Bible and Science Video Link

The Bible and Science Video Link


Click on this link to go to a Bible and Science Video Presentation

True Bible Teaching

An independent study of the Bible will reveal that the following are key True Bible Teachings:

  1. The Bible is God's word and the only message from him. It is without error, except for copying and translation errors.
  2. There is only one God - the Father. The Holy Spirit is God's power.
  3. Jesus is the Son of God, and a human being, through his mother Mary.
  4. Man is mortal, having no existence when dead.
  5. By living a sinless life, ending with his sacrificial death by crucifixion, Jesus has opened the way of salvation from death.
  6. Belief and baptism are essential steps to salvation.
  7. God raised Jesus from death. Jesus is currently in Heaven, on God's right hand. He will one day return.
  8. When Jesus returns, he will raise his "sleeping" followers from death and grant immortality to the faithful who have tried to live by God's precepts.
  9. His followers will help him to rule, bringing justice, righteousness and peace to the whole world - the Kingdom of God.

If you'd like to learn about the Bible then join us with one of our FREE ONLINE BIBLE COURSES and we would invite you to click here to go to our  REGISTER / SUBSCRIBE form so we can keep you up to date with our True Bible Teaching website.


Bible Truth


Is Bible Truth important to your Faith and Salvation ie. will you be saved despite what you believe the bible teaches or does it matter what you believe?

Well the word “truth” appears 237 times in the bible, that alone says it must be important!

Therefore it must be important to understand what “truth” is.

A quick scan of the passages using this word “truth” leave us in no doubt that it is not only important, but vital to our salvation.

John 17:3

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 5:20

20And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true,even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

1 Timothy 2:3-4

3For thisis good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


Clearly then knowing what is Bible Truth is important and vital, in addition to this we are also warned that some would depart from the “truth”…

1 Timothy 4:1

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry,and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1 John 4:6

6We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

From these passages it is very clear that we need to know the “truth” about God and His Son as it is taught to us in the Bible.  This means we must learn what this is from the Bible itself.


Don't let your HOPE of LIFE ETERNAL rest with someone else eg. your pastor or minister, YOU owe it to yourself and your family to be fully convinced of what it is you believe to be sure it HOLDS something REAL for you.

We have all been warned by God that there would be many false teachers and Jesus himself has told us that "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."  See Matthew 7:14


Sadly when Christ returns to this earth, many will only then realise that they have believed in lies Jeremiah 16:19

"19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit."

Don't let this be you or your family!


BIBLE TRUTH and true faith must be founded on a fully inspired Bible.


Click here to learn more about the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD:The Inspired Word of God


TBT logo

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”  John 17:3


Our Commitment to all True Bible Teaching Seekers is that all our teaching will be supported by consistent and clear Bible Passages.


The Greek word for "know" in the passage above is 'ginosko' and it means to have a thorough and deep understanding of the subject. 


So if you seek "life eternal" then you must truly "know the only true God and Jesus Christ".


Click here to learn more about the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD:The Inspired Word of God


God's Offer of LIFE or DEATH

“Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.   See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him… This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life…"  Deuteronomy Chapter 30:12-20


From this passage we see how important it is to each one of us that we seek after God and His Word the Bible to us.


Without this we have no hope of LIFE, but only a future of DEATH.


This Word of God was originally given to the Nation of Israel and later it spread via the Apostles of Christ to the World, that even we today might have this same HOPE of LIFE ETERNAL.


It is UP to YOU then to seek out God’s Word, to KNOW what is the TRUTH of God’s Word so that you and your family might KNOW the way of LIFE ETERNAL and the great HOPE of living in God’s Kingdom on EARTH.


Do not let your HOPE rest upon others and most importantly on what others teach, search it out for yourself because we have been warned that the churches would be astray from God’s word in the last days.


"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”   2 Timothy 4:3-4


Too much is at stake for you to not act yourself to seek out the TRUTH.


Christ himself has told us to do this when he said…


But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. Godis a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:23-24

To learn about God's Promises to You click on the pdf:The Inspired Word of God

Creation Research

The Institute of Creation Research


Visit this Link to view


the latest in


Creation Research


NOTE: While True Bible Teaching is very supportive of the Institutes Creation Research, we do not necessarily agree with all there teaching as far as the Bible is concerned.

Invest in the Bible!

Make the Best Investment of Your Life

YOUR Families Salvation

The Bible Is Our ONLY Guide

The Holy BibleThe Bible provides us with plain Scriptural Teaching for the True Followers of Christ

The statements on this guide represent what we believe is true Bible teaching. The statements are deliberately challenging, asking every reader to compare his own opinions with the plain teaching of Scripture, examining carefully the Bible passages offered as proof. If, as a result, a change of mind and heart is called for, there will be no doubt that the teaching of the Lord, and the book he trusted, must be followed and not what the churches teach.


All Scripture quotations are taken from the New King James (also known as the Revised Authorized) Version of the Bible.


Read The Bible Guide   The Bible our Guide to Salvation


Download your personal Bible Reading Chart: Bible Reading Chart


Would you like to know more about Bible History ie. when things happened.  Then download this Bible Timeline:Bible Timeline


Please send us your Comments!

Click the image to give us your comments...


Let us know what you think, and what you would like us to include on this WEBSITE


Noah's Ark by God's Design Approved by Science

Noah's Ark by God's Design is Approved by Science


Harmony of Bible and Science Presented in a Series of Articles


Bible and Science - The Conclusion of the Whole Matter

The Conclusion of the Whole MatterCome now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD (Isaiah 1:18).

Science cannot prove there is a God, but neither can it establish the atheist’s opposite contention. Conversely religion cannot dismiss the findings of scientific inquiry without incurring ridicule. We have maintained throughout these articles that the pursuit of both scientific and Biblical wisdom is a valid path to travel if we seek to understand the nature of the universe and our place in it. It isn’t an either/or proposition as far as I am concerned. One shouldn’t be forced to choose one road or the other, which unfortunately are the alternatives often presented, especially to young people.

Scientists differ in their views

Some would picture science as providing a completely rational and deterministic worldview in which all things are capable of being understood. The theories of science are presumed to always be verifiable by experimentation with no need to invoke faith or a higher power to explain our existence. Religious men and women on the other hand are often inclined to dismiss science as a tool of godless men intent on defaming the word of God. Indeed the statements of some scientists could lead religious-minded people to despair and sorrow. One well-known Nobel laureate, Professor Steven Weinberg1 has written: The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.2 In a later work by the same author he is even more persistent in his attack on any attempt to reconcile God and science.3As far as I know, from reading his works, Dr. Weinberg appears to be an honorable and sincere person who is certainly entitled to his opinions. Though statements like this get a lot of publicity, such conclusions should not be construed to be the definitive collective view of all scientists.

Another Nobel laureate, Professor Charles Townes, takes quite the opposite point of view on the relationship between religion and science.4 Townes has written: Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. But nothing is absolutely proved. He has also written: Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. He [Townes] said that, with the findings of modern physics, it seems extremely unlikely that the existence of life is ‘just accidental.’5

Scientific theories constantly challenged

I cite these diametrically contrary views from two very distinguished Nobel laureates to illustrate it is simply not true that scientists have a uniform outlook on the relationship between science and religion.

What causes this dichotomy? The simple answer is that when insufficient data is available it is nearly impossible to achieve a definitive model that nearly all scientists will accept. This is to be expected; it is inherent in the scientific method that ongoing inquiries will continue, new ideas will be tested and methods for checking them devised. In the end, scientists are no better or worse than any other profession, but there is one facet of the scientific process that is unique; the openness that continually subjects ideas to peer scrutiny. If a scientific model is flawed or limited in its scope, sooner or later it will be exposed.

Newton challenged by Einstein

At one time physicists believed that the universe was infinite in scale because it was known via Newton’s laws that a finite universe was unstable and would eventually collapse due to mutual gravitational attraction. Only an infinite universe was thought capable of avoiding this so-called “big crunch.” The principle that matter could neither be created nor destroyed in an experiment, a concept that came out of 19th century chemistry laboratories, argued for an eternal universe, i.e. one that had always existed.

Read more ...


Bible and Science - Here Comes the Sun

Here Comes the SunAnd God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:…And the evening and the morning were the fourth day (Gen. 1:16-19).

Where did modern man come from? Are we the product of a long evolutionary line that originated with monkeys and eventually branched off to form what is now called homo sapiens (which means wise human being) or were we the result of specific creation by the power of the LORD God?

The great court case

One of the most famous trials in the history of the United States considered these questions. It took place in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee, and involved a public school educator named John Thomas Scopes who was tried for teaching the Darwinist view that the human race descended from monkeys.1 Teaching evolution was in direct violation of a state law which permitted only the literal Biblical interpretation of the creation story from Genesis 1. The trial became famous, indeed infamous, not only because of the issues involved, but because two of the most prominent lawyers of that day were pitted against each other. Assisting the prosecution was William Jennings Bryan, who had thrice run for the Presidency of the United States and lost all three times. He was a devout Christian who saw himself as upholding the scriptures by helping to prosecute this case. On the side of the defense was Clarence Darrow, who just the year before had successfully defended Leopold and Loeb.2

Darrow came to Dayton, Tennessee, to uphold what he believed was the cause of modern enlightenment. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was looking for a test case to overturn creationism and offered free counsel to any teacher who agreed to defy the law. Scopes was a convenient and willing tool. Ironically, Darrow and Scopes lost the case3 and Scopes was fined $100. The Tennessee law was not removed from the books until 1967, long after Darrow had passed away.

Main issues still alive

What makes the Scopes trial so important for the Bible believer is that the issues raised in that courtroom in 1925 haven’t gone away. The writings of the popular press4 and theater5 have served to make Scopes and Darrow heroes while Bryan is usually made out to be a naive old fool. Bryan was maneuvered into taking the witness stand as an “expert witness” and questioned at some length on the veracity of the Genesis creation story. Darrow cleverly trapped him into making a number of nonsensical replies. Unfortunately, the same questions often come up today, because opponents of the Biblical version of creation have read about the Scopes trial, or are familiar with the theatrical version,6 or simply because they have been similarly influenced by the theory of evolution almost as if it were a religion itself. What were the questions that were posed to Bryan that caused him to stumble?

Bryan trapped on order of events

Darrow started by asking if Bryan took everything in the Bible literally. Bryan, being no fool, said mostly but of course there were also figurative things in the scriptures. He was then asked if he thought that the six days of creation were six literal 24-hour days. Again Bryan, who was not the strict fundamentalist that he has sometimes been portrayed in history, stated: “My impression is that they were periods.” (We intend to go into the time periods of the creation week in another chapter.) Then he got into some difficulty when Darrow asked if he believed literally that the order and time structure of creation was exactly as stated in Genesis 1. How then could the Sun appear on the fourth day of creation when three days had already happened!

Questions such as these are still posed by skeptics seeking to subject the Bible to scientific ridicule. Bryan stumbled over this question (and others) and really had no good answers. He became so flustered that he was trapped into saying things that were nonsense. At one point, in response to a question which asked whether he had previously thought about these difficult Bible passages, he replied: “I do not think about things I don’t think about.” The popular press had a field day with this statement. Ironically, Christadelphians can get themselves in the same situation if we don’t think about difficult questions and instead put our heads in the sand hoping they will go away.

Some of the problems

Even today Bible scholars, who have no doubts in their own minds, have to realize that it may take more than unquestioned faith to convince the skeptic, or possibly even their own children who are faced with these difficult Biblical questions in school or by their peers. An answer based on “God can do anything He wants” may be perfectly correct, but hardly sufficient to convince the doubter. We are admonished to,

Read more ...


Bible and Science - Swiss Cheese

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Rom. 1:20).

Swiss CheeseMany years ago, when I was a graduate student at the University of Illinois, a Nobel Prize winning scientist visited the Physics department. During the course of his seminar, he ventured an insight that defined the difference in viewpoint between experimental and theoretical physics. To paraphrase what he said: For the theorist two points define a straight line while for an experimentalist a thousand points will not suffice.1 The thought behind his definition was to point out that many times in science, important physical discoveries would have been overlooked if physicists had been satisfied with only a cursory examination of their data because it seemed to fit some existing theory. Many times new data expanded the frontiers of physics even though existing theory had made everything appear to be solved.

A famous misstatement

One of the most famous examples of this syndrome was the assertion by Michelson2 made at the turn of the 20th century at the University of Chicago. When reviewing the results of 19th century physics, he is reputed to have said that physics had discovered all the known laws of the universe; all that needed to be done was to fill in the decimal places, implying that obtaining greater accuracy for the known physical constants was the only remaining challenge for physicists.

Ironically, at virtually the same time he was making these comments, a German physicist, Max Planck, was in the process of doing experiments that would shortly lead to the revolutionary idea of quantum mechanics that would turn the world of physics inside out.

The first half of the 20th century was full of new surprises. Besides quantum mechanics, what followed was relativity, atomic physics and later subatomic physics (just to name a few), none of which followed classical 19th century ideas. Classical theoretical physics was full of holes and the new information created a whole new world of thought, along with the need for brand new theories.

Darwinism full of holes

A flawed theory is sometimes called a “Swiss cheese” theory because it is full of holes. As we discussed above, the holes in the analysis may not be recognized because existing well-accepted theory, based on insufficient evidence, appears to have solved everything.

Classical Darwinism is essentially a moldy Swiss cheese theory; the concept of gradual small incremental changes over eons of time leading to the plethora of species on this planet just does not match the fossil evidence, nor has it been able to explain the fact that evolution seems entirely contrary to known physical laws. Evolutionists know this and are scrambling to patch up the holes with new ideas called neo-Darwinism and such concepts as punctuated equilibrium.3 One can only wonder if this exercise will succeed any better than trying to fill in the holes in real Swiss cheese! What I intend to discuss in this article are the flaws, or holes, in the theory of evolution. No theory in science can be considered acceptable if it has imponderables attached to it, mechanisms that are unknown, and concepts that counter known physical laws. The theory of evolution (as of this writing) fails as a scientific theory on all three counts. Let’s take a detailed look at the holes in Darwinism.

Fundamental laws violated by evolution

The first concern to note is that Darwin’s model of evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics (or information theory, which is a manifestation of the same underlying principle). We discussed this at length in the chapter on DNA, but it is equally applicable here in considering the so-called gradual ascent of man from one-celled protozoa. Plainly, Darwinism assumes that more ordered higher-level biological forms could evolve from lesser structures when the law of entropy clearly proves that the universe tends to a state of maximum disorder. What is the mechanism that allows biological processes to repeal this law? A little scientific proof would be welcome!

Read more ...


Bible and Science

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter (Prov. 25:2).

The Bible and ScienceIt is a common fallacy to claim that science has proven the Bible wrong. The corollary to this statement is that scientists supposedly don’t believe in God because the concept of an omniscient divine being cannot be proven by any rational means.

Belief among scientists

In the 1920’s, at the time of the Scopes trial on teaching evolution, it was believed by many educated people that eventually science would triumph and would explain all things in the universe in terms of rational quantitative laws – that is, physical laws that were inherent in nature and that did not require the invoking of a divine being to explain our existence.

There was also a strong undercurrent in intellectual circles of agnosticism,1 whose thinking can be epitomized in a quote from the writings of the Scopes trial lawyer, Clarence Darrow: To say that God made the universe gives us no explanation of the beginnings of things. If we are told that God made the universe, the question immediately arises: Who made God?2 In 1916, only a few years before the Scopes trial, there was a survey taken of scientists questioning their belief in a God; this survey was repeated again in 1997 and the results were quite startling. The following is an excerpt from a report on these two surveys, which were taken almost 80 years apart:

Repeating verbatim a famous survey first conducted in 1916, Edward Larson of the University of Georgia has found that the depth of religious faith among scientists has not budged regardless of whatever scientific and technical advances this century has wrought.

Then as now, about 40 percent of the responding biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in a God who, by the survey’s strict definition, actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray “in expectation of receiving an answer.”

The figure of unqualified believers is considerably lower than usually cited for Americans as a whole. Gallup polls, for example, have found that about 93 percent of people surveyed profess a belief in God. But those familiar with the survey said that, given the questionnaire’s exceedingly restrictive definition of God – narrower than the standard Gallup question – and given scientists’ training to say exactly what they mean and nothing more, the 40 percent figure in fact is impressively high.”3

In my own experience, I have not found much difference in the degree of belief and commitment to religion among fellow scientists compared with almost everyone else I know in other professions. In fact, it has often been my experience that it is non-scientists who are the ones who make the most vociferous claims that science has made religion superfluous! Why this happens is hard to fathom; perhaps working scientists are more aware of the limits of science and less inclined to worship it as if it were a new religion.

Read more ...


Bible and Science - From Single Cells to Man – HowBible and Science - From Single Cells to Man – How?

And God said,  “Let the water teem with living creatures (Gen. 1:20)

In the previous article, we examined the question of how life began.  Now let us turn our attention to the progression from single cells to complex organisms.  What is the mechanism that allowed single cells to assemble into mollusks, trees, reptiles and mammals?

The absent mechanism is the key

The evolutionist doesn’t tend to dwell much on mechanisms; they are more or less taken for granted!  When an evolutionist is asked to specify the mechanism, the usual answer is to bluff his way through it by stating; though we don’t know the mechanism, the fact of evolution cannot be doubted.  Lest you think I am misstating the evolutionist’s position, let me cite it in an evolutionist’s own words:

“Evolution:…In evolutionary biology, as in all active areas of research, there is lively debate among scientists.  But such argument focuses on the mechanism by which evolution has taken place, not upon the concept of evolution itself…1

This quote was copied by the author from an inscription accompanying an exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.2  This is what school children are being exposed to at virtually every natural history museum around the world.

In the physical sciences, to presume the fact of a theory without knowing the mechanism would make you the laughing stock of your profession.  The plain fact is that no one knows how single cells presumably got the idea to assemble into large-scale organisms.  The figure below is a schematic representation of approximately how the sequence of life was supposedly created.  The question marks represent the principal “unknown” mechanism.

human cells advanceThe first issue to consider is, namely, how did nature advance from individual chemical elements to the DNA/RNA building blocks of living cells that was considered in the previous article?  The evolutionist’s argument in this case essentially rests on his contention that time was the hero, which is assuredly an argument based on faith, but not faith in a creator.  Rather it is akin to the addicted gambler’s blind belief that he or she will always win a game of chance no matter what the odds.  The faith of the evolutionist is based on the concept of “it happened” therefore blind chance must have made it occur (because believing in God is unacceptable to him).  Moreover the evolutionist makes such an argument apparently oblivious to the fact that it is a religious argument made in reverse, i.e. faith here is built on the belief (as we have shown previously) that the physical laws of the universe somehow don’t apply, or are suspended for biological processes.

I do not mean to imply by this that there is no evidence at all for evolution or for natural selection for that matter.  Of course there is, with such observations as the adaptability of certain moths to new environmental conditions being well known.  However, using such short-term effects and extrapolating them to explain life on earth as we find it today is simply not legitimate.  It is extremely poor science to take a little bit of data and press its application far outside the realm of observation.  This is a ‘sin’ that is common in many an evolutionist’s arguments.

Geologic record confounds evolutionist’s theories

The second thing to think about is: how did individual cells assemble into even the simplest living creatures such as mollusks?  The Bible says: And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures’ (Gen. 1:20), so at least in this regard there seems to be agreement between the evolutionist’s views and the Biblical account; both consider the sea as the first nurturing place for life on this planet.

The Bible could have put man first and then claimed all things were then created for his pleasure; some ancient pagan beliefs actually had this as the order of things.  Evolutionists often like to deride the first chapter of Genesis for its lack of details, but seldom (never!) give Moses credit (through revelation, of course) for essentially getting the order of things right.

Read more ...


Bible and Science - Were the Angels Once a Prehistoric Race on Earth?

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. (Rev. 4:11).

Abraham meeting with the Angels of GodWe saw previously in these articles that there is negligible evidence linking the various hominid species that appear in the fossil record over the past four million years. The support for the Darwinist view of gradual change causing the hominid progression is entirely circumstantial and would not hold up in a court of law! Indeed, recent findings for other eras of prehistory (the Cambrian for example) indicate abrupt changes and explosive emergence of new species without any apparent linkage with the past.1 Let’s examine some of the problems associated with the fossil record concerning hominid species and see if there is an alternative model other than Darwinism.

Simple math disproves Darwin

If human-like creatures existed for 4 million years prior to modern man, what was their population demography? Even a cursory calculation of the number of beings that could have existed from these pre-homo sapiens yields a very large number. Assume, for example, that the average span of a generation was 20 years; then we would have some 200,000 generations worth of fossils that potentially could be found since “Lucy”.2

Using this figure, there are a couple ways to estimate the pre-modern hominid population. We could assume the usual geometric progression sequence, which would mean the population would double in each succeeding generation (this is a model used by evolutionists to explain rapid expansion of a so-called genetic innovation3). The geometric assumption means we need to raise 2 to the exponent 200,000 to span all the hominid generations from “Lucy” down to our modern era. This would give us the total population that had been born over the 4 million year period. This number is so large that it would take several pages filled with zeros to write it down hence we will discount this approach [1x10500 for the mathematically inclined].

We can take a more conservative demographic model and assume that the hominid populace some 4 million years ago quickly reached a stable population of about 10,000 creatures and didn’t grow beyond this range.4 Using this conservative estimate we come up with a figure of approximately 20 billion hominid fossils that could possibly have existed. This is about 4 times the present population of human beings on this planet. Where are all these fossils? The answer usually given is that they are so dispersed that they are hard to find (yet evolutionists usually state that early hominids concentrated in East Africa). With so large a potential number of fossils, sooner or later it should be possible to definitively prove whether or not there were links between the various hominid species and modern man.

No genetic links

At the present time, even though it may be unstated in grades K through 12 textbooks, or in Natural History Museum guidebooks, there is no convincing proof of direct genetic links between say Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals, or between homo sapiens and either one of them. It is entirely possible that each of these species arose independently of the others, lived and flourished for a time period by themselves and then disappeared from this planet.

No technological advances

Another remarkable thing about prehistoric hominid fossils is the apparent lack of any evidence that over the past 4 million year time period there was any noticeable advance in the technological skills of these creatures. Simple stone tools have been found in some burial sites where fossils have been recovered and that seems to be the extent of their technology.

Read more ...


This website is a compilation of commonly known scientific evidence supporting creation — evidence in the fields of geology, biology, medicine, paleontology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, astrophysics, and astronomy, and specific research by esteemed scientists, and from my own personal experience as a consulting geologist and biologist.

This site was completed after having grown weary of false evolutionary doctrine promoted by public television, national networks and other media, and taught in our public schools. Although "evolutionary theory" does not meet the universally accepted definition of 'theory' or 'hypothesis' or, for that matter, the universally accepted defintion of 'science' (see section, Creation versus Evolution, for definitions), students continue to be taught evolution as “proven fact”—and later in life, they perpetuate this doctrine as teachers, journalists, and parents without question.

What many people today never hear and realize is the fact that so-called evolutionary theory is not based on known scientific laws or the preponderance of scientific evidence. Rather, scientific creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, is perfectly consistent with all known laws and evidence—and such evidence is overwhelming. The reality is, evolutionary doctrine is built on false assumptions and poor science. It is the greatest deception in modern history.

Why do secular scientists continue to adhere to a false evolutionary doctrine? This site provides the reasons, and summarizes much of the evidence for scientific creation. I ask any skeptical person to give this site an impartial reading before dismissing the scientific creationist viewpoint.


Intelligent Design News and Views


Creation Science


Institute of Creation Research