the State of Gravitational Field. Japanese Journal of Astronomy and
Geophysics, 4(3):121–138. National Research Council of Japan.
MCKENNA, M. (2007): Biblical Battle of Creation Groups. The Australian. June 4.
MACLEOD, N., RAWSON, P. F., BANNER, F. T., BOUDAGHER-FADEL, M. K., BOWN,
P.R., BURNETT, J. A., CHAMBERS, P., CULVER, S., EVANS, S. E., JEFFERY, C.,
KAMINSKI, M. A., LORD, A. R., MILNER, A.C. MORRIS, N., OWEN E., ROSEN, B. R.,
SMITH, A. B., TAYLOR, P. D., URQUHART, E. and YOUNG, JR. (1997): The Cretaceous–
Tertiary biotic transition. Journal of the Geological Society. 154 (2): 265–292.
MCAINSH, G. L. (2012): Teaching Evolution. The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and
Culture. http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=5991
MCMURTY, G. S. (2014): The existence of Fire Breathing Dragons.
http://www.creationworldview.org /articles_view.asp?id=50
MCNAIR, J. (2012): Creation Museum Attendance Drops Fourth Straight year. City Beat. Nov.
7, 2012.
MERRILL, R. T., MCELHINNY, M. W., and MCFADDEN, P. L. (1998): The magnetic field of
the earth: paleomagnetism, the core, and the deep mantle. (San Diego:Academic Press). ISBN
978-0-12-491246-5.
MIKKELSEN, J. S. (2004): What Makes us Human? Genome Biology.5(8):238.

209. MILLER, D. (2014): Behemoth: A Tail like a Cedar?
http//www.apologeticpress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4145&topic=59.
MILLER, H. (1874): The Testimony of the Rocks. (Edinburgh:Nimmo). 108-109.
MILLER, J. and BUTT, K. (2008): Why Do You Use Illustrations of People Taming Dinosaurs?
Apologentics Press. www.apologeticspress.org/APCContent.aspx?category
=9&article=1605&topics=59.
MITCHELL, E. (2011): Will the Real Unicorn Please Stand Up?
https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/will-the-real-unicorn-please-stand-up/ (accessed
2014).
MITCHELL, T. (2006): Why does God’s Creation include Death and Suffering? in The New
Answer Book 1. Ken Ham editor. (Green Forest, Ar:New Leaf Publishing). Pp.325-338.
MITCHELL, T. (2010): The Second Law of Thermodynamics Began at the Fall: Arguments
Christians Shouldn’t Use. Nov. 2, 2010. www.answers ingenesis.org/creationsims/arguments-to-
avoid/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-began-at-the-fall
MITTON, J. B. and GRANT, M. C. (1996): Genetic Variation and the Natural History of
Quaking Aspen. BioScience. 46(1):25-31.
MORGAN, JILL (1954): This was His Faith, the Expository letters of G. Campbell Morgan.
(London: Pickering & Inglis). 39.
MORRIS, H. (1967): Evolution and the Modern Christian. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed). 40.
MORRIS, H. M. (1974): Scientific Creationism. (Green Forest Ar: Master Books). Pp. 118-120.
MORRIS, H. M. (1976): The Genesis Record. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books). P.p. 46.
MORRIS, H. M. (1984): Biblical Basis for Modern Science. Part IV. Ch. 15. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Books).
MORRIS, H. (1994): Naïve Literalism. Acts & Facts. 23(8).
MORRIS, H. (1996): Should Creationists Abandon the King James Version? Acts & Facts.
June. 1.
MORRIS, H. (1997): Why the Gap Theory Won’t Work. Acts & Facts. 26 (11).
MORRIS, H. III. (2011): A Flood of Influence. Acts & Facts. February. 4.
MORRIS, J. D. (1993): What Happened in the "Days of Peleg"?. Acts & Facts. 22 (10).

210. MORRIS, J. D. (1997): If All Animals were Created as Plant Eaters, Why do some have Sharp
Teeth? Back to Genesis. 100.
MORRIS, J. D. (2000): Radioistopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young Earth Creationist
Research Initiative. Eds. Vardiman, Snelling, Chaffin. (http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-
all.pdf ). Prologue.
MORRIS, J.D. (2001): How Long Does it take a Canyon to Form? Q & A #156. Institute for
Creation Research. www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&acti
MORRIS, J. (2003): Compromise in the Doctrine of Creation. Acts & Facts. 32(6).
MORRIS, J. D. (2012): Varves: Proof for an Old Earth? The Flaming Torch. Jan. Feb. March ed.
MORRIS, J. D. (2013): Is Belief in the Young Earth Necessary to be a Christian? Institute for
Creation Research. http://www.icr.org/article/1138/
MORRIS, J. D. and WHITCOMB J. C. (1993): The History of Modern Creationism. (Dallas,
TX:Institute for Creation Research). Pp.1-444.
MORRIS, P. S., RIGBY, K. J., and HINTZE, L. F. (1973): Historical Geology of North
America. (Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Co.). p. 209.
MORTENSON, T. (2006): The New Answers Book 1. Ham Gen. Ed. Ch. 2. Why shouldn’t
Christians Accept Millions of Years? (Green Forest, AR:Master Books). pp. 25-30.
MORTON, G. R. (1984): The carbon problem. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 20(4):212-
219.
MOULTON, H. K. (1977): The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised. (Grand Rapids,
MI:Zondervan). 220.
MOULTON, H. K. and MILLIGAN, G. (1980): The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing). 332.
MSNBC. (2005): Washington’s False Teeth not Wooden. Jan. 27, 2005. http://www.msnbc.com/
MULLAN, D. J. (2003): Excommunicated for Scientific Beliefs. National Catholic Register. On-
line. http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/excommunicated_for_scientific_beliefs/
MULVANEY, R. (2004): How are Past temperatures determined from an ice core. Scientific
America. ‘
MYERS, P.Z.(2008): "Transparent fakery". Pharyngula (blog). Retrieved 2013-12-19.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/28/transparent-fakery/

211. MYERS, P. Z. (n.d.): The Evolution of Creationism. Lecture. Youtube. (accessed 2014).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruBjWkVKyRo
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC (2014): KOMODO DRAGON VARANUS KOMOENSIS.
http://animals.nationalgeographic/animals/reptiles/Komodo-dragon. Accessed July 2014.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (2015): The Great Basin National Park, Nevada: The Bristlecone
Pines. http://www.nps.gov/grba/planyourvisit/identifying-bristlecone-pines.htm
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (2015a): Bryce Canyon: The Quaking Aspen.
http://www.nps.gov/brca/learn/nature/quakingaspen.htm
NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA. (website accessed 2012). www.nrcan.gc.ca.
NAVE, O. J. (1896): Nave’s Topical Bible, a Digest of the Holy Scriptures. (Nashville, TN: the
Southwestern Co.). 330-331.
NBC (2014): Four in 10 Americans believe God created the Earth and anatomically modern
humans, less than 10,000 years ago. Science /Science News. 2014.
NELSTEAD, K. (2013): Critique of “When was the Ice Age in Biblical History?”: The
Peistocene is Not in the Bible. Evidence for God.
http://godandscience.org/youngearth/ice_age_bible.html
NEUMAN, S. (2014): Creation Museum: Bill Nye Debate Sparked Funding Miracle. NPR.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/03/01/284397588/creation-museum-bill-nye-debate-
sparked-funding-miracle
NEW LIVING TRANSLATION (1996): New Living Translation. (Wheaton, IL:Tyndale
Publishing House). Job 40.
NEWPORT, F. (2012): In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins.
http://atheism.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=atheism&cdn=religion&tm=104&gps=
86_8_1536_691&f=10&tt=2&bt=8&bts=8&zu=http%3A//www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-
Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx
NEYMAN, G. (2010): Creation Science Rebuttals—Creationist Stratigraphy. Answers in
Creation. http://www.answersincreation.org/cstrat.htm
NEYMAN, G. (2001):Rebuttal to How Long Does it take a Canyon to Form; Q & A #156.
www.answersingenesis.org/rebuttal/icr/drjah.
NEYMAN, G. (2006): Creation Science Rebuttals—What Happen to the Dinosaurs? Answers in
Creation. http://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/cse/cse_dinosaur_whitmore.htm

212. NICOLE, L. (2006): IRS Agent Testifies in Hovind Trial, Case could go to Jury Thursday.
Pensacola News Journal. Oct. 31.
NILSSON, M. and RENBERG I. (1990): Viable Endospores of Thermoactinomyces vulgaris in
Lake Sediments as Indicators of Agricultural History. Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
56 (7):2025-2028.
NIV (1985): NIV Study Bible. (Grand Rapids:Zonderman). Job 40, 41.
NOAA (2014): In What Type Water do Corals Live? National Ocean Service.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralwaters.html
NORTH, F. J. (1933): Dean Conybeare, Geologist. Reports and Transactions of the Cardiff
Naturalists' Society. Vol. 66. 15-68.
NSTA/FEMA (1988): Tremor Troop Earthquakes: National Science Teachers' Association,
Washington, D.C.
NUMBERS, R. (n.d.): George McCready Price and ‘Flood Geology’. Counter Balance,
Historical Perspective. http://www.counterbalance.org/history/floodgeo-frame.html
NUMBERS, R. (n.d.): Creation Science - Henry M. Morris. Counter Balance, Historical
Perspective. http://www.counterbalance.org/history/morris-frame.html
NUMBERS, R. L. (2007): Why is Creationism So Popular in the USA? The Faraday Institute of
Science and Religion, Course, September 15, 2007
NUMBERS, R. (2014): Creation Science - Henry M. Morris. Historical Perspectives.
http://www.counterbalance.net/history/morris-frame.html (accessed 2014).
OARD, M. J. (1997): The Extinction of Dinosaurs. Journal of Creation. 11(2):137–154.
OARD, M. (2004): Frozen in Time. (Greenwood AR: Master Books). Ch. 1.
OARD, M. (2004a): Frozen in Time. (Greenwood AR: Master Books). Ch. 12.
OARD, M. (2007): Where Does the Ice Age Fit In? The New Answers Book 1. Ch. 16.
(Greenwood, AR;Masters Books)
O’BRIEN, M. (2006): Hard to Believe a Man with a Ph.D. did not Know a Basic Tax Law.
Pensacola News Journal. Nov. 3.
OMURAH, A. and REEH, N. (1991): New Precipitation and Accumulation Maps for Greenland.
Journal of Glaciology. 37(125):140-148.

213. OSKIN, B. (2014): California’s Worst Drought Ever is 1St
Taste of the Future. LiveScience.
http://www.livescience.com/49029-california-drought-worst-ever.html
OWEN, J.E. (2014): I Still Believe the “Gap Theory.” Searchlight. 66(107):10.
ORIGEN. (1917): De Principiis in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. (NY: Scribner). IV(5):4.
PAKENHAM, T. (2002): Remarkable Trees of the World. (NY:W. W. Norton). p. 74.
PATTERSON, R. (2011): Evolution Exposed Biology.
www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/dating-methods. Ch. 4.
PAUL, G. S. (1988): Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. (NY:Simon and Shuster) pp.135-138.
PAUL, G. S. (1988a): Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. (NY:Simon and Shuster) pp.19-129.
PAYNE, D. F. (1967): Genesis One Reconsidered. (London: Tyndale Press). p. 7.
PHELPS, DANIEL. (2008): The Anti-Museum: An overview and review of the Answers in
Genesis Creation “Museum.” National Center for Science Education DEFENDING THE
TEACHING OF EVOLUTION AND CLIMATE SCIENCE. 17-Oct., 2008.
PETAVIUS, DIONYSIUS (1627): De Opificio Sex Dierum. Bk. 1, Chap. ii, Section 10.
PERERIUS, B. (1591-99): Commentariorum et disputationum in Genesium. Vol. 1 Ch. 1 vs. 4.
note 80.
PEROUTKA, M. (2014): Michael Peroutka, in his own words [Editorial]. Baltimore Sun.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-peroutka-20141017-story.html
PETITE, J., MARTINE, B., and ROYER, A. (1981): Ice age aerosol content from East Antarctic
ice core samples and past wind strength. Nature. 293:391-394.
PETROW, S. (1992): The Lost Squadron. Life.15(14):60-68.
PHELAN, M.W. (2005) The Genesis Gap Theory Its Credibility and Consequences.
(Waterlooville UK:Twoedged Sword Publications) p. 103
PHELPS, D. (2008): The Anti-Museum: An overview and review of the Answers in Genesis
Creation “Museum.” National Center for Science Education. http://ncse.com/creationism/
general/anti-museum-overview-review-anwsers-genesis-creation-museum
PHILLIPS, W. (1822): Outlines of the geology of England and Wales. (England:W. Phillips).
PRICE, G. M. (1906): Illogical Geology The Weakest Point in the Evolution Theory. (Los
Angeles, CA:The Modern Heretic Co.). 1-93.

214. PROTHERO, D. (2014): Ken Ham’s Ark is Going Down, Going Down, Going Down. Skeptic
Blog. http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/06/17/ken-hams-ark-is-going-down/
PURDOM, G. and LOOY, M. (2011): Exposing the Anointed. AIG-U.S.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/10/04/exposing-the-anointed.
RAY, D. R. (2011). Research Facts on Homeschooling. National Home Education Research
Institute. Jan. 11. http://www.nheri.org/research/research-facts-on-homeschooling.html
RAY, L. L. (1992): The Great Ice Age. (Washington D. C.:General Printing Office).
RAFFAELE, P. (2006): Hippo Haven. Smithsonian.com.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/hippo-haven-107453678/?no-ist
RAUP, D. and SEPKOSKI, J. J. (1986): Periodic extinction of families and genera. Science.
231(4740):833-836.
REARDON, S. (2014): Big Dinosaurs were Warm Beasts. Science AAAS.
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2011/06/big-dinosaurs-were-warm-beasts
REESE, C.C., SOLOMATOV, V. S. and BAUMGARDNER, J. R. (2002): Survival of impact-
induced thermal anomalies in the Martian mantle. J. Geophys. Res.- Planets. 107(10):5082-5092.
REHWINKEL, A. M. (1951): The Flood in Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology. (St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House). 101.
REILY, P. J. (2013): Is the IRS persecuting Kent Hovind for Creationism? Forbes. On-line
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/02/08/is-irs-persecuting-kent-hovind-for-
creationism/
REUSCH, F. H. (1886): Nature and the Bible: Lectures on the Mosaic History of Creation In its
Relation to Natural Science, (translated from the 4th edition by Kathleen Lyttelton, T. & T.
Clark, Edinburgh). Vol. 1. 120.
RICE, D. F. (1971): Natural theology and the Scottish philosophy in the thought of Thomas
Chalmers. Scottish Journal of Theology. 24:23-46. doi:10.1017/S0036930600027393.
RIDDLE, M. (2006): Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? In The New Answer Book
1. Ken Ham ed. (Green Forest, AR:Master Books). 78.
RITCHIE, A. (1991): Will the Real Dr. Snelling Please Stand Up? The Skeptic. 11(4):12-15.
ROACH, D. (2010): HOW OLD? Age of Earth debated among SBC scholars. Florida Baptist
Witness. http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=12220

215. ROACH, D. (2015): Length of Creation Days Debated. The Baptist Press.
http://www.bpnews.net/44205/length-of-creation-days-debated.
ROACH, J. (2010): Why Does the Earth’s Magnetic Field Flip? National Geographic News.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0927_040927_field_flip.html
ROSS, H. (2011): Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books). 176-
177.
ROSS, H. (2014): Navigating Genesis A Scientist’s Journey through Genesis 1-11. (Covina, CA:
Reasons to Believe.Org). p. 37.
ROSS, H. (2014a): Navigating Genesis A Scientist’s Journey through Genesis 1-11. (Covina,
CA: Reasons to Believe.Org). p. 65.
ROTH, A. A. (1985): Are millions of years required to produce biogenic sediments in the deep
ocean? Origins. 12(1):48-56.
ROWAN UNIVERSITY (2013): Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
http://users.rowan.edu/~wyrick/Scablands/burlingame.html
RUDWICK, MARTIN J. S. (1997): Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones, and Geological
Catastrophes. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). pp. 22-24.
RUDWICK, MARTIN J. S. (1997a): Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones, and Geological
Catastrophes. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). pp. 129-133.
RUSBULT, C. (2010): Theology of Creationism.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/methods2.htm
SABATIER, L. A. (1897): Outline of a Philosophy of Religion based upon Philosophy and
History. (London: Hodder & Strouton). 1-348.
SABATIER, L. A. (1904): Religions of Authority and the Religion of the Spirit. (NY: McClure,
Phillips & Co.). 1-381.
SALE, K. (1991): The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy.
(Great Britain: Hoddard & Stoughton). 1-457.
SANDER, P. M., CHRISTIAN, A., CLAUSS, M., FECHNER, R., CAROLE, T. G.,
GRIEBELER, E., GUNGA,H., HUMMEL, J., MALLISON, H., PERRY, S.F., PREUSCHOFT,
H., RAUHUT, O., REMES, K., THOMAS, T., WINGS, O., and WITZEL, U., (2011): The
Biology of the Sauropod Dinosaurs: the Evolution of Gigantism. Biol. Rev. 86:117-155.
SAUER, E. (1936): Dawn of World Redemption. (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans). 36.

216. SAUNDERS, P. (1996): Search for a Fork-Tailed Devil. Compressed Air Magazine. 30-36.
SCAGEL, R. F., BANDONI, J.R., MAZE, J.R., ROUSE, G.E., SCHOFIELD, W.B. and STEIN,
J.R. (1984): Plants An Evolutionary Survey. (Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing Co.). 658-
660.
SCHADEWALD, R. J. (1982): Six Flood arguments creationist can’t answer. Creation/Evolution
IV: 12-17.
STERN, M. J. (2014): Non-Christians Need Not Apply. Ken Ham’s Creationism Theme Park is
Already in Trouble. Slate.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/ken_ham_ark_encounte
r_theme_park_religious_discrimination_may_block_kentucky.html
SCHLEE, J. (2013): USGS Science for a Changing World.
SCHLESINGER, M. E. (1991): Greenhouse-gas-induced Climate Change: A Critical Appraisal
of Simulations and Observations. (New York:Elsevier). P. 393.
SCLATER, J. G. (2003): Earth science: Ins and outs on the ocean floor. Nature. 421, 590-591 (6
February 2003) | doi:10.1038/421590a.
SCOFIELD, C. I. (1909): The Scofield Reference Bible. Ch. 1 vv. 1,2. Pg. 3.
SEARCHLIGHT, (Sept. 2014): Meet the New Instructor: Matthew Thornton. p. 4.
SEDGEWICK MUSEUM OF EARTH SCIENCE, THE (accessed 2013):
http://www.sedgwickmuseum.org/
SHARP (2014): Museum of Earth History.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Earth_History
SHEEHAN, P. (2005): Onward the new Christian Soldier. The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney
attractions.
SILVESTRU, E. (2013): Rocking Wrong Geology. Creation Ministries International.
http://creation.com/rocking-wrong-geology
SMICK, E. B. (1988); Job. Gaebelein, F. E. Gen. Ed. Expositor’s Bible Commentary. (Grand
Rapids, MI:Zondervan). P. 1049.
SMITH, HANNAH (2014): My Experience with Young Earth Creationism. Spiritual Sounding
Board. http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/07/10/ken-ham-young-earth-creation-young-
people-abandoning-their-faith-my-daughters-story/

217. SMITH, J. M. (2013): U.S. Department of Education: Homeschooling Continues to Grow.
HSLDA members’ homepage. http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2013/201309030.asp
SMITH-PYE, JOHN. (1839): Lectures on the Bearing of Geological Science upon Certain Parts
of the Scriptural Narrative. (London).
SNELLING, A. A. (1983): Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. Ex Nihilo. 6(1):42-46.
SNELLING A. A. (1990): Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea.
Ed. F. E. Hughes (Melbourne: Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy). 807-812.
SNELLING A. A. (1991): Fossil Magnetism Reveals Rapid Reversal of the Earth’s Magnetic
Field. AnswersinGenesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n3/fossil
SNELLING, A. A. (1994): Can Flood geology explain thick chalk layers? CEN Tech. J. 8 (1):
11-15.
SNELLING, A. A. (2009): Radiometric Dating: Making Sense of the Patterns.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-making-sense-of-
the-patterns/
SNELLING, A. A. and AUSTIN, S. A. (1992): Footprints and Sand ‘Dunes’ in a Grand Canyon
Sandstone! Answers in Genesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v15/n1/startling-
evidence-for-noahs-flood.
Snelling A. and Mathews, M. (2013): When was the Ice Age in Biblical History?
http://answeringgenesis.org/evironmental-science/ice-age/when-was-the-ice-age-in-bibli...
SNELLING, A.A. and VAIL, T. (2009): The New Answers Book 3. (Green Forest, AR: Master
Books). 183-184.
SNELLING, A. (2014): Can Flood Geology explain thick chalk beds? Journal of Creation.
http://creation.com/can-flood-geology-explain-thick-chalk-beds. Accessed 1/1/2014.
SNELLING, A. (2014): Coal beds and Noah’s Flood. Creation Magazine.
http://creation.com/coal-beds-and-noahs-flood. Accessed 1/1/14.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER (1947): www.splcenter.org. spring 2001. #101.
SPURGEON, CHARLES (1855): Volume I; NOS. 41,42; Unconditional Election, September 2,
1855.
STANLEY, G. D. JR. and FAUTIN, D. G. (2001): The Origins of Modern Corals: Science. 291:
1913-14.

218. STATE V. SCOPES. Trial Excepts. (2013): http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes
/scopes2.htm
STAMBAUGH, J. (1991): Creation’s Original Diet and the Changes at the Fall.
AnswersinGenesis. August 1.
STASSEN, C. (2003). A Criticism of the IRC’s Canyon Dating Project. The Talk Origin.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
STEGMAN, D. R., JELLINEK A. M., ZATMAN, S.A., BAUMGARDNER, J. R., and
RICHARDS, M. A. (2003): An early lunar core dynamo driven by thermochemical mantle
convection. Nature. 421:143-146. 10.1038/nature01267.
STERN, M. J. (2014): Non-Christians Need Not Apply. Slate.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/ken_ham_ark_encounter
_theme_park_religious_discrimination_may_block_kentucky.html
STEWART, W. N. (1983): Paleontology and the Evolution of Plants. (Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press). 405.
STEWART, M. (2007): Ten years of Dr. Dino. Pensacola News Journal. Jan. 19.
STRAUSS, B. (2014): The Early Mammals of the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods.
About.com. http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/earlymammals.htm?p=1
(accessed 7/2014).
STRAUSS, B. (2014): How Smart were Dinosaurs? Dinosaur intelligence and How it’s
measured. About Education. http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurbasics/a/dinosmarts.htm
STROMBERG, P. (2000): The Coso Artifact. Mystery from the Depths of Time. The Talk
Origin Archives. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html
STRONG, JAMES (1890): Strong’s Dictionary of the Hebrew Language. (London:Hodder and
Stroughton).
SWITEK, B. (2012): When Mammals Ate Dinosaurs. Smithsonian Magazine. http://www.
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-mammals-ate-dinosaurs-129282708/?no-ist June 12
TAFARELLA, S. (2011): Prometheus Unbound.
https://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/americas-largest-cult-64-of-evangelicals-hold-
to-the-young-earth-creationist-belief-that-god-created-humans-pretty-much-in-their-present-
form-at-one-time-in-the-last-10000-years-or-so/
TARBUCK, E.J. and LUTGENS F. K. (1991): Earth Science. (New York:Macmillan
Publishing). 646-647.

219. Ibid., 87-88.
TASHMAN, B. (2014): Pat Robertson Says 'You Have To Be Deaf, Dumb And Blind' To
Believe In Young Earth Creationism. Rightwing Watch. 5/3/2014.
TAYLOR, F. B. (1928): Sliding continents and tidal and rotational forces. In W.A. Van Der
Gracht and J. M. Waterschoot (eds.), Theory of Continental Drift. (Tulsa: American Association
of Petroleum Geologists). 158-177.
TAYLOR, P. S. (1987): Dinosaur Mania and Our Children. In Impact #167. (El Cajon,
CA:Institute for Creation Science).
TAYLOR, P. (2010): Dinosaurs—Alive after Babel? In A Pocket Guide to Dinosaurs Is there a
biblical explanation? (China: Answersingenesis). pp. 77-82.
TAYLOR, T. N., TAYLOR, E. L. and KRINGS, M. (2009): Paleobotany The Biology and
Evolution of Fossil Plants. (London:Elsevier). 1-996.
TELUSHKIN J. (1991): Jewish Literacy. (NY: William Morrow and Co. Inc.)
TEWARI, V., TEWARI, V.C., SECKBACK, J. (2011): Stromatolites: Interactions of Microbes
with Sediments. (N.Y.:Springer). 1-782.
THAYER, J. H. (1997): Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.). 336.
THE GEOCHRISTIAN (2014): The Earth. Christianity. They go together. The Old-Earth
Christian homeschooling vaccum. http://geochristian.com/2013/03/10/the-old-earth-christian-
homeschooling-vacuum/
THE GYMNOSPERM DATA BASE (2011): Cedrus libani A. Rich 1823.
http://www.conifers.org/pi/Cedrus_libani.php
THOMAS, N. and TAYLOR, E. L. (1993): The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants. (New
Jersy:Prentice Hall).
THOMPSON, B. (1996): The Gap Theory: A Refutation. (Montgomery: Apologetics Press Inc.).
THOMPSON, B. (1998): The Dinosaur Controversy. (Montgomery: Apologetics Press Inc.).
THORNTON, M. (2010): “Do you believe the Gap Theory?” A Personal Confession.
Missionary Baptist Searchlight. 66(62):3.
TIERNEY, J. (2009): Do Scientist Compete Unethically? The New York Times. May 12.

220. Torgerson, R. (2014): Untapped: The Story Behind the Green River Shale Formation.
Bakken.com. http://bakken.com/news/id/225072/untapped-story-behind-green-river-shale-
formation/
TUFTS UNIVERSITY (2012): North American Glacial Varve Project.
http://geology.tufts.edu/varves/news.
TURNER, S. (1833): The Sacred History of the World: As Displayed in the Creation and
Subsequent Events to the Deluge. Attempted to be Philosophically Considered in a Series of
Letters to a Son. (America:J & J Harper). Vol. 1.
TYLER, D. J. (1996): A Post-Flood Solution to the Chalk Problem. CENTech Journal. 10:107-
113.
UNGER, M. F. (1967): Unger’s Bible Dictionary. (Chicago: Moody Press). 226-227.
UNGER, M. F. (1974): Unger’s Guide to the Bible. (Wheaton, IL.: Tyndale Press). 118-122.
U.S. Department of Education (2012): Fast Facts. National Center for Education Statistics.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91
USGS (n.d.): Vishnu Basement Rocks.
http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/coloradoplateau/lexicon/vishnu.htm
USGS (n.d.): Geologic Provinces of the United States: Colorado Plateau Province.
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/province/coloplat.html
USGS (1999): Understand Plate Motions. GPS Satellite and Ground Receivers.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/understanding.html
USGS (2007): http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/types.html
USGS (2012): National Geomagnetism Program. Frequently Asked Questions.
http://geomag.usgs.gov/faqs.php
USSHER, J. (1650): Annales Veterius Testamenti. Wing. Early English Books 1641-1700.
Vardiman, L. (2000): Radioistopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young Earth Creationist
Research Initiative. Eds. Vardiman, Snelling, Chaffin. (http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/rate-
all.pdf ). Introduction.
VERRENGIA, J. B. (2005): Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal’s Stomach. Nevada Daily Mail.
http://www.livescience.com/3794-dinosaur-fossil-mammal-stomach.html
VINTHER, B., CLAUSEN, H., JONHSEN, S., RASMUSSEN, S., ANDERSON, K.,
BUCHARDT, T., DAHL-JENSEN, D., SEIERSTAD, I., SIGGAARD-ANDERSON, J.,

221. STEFFENSEN, J., SVENSSON, A., OLSON, J. and HEINEMEIER, J. (2006): A Synchronized
Dating of Three Greenland Ice Cores throughout the Holocene. Journal of Geophysical
Research. DOI:10.1029/2005JD006921. 1-9.
VARDIMAN, L. (2015): The Big Freeze. Video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRKOBf_-BVs
WALTERS, M.R. (1976): Development in Sedimentolgy: Stromatolites. (N.Y.:Elsevier). 1-789.
WARD, P. D. (2000): Rivers in Time the Search for Clues to Earth’s Mass Extinctions.
(N.Y.:Columbia University Press). p. 93.
VARDIMAN L., SNELLING, A.A. and EUGNENE F. ed. (2005): Radioisotopes and the Age of
the Earth, Vol. II. Waco, TX:Institute for Creation Research. Pp. 1-818.
WARFIELD, B. B. (1911): On the Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race. The Princeton
Theological Review. 261.
Watanabe H I, Fujiyama A, Hattori M, Taylor TD, Toyoda A, Kuroki Y, Noguchi H, BenKahla
A, Lehrach H, Sudbrak R, Kube M, Taenzer S, Galgoczy P, Platzer M, Scharfe M, Nordsiek G,
Blöcker H, Hellmann I, Khaitovich P, Pääbo S, Reinhardt R, Zheng HJ, Zhang XL, Zhu GF,
Wang BF, Fu G, Ren SX, Zhao GP, Chen Z, Lee YS, Cheong JE, Choi SH, Wu KM, Liu TT,
Hsiao KJ, Tsai SF, Kim CG, OOta S, Kitano T, Kohara Y, Saitou N, Park HS, Wang SY, Yaspo
ML, Sakaki Y. (2004): DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22.
Nature. 2004 May 27;429(6990):382-8.
WATERSON, R. H. and WILSON, R. K. (2005): Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome
and comparison with the human genome. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature04072; Received 21 March
2005; Accepted 20 July 2005.
WEBSITE (2013): Canyon Ministries. http://www.canyonministries.com/
WEGENER, A. (1912a): Die Entstehung der Kontinente. Petermanns Geogr. Mitt. 58:185-195;
253-256; 305-308.
WEGENER, A. (1912b): Die Entstehung der Kontinente. Geol. Rundscho. 3:276-292.
WERNER, A. (1774): On the External Characters of Fossils, or of Minerals. English translation
by Weaver with notes. (Edinburgh: Wernerian society).1849-1850.
WHITCOMB, J.C. and MORRIS, H.M. (1961): The Genesis Flood. (Phillipsburg NJ:P&R
publishing). p.128.
WHITCOMB, J.C. and MORRIS, H.M. (1961a): The Genesis Flood. (Phillipsburg NJ:P&R
publishing). p.160.

222. WHITCOMB, J.C. and MORRIS, H.M. (1961b): The Genesis Flood. (Phillipsburg NJ:P&R
publishing). pp. 120-122.
WHITCOMB, J.C. and MORRIS, H.M. (1961c): The Genesis Flood. (Phillipsburg NJ:P&R
publishing). p. 276.
WHITCOMB, J.C. and MORRIS, H.M. (1961d): The Genesis Flood. (Phillipsburg NJ:P&R
publishing). pp. 184-185,189, 211.
WHEELER, D.R. (2013): Old Earth Young Minds: Evangelical Homeschoolers Embrace
Evolution. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/old-earth-young-
minds-evangelical-homeschoolers-embrace-evolution/273844/
WHITE, T. E. (1964): The Dinosaur Quarry, in E. Sabatka, ed., Guidebook to the Geology and
Mineral Resources of the Uinta Basin. (Salt Lake City: Intermountain Assc. of Geologists). Pp
25-26.
WHITE, A. L. (1985): “Chapter 7 – (1846-1847) Entering Marriage Life”, Ellen G. White: The
Early Years, Vol. 1 1827-1862, pages 122-123.
WIELAND, C. (1997): The Lost Squadron. Creation Ex Nihilo. 19(3):10-14.
WIENS, R. C. (2002): Radiometric Dating. A Christian Perspective. The American Scientific
Affiliation. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens.html#page17.
WIKIBOOKS (2014): Evolutionary Biology/Carl Linnaeus.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Evolutionary_Biology/Carl_Linnaeus
WIKILEAKS. (2009): Young-earth creationist Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertation.
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-
earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation
WIKIPEDIA (2014): Crocodiles. Accessed Dec., 2014.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_crocodile
WILFORD, J. N. (2005): When Dinosaurs Ruled; A Mammal Ate (a little) One. New York
Times.Com Science. Jan. 13, 2005.
WILSON, W. (1990): Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies. (Peabody, MA:Hendrickson). 80.
WING, S. L., HICKEY, L. J. and SWISHER, C. C. (1993): Implications of an exceptional fossil
flora for Late Cretaceous vegetation. Nature 363:342-344.
WITTY, M. (2011): The White Cliffs of Dover are an Example of Natural Carbon Sequestration.
Ecologia Vol. 1. 23-30.

223. WOOD, T. and SNELLING, A. (2008): Looking Back and Moving Forward. Answers Magazine.
Oct-Dec. 2008.
WOODMORAPPE, J. (1986): The antediluvian biosphere and its capability of supplying the
entire fossil record. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism. R.E.
WALKER, T. (2009): The Fatal Flaw with Radioactive Dating Methods. Creation Ministries
International. http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-fatal-flaw
WALSH, C. L. BROOKS, and R.S. CROWELL (eds.). (Pittsburg: Creation Science Fellowship)
Vol. 2:205-218.
WORLD FORAMINIFERA DATA BASE (2013). http://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera/
WILSON, W. (1990): Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies. (Peabody, MA:Hendrickson
Publishers). 249.
WONDERLY D. (1977): God’s Time-Records in Ancient Sediments. (Oakland MD: Crystal
Presss). Pp. 33-34.
WONDERLY D. (2006): Neglect of Geological Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared with
Young-Earth Creationist Writings. (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplanary Biblical Research Institute).
Forward.
WOODMORAPPE, J. (1999): The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. Institute for Creation
Research, El Cajon, CA.
WUEST, K. (1955): Prophet Light in Present Darkness. (Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans). 66.
YANG, D., ISHIDA, S., GOODISON, B., and GUNTHER, T. (1999): Bias Corrections of Daily
Precipitation Measurements for Greenland. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres.
104(D6):6171-6181.
YIOU, F., RAISBECK, G., BAUMGARTNER, S., BEER, J., HAMMER, C., JOHNSEN, S.,
JOUZEL S., KUBIK, P., LESTRINGQUEZ, J., STIEVENARD, M., SUTER, M. and YIOU, P.
(1997). Beryllium 10 in the Greenland Ice Core Project Ice Core at Summit, Greenland. Journal
of Geophysical Research. 102 (C12):26,783-26,794.
YOUNG, F. (2013): Blood Filled Mosquito is a Fossil First. Nature.
doi:10.1038/nature.2013.13946.
YOUNG, D. A. (1990): The discovery ofterrestrial history. In: Portraits of Creation, H.J. Van
Till, R.E. Shaw, J.H. Stek and D.A. Young (eds), William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, pp. 80–81.

224. YOUNG, R. (1970): Analytical Concordance to the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Co.) 373.
ZAIMOV, S. (2012): Ken Ham of Creation Museum Slams Robertson for Dismissing Young
Earth Theory. The Christian Post. On-line. Accessed Dec. 22, 2014.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-ham-of-creation-museum-slams-robertson-for-
dismissing-young-earth-theory-85887/
ZAIMOV, S. (2013): Creation Museum to Admit Children for Free in 2014 to Combat
Evolutionist 'Indoctrination'. The Christian Post. On-line. Accessed Dec. 13, 2013.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/creation-museum-to-admit-children-for-free-in-2014-to-
combat-evolutionist-indoctrination-110648/
ZIGLMA, A (2014): Africa’s 10 most Dangerous Animals. About Travel.Com.
http://goafrica.about.com/od/africasafariguide/tp/dangerousanimals.htm
ZOCKLER, O. (1954): Creation and Preservation in New Schaff-Herzog Encylopedia of
Religious Knowledge. ed. George W. Gilmore. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House). 3:302.
ZYLSTRA, S.E. (2013): A New Creation Story. Why do more homeschoolers want evolution in
their textbooks? Christianity Today. Accessed 4/29/2013.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/may/new-creation-story.html