Search This Blog

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Why is the world upside down and backwards? Jonathan Sarfati and his books will help us begin the Noahic Flood and YEC series...first, why do scientists BECOME creationists? Evidence!

Chemistry Professors Are Unstable

«« The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all energy systems run down like a clock and never rewind themselves. But life not only 'runs up,' converting low energy sea-water, sunlight and air into high-energy chemicals, it keeps multiplying itself into more and better clocks that keep 'running up' faster and faster.
    Why, for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to organize themselves into a professor of chemistry? What's the motive?
    If we leave a chemistry professor out on a rock in the sun long enough the forces of nature will convert him into simple compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and small amounts of other minerals. It's a one-way reaction. No matter what kind of chemistry professor we use and no matter what process we use we can't turn these compounds back into a chemistry professor.
    Chemistry professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable compounds which, in the exclusive presence of the sun's heat, decay irreversibly into simpler organic and inorganic compounds. That's a scientific fact.
    The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the sun's energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be something else. What is it? »»

Robert M. Pirsig,
"Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals," Bantam: London, 1991, pp.144-145.
More quotes at
Robert Pirsig...back in the day, after the military while I was still what we call a "seeker" I read a book called "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."

Yes, perhaps you took the time to check it out?  I read a wide variety of authors back then, Castenada, Tolkien, Skinner, Rand...history books, the Koran (until the utter boredom and terrible writing put me off), the Boo-Hoo Bible, reams of light reading as well.   I did classwork and played sports and worked and partied.  Sometimes I tried to figure it all out and sometimes I just said heck with it and got drunk or high.  But I have to admit that the Pirsig book was interesting, more interesting than the hallucinogenic ramblings of a Richard Brautigan, more plausible than the magic world of Carlos Castenada.  

Even a guy like Pirsig, having studied the world with passion for many years, realized that Evolution was upside down.   He had difficulty putting his finger on it because he didn't actually have years invested into investigating the alternatives.   But he rather succinctly stated the dilemma that Darwinists face today.  Perhaps not in public and perhaps not always among each other, but alone and when thinking carefully about the evidence?  A rational Darwinist who is not completely lacking in incredulity such as Dawkins or completely lacking in a moral compass such as Hawking will sit and stare out the window at the problem and see no answer coming down the lane.

You see, there is no natural explanation for a beginning of anything, let alone a sustaining force for everything.   Not one basic need for the Universe and for life can be explained with a natural cause.

Creationists are honest enough to ascribe their miracles to a God capable of accomplishing them.  

Darwinists wave their hands and vaguely mumble things about chance and lucky breaks and completely drop the ball on the entire set of questions while pretending they have answers.  This is why a brilliant guy like Jonathan Sarfati became a Creationist and a Christian.  It was evidence!!!

Now a Creationist

Dr Jonathan Sarfati
Dr Jonathan Sarfati

CMI Ph.D. scientist and author explains to an outside website what turned him to biblical creation

Published: 12 May 2009(GMT+10)
(First published on, 23 January 2009)
How does someone with an essentially secular upbringing and secular education become a staunch supporter of biblical creation? (See also previous Boundless article A Theory of Creation). There was no single reason, but many pieces of evidence that accumulated into an overwhelming case.

Missing links

One of the first holes I found in the evolutionary story was in my introductory geology class. The Geology professor,1 a paleontologist, said explicitly, ‘The fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution! Rather, it seems to support a series of divine creations.’ He went on to assure the large class in the lecture theatre, ‘I am not a divine creationist’, then explained away the problem, or it certainly seemed at the time to be special pleading. Later studies have confirmed that the links are still missing, just as Darwin realized in his day.2

Real chemistry vs chemical evolution

In my organic chemistry classes, the real chemistry learned there seemed to pose enormous problems for theories of the origin of life from non-living chemicals (chemical evolution or abiogenesis). And if evolution couldn’t start in the first place, then it couldn’t have got going. It would be like a race with all runners dead on the starting blocks.
For example, we studied a type of reaction vital for life and chemical industry called condensation polymerization. This is where lots of small molecules (monomers) are combined to form big molecules (polymers), releasing water molecules at every step. Such reactions can go the other way, a process called hydrolysis: water plus polymer produces monomers. A basic chemical law tells us that water is the last place we would want to try condensation reactions; rather, it would help break up big molecules. Yet the text books told us that life began in a primordial soup, which contains rather a lot of water!3
Chirality diagram
Diagram of chirality.
Also, theory—as well as plenty of practice in chemistry labs—taught us that reactions won’t always go the way you want—chemicals want to react in other ways as well. For example, although life needs both sugars and amino acids, unless they are kept apart (e.g. by the cell’s architecture), they will react and destroy each other. This in fact happens during bruising of fruit and cooking. Also, real chemists recognize the danger, and attach ‘protecting groups’ to stop certain reactions, then remove them. The alleged primordial soup didn’t have any chemists around!
Another interesting fact we learned was that many chemicals of life came in two ‘mirror image’ forms, rather like your left and right hand (hence the term ‘chirality’ from the Greek word for ‘hand’cheirχεὶρ). Yet life contained only one of them. A single impurity could destroy the DNA double helix or protein activity. But when we made such chemicals, they always arose in a 50/50 mix. We managed to separate them using one-handed forms obtained from living things, which helped to crystallize one of the forms we were after. This was quite involved. But once we had the needed one-handed form, it was very easy to revert it to the 50/50 mixture, e.g. just adding charcoal. So there was a huge problem with the primordial soup idea: it would produce the 50/50 mixture, not the pure one-handed forms needed for life.4

Information: a key to understanding creation v evolution

Dr. A..E. Wilder-Smith
Dr. A..E. Wilder-Smith
Photo from
A major influence in my early postgraduate days was the visit to my country by a mild-mannered English professor, Arthur Wilder-Smith (1915–1995). He was very highly qualified, with three earned doctorates in science, and he introduced the idea of information, since taken up by the Intelligent Design movement. And this was devastating against evolution.
All the design in living things is encoded in a sort of recipe book with lots of information. Information describes the complexity of a sequence—it does not depend on the matter of the sequence. It could be a sequence of ink molecules on paper (book)—however the information is not contained in the molecules of ink but in the patterns. Information can also be stored as sound wave patterns (e.g. speech), but again the information is not the sound waves themselves; nor electrical impulses (telephone) or magnetic patterns (computer hard drive).
The famous physicist Paul Davies, certainly no Christian or creationist, explained much the same thing:
‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows … ’5
Dr Wilder-Smith argued that this information in living organisms required a source beyond ordinary physics and chemistry. And while Paul Davies didn’t want to come to that conclusion, he admitted, ‘There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing.’

Avoiding the bait-and-switch

‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows … ’—Paul Davies
Dr Wilder-Smith also cut through much evolutionary bluff. That is, for evolution to work, much new information is required. Yet the changes usually touted by evolutionary propagandists involve sorting out information that was already in existence, removing information by natural selection, or corrupting information by a genetic ‘typo’ or mutation.6 Evolutionists typically equivocate or play bait-and-switch, i.e. invoking examples of mere change, which no creationists deny, and use this as proof of evolution from goo to you via the zoo, which requires information-increasing change. Note also that Darwin wasn’t the inventor of natural selection—creationists such as Edward Blyth discussed it before Darwin, but properly recognized it as a culling not a creative force.7

Rock layers

The idea of millions of years was seriously undermined in my postgraduate years when some conservative Roman Catholic pro-life friends invited me to a screening of the then new Evolution: Fact or Belief, made by European Catholic creationists. This included the work by French sedimentologist Guy Berthault. His experiments, sometimes working with non-creationists, have shown that fine layers do not need to be formed one at a time, over many years. Rather, many layers can form all at once by a self-sorting mechanism during the settling of differently sized particles, as long as there is horizontal flow.8 In one of Berthault’s experiments, finely layered sandstone and diatomite rocks were broken into their constituent particles, and allowed to settle under running water at various speeds. It was found that the same layer thicknesses were reproduced, regardless of flow rate. This suggests that the original rock was produced by a similar self-sorting mechanism, followed by cementing of the particles together—not over millions of years.9 The prestigious journal Nature reported similar experiments by evolutionists a decade after Berthault’s first experiments.10
Also, recent catastrophes show that violent events like the Flood described in Genesis could form many rock layers very quickly. The Mt St Helens eruption in Washington State produced 7.6 metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!11 And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit about a metre (3–4 feet) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field.12
The fact that we have fossils at all shows that they must have been buried rapidly. This includes jellyfish—yet Darwin’s slow-and-gradual dogma led him to claim that no soft-bodied organism could be fossilized.
Another problem for the millions of years scenario was ‘flat gaps’ or ‘paraconformities’. To explain, think of the jagged surface of most landscapes, due to erosion. Streams and rivers keep cutting deeper gullies, canyons, and valleys. But often the layers below them are completely smooth. Yet they are often claimed to have been deposited millions of years apart. But if the top of each layer had been exposed for millions of years, it should be as jagged as the surface.13
A more obvious problem was the fossils. We simply don’t see fish fossilizing at the bottom of rivers and oceans. Nor are sheep and cattle farms filled with fossils. Why not? Because most dead animals are scavenged and disintegrate quickly. So the fact that we have fossils at all shows that they must have been buried rapidly. This includes jellyfish—yet Darwin’s slow-and-gradual dogma led him to claim that no soft-bodied organism could be fossilized.14
The above three factors made Noah’s Flood a compelling idea, and if this is accepted, there is no need for millions of years.

The Bible vs evolution

The rest of the Bible treats Genesis as history, and sees no difference between 1–11 and 12–50. For example, Jesus spoke of Abel as the first martyr (Matthew 23:35). Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3) went past Abraham through Noah and Adam, without the slightest hint that the ancestors before Abraham were any less historical.
I became a Christian in my early years at university. As in most countries, there was not very much teaching in the church on apologetics (defending the faith), but there were highly motivated individuals. Fortunately they and I managed to find each other, and one result was the formation of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society.
As above, there were huge scientific holes in evolutionary theory. At the same time, it became clear that the Bible can’t be married with evolution either.
Some taught that biblical history began at Abraham. But Gen. 1–11 segues seamlessly into Gen. 12–50, and is the same type of literature, written as historical narrative. Later, this became clearer, since Hebrew historical narrative history is dominated by particular verb forms known as preterites (or waw consecutives). A statistical analysis by Hebrew scholar Steven Boyd showed that perfect and imperfect verbs are dominant in undoubted poetic passages, while preterites dominate in undoubted historical narrative.15 And his analysis showed, ‘the probability that Genesis 1:1–2:3 (X= 0.655) is a narrative is 0.999972604’.16
Also, the rest of the Bible treats Genesis as history, and sees no difference between 1–11 and 12–50. For example, Jesus spoke of Abel as the first martyr (Matthew 23:35). Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3) went past Abraham through Noah and Adam, without the slightest hint that the ancestors before Abraham were any less historical. And Adam is called ‘the son of God’, not the son of an ape-like ancestor who descended from pond scum. The ‘heroes of the faith’ list in Hebrews 11 included pre-Abrahamic characters Abel, Enoch and Noah, with no hint that they were any less real.
Indeed, ‘Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35) and the repeated, ‘It is written … ’ show that for Jesus, what Scripture said is what God said.17 Indeed, He defended many of the doctrines that sceptics love to scoff at (including Noah’s Flood and Ark—Luke 17:2627).18

Sin and Death

The clincher for a thoroughly biblical creation belief was resolving how there could be a loving God with all the pain, suffering and death. The answer is that God didn’t create the world this way; rather He created it very good (Genesis 1:31). Death and suffering are intruders, not the way God originally created. Death is called the last enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26), and the ‘wages of sin’ (Romans 6:23), and creation is now groaning in pain (Romans 8:22). The Bible tells us that all this came about because of the disobedience of the first man, Adam, and this affected not only humans19 but the whole creation.20 But trying to add millions of years to the Bible means death came before Adam’s sin, which rips apart the vital biblical connection between death and sin.21
In particular, this connection is integral to the Gospel message itself. Paul’s great chapter on the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) explicitly connects the death brought by Adam’s sin to the Resurrection brought by the Last Adam. If the first Adam were allegorical, then what happens to the last Adam? And because Jesus conquered physical death, it follows that the death sentence God passed on Adam must also include physical death. Thus all fossil humans and other creatures must have come after this.
This alone is the death knell for attempts to marry the Bible with evolution or millions of years.
In light of all this, how could I now not be a creationist?! I am commanded to love the Lord with all my mind (Mark 12:30), and now that I can see that His testimony is indeed trustworthy (Psalm 19:7), it’s really quite easy.

Related Articles

Further Reading


  1. NB: in British Commonwealth countries, ‘professor’ is given only to the highest rank of lecturers. Return to text.
  2. See my book Refuting Evolution (1999, 2008), ch. 3, The links are missing, Return to text.
  3. Sarfati, J., Origin of life: the polymerization problemJ. Creation 12(3):281–284, 1998; Return to text.
  4. Sarfati, J., Origin of Life: The chirality problemJ. Creation 12(3):263–266, 1998; Return to text.
  5. Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27–30, 18 September 1999. Return to text.
  6. See also Weston, P. And Wieland, C., How information is lost when creatures adapt to their environmentCreation 20(4):28–31, 1998 .Return to text.
  7. Grigg, R., Darwin s illegitimate brainchild: If you thought Darwin s Origin was original, think again! Creation 26(2):39–41, 2004; .Return to text.
  8. Julien, P., Lan, Y., and Berthault, G., Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixturesJournal of Creation 8(1):37–50, 1994. Return to text.
  9. Berthault, G., Experiments on lamination of sedimentsJ. Creation 3:25–29, 1988; Return to text.
  10. Makse, H.A. et al., Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures, Nature 386(6623):379–382, 27 March 1997. See also Snelling, A. Nature finally catches up,J. Creation 11(2):125-6, 1997. Return to text.
  11. Austin, Steve, Mount St Helens and catastrophism, Proc. First International conference on Creationism, 1:3–9, ed. R.E. Walsh, R.S. Crowell, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1986. Return to text.
  12. Batten, Don, Sandy stripes: Do many layers mean many years? Creation 19(1):39–40, 1996; Return to text.
  13. For further discussion see: Roth, Ariel, Those gaps in the sedimentary layers, Origins (GRI) 15:75–92, 1988. Return to text.
  14. Catchpoole, David, Hundreds of jellyfish fossils! Creation 25(4):32–33, 2003; Return to text.
  15. Boyd, S.W., ‘A Proper Reading of Genesis 1:1–2:3’; in DeYoung, D., (editor), Thousands … Not Billions, pp. 157–170, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005. This sampled 47 narrative and 49 poetic passages as well as Genesis 1:1–2:3Return to text.
  16. Boyd, S.W., The Biblical Hebrew Creation Account: New Numbers Tell The StoryInstitute for Creation Research>, November 2004.Return to text.
  17. Sarfati, J., The Authority of ScriptureApologia 3(2):12-16, 1994; Return to text.
  18. Livingston, David, Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture, from ‘A Critique of Dewey Beegle’s book titled: Inspiration of Scripture’, MA Thesis, 2003; Return to text.
  19. Cosner, Lita, Romans 5:12–21: Paul’s view of a literal AdamJ. Creation 22(2):105–107, 2008. Return to text.
  20. Smith, Henry B. Jr., Cosmic and universal death from Adam s Fall: an exegesis of Romans 8:19 23a, J. Creation 21(1):75–85, 2007; Return to text.
  21. See Sarfati, J., The Fall: a cosmic catastropheJ. Creation 19(3):60–64, 2005; Return to text.

How, indeed, can anyone see the evidence and NOT believe?

Jonathan is certainly NOT the Lone Ranger here...hat tip to Cowboy Bob for this article...

The things that are not

Meet a scientist whose work involves high-precision photographic enlargements of a microscopic world we seldom see … Mark Armitage talks with Tas Walker about ‘the things that are not’.
‘I distinctly remember when I was infected with the microscope bug’, recalls research scientist Mark Armitage. ‘I was 16 and had spent my summer vacation at a marine science station, examining tiny planktonic algae.’ After that, microscopes and the microscopic world became his life passion.
Over the years, he has worked for world-famous microscope manufacturers: Zeiss of Germany, Olympus of Japan, and Reichert of Austria. For the last 18 years, he has run his own microscope/consulting company, Micro Specialist, in Los Angeles.
By Mark Armitage
Compound eyes of a fly are made of thousands of individual optical units (ommatidia) precisely arranged—exquisite miniature design.
Mark likes to call the tiny objects in his microscopic world ‘the things that are not’, borrowing a phrase from 1 Corinthians 1:28. They remind him of an overriding theme of Scripture—that the Creator God delights in using small things to conquer the strong and powerful.
Mark has aimed his magnifying lenses at many things. The list is almost endless, and includes the fields of botany, microbiology, medicine, materials science, forensics and geology. Mark is never disappointed by what he sees with his microscopes.
He remembers the time he stood in an operating room and used a surgical microscope to study a live human brain. On another occasion, at the Kennedy Space Center, he examined the vibrant image of astronaut blood. He also recalls working in a hyper-clean environment at IBM and looking at semiconductor wafers.
Mark has always loved science and showed a strong aptitude for it. But he has not always been a Christian or a creationist.
He was born in Chicago, and for his first 15 years lived in Latin America. His family was Catholic, and he spent all of his primary and secondary school years in strict Catholic schools.
‘I really tried to be a good Catholic,’ Mark explained, ‘but my life was wracked with sin. I did pretty much anything I wanted to during the week, as long as I was in the confessional on Saturday and Mass on Sunday.’ When he enrolled at the University of Florida, his life became even worse. He stopped going to Mass and became a heavy drug user.
Fortunately, things changed when some of his friends trusted Jesus Christ as God and Saviour, including a friend who invited him to church. Mark recalls, ‘The Gospel message preached that day hit me like a baseball bat! I was in a fog for a week. One of the college leaders came to my apartment and showed from the Bible how I could never earn my way to Heaven by good deeds, penance or ritual. A week later, I surrendered my life to Jesus Christ and was baptized.’ His transformation was so great that his family was amazed!
Fly hairs
By Mark Armitage
Even the hairs on a fly show precision engineering.
Although Mark had become a Christian, he heartily adopted the theory of evolution because he thought ‘no scientist questioned evolution’. But his classes at Florida bothered him. The professors ridi­culed the Bible, and he saw how they demeaned creationists.
Mark wanted a career in science, so to satisfy his inner doubts he secretly tried to mix what the Bible said about creation in six days with deep geologic time. He assumed that God probably used evolution in some way, but it never really made sense to him. So for years he simply ignored it.
When he moved to California in 1984, an engineer at his church asked him to help with showing the Origins film series, which explained how science fitted with the Bible. That was a life-changing experience, Mark explained. ‘The scientific content in those films absolutely floored me!’ He became so hungry for information on the scientific basis for creation that he bought almost every book available. The film The Genesis Solution was particularly life-changing, as was Ken Ham’s book The Lie.
Mark says the changes in his outlook and new zest for life demonstrate that what you believe about where you came from affects your whole world-view.
After this, he made a point of visiting Christian schools and colleges to demonstrate his microscopes. Understandably, he was excited to share what he had learned about the scientific evidence for creation. He came to know the biology and science department heads at these schools, but, to his surprise, he discovered that they most strongly believed in evolution over millions of years. He can recall only one Christian university that held to creation in six days 6,000 years ago. ‘I know folks might be upset to hear this,’ Mark explained, ‘but I would urge parents to carefully question the department heads about creation in six literal days before they enroll their children in a Christian school.’
By Mark Armitage
Gruesome sucker and mouth of parasitic worm, now harmful to humans because of the Fall.
For Mark, the microscopic world contradicts evolution. ‘Of every experience that I have had in microscopy, no matter the discipline, no matter the venue, one thing has become clearly resolved in my mind—microscopic things, or ‘the things that are not’, nullify the pillars of evolution.’
Mark explained: ‘Evolution is a structure supported by two main pillars—chance and deep time. Without millions of years of time, evolution does not have a hope, because large-scale changes from one body plan to another cannot occur quickly. And chance is essential, otherwise evolutionists would have to acknowledge intelligent design, and that implies a master-designer.’
In the microscopic world Mark has seen abundant examples of design—of complex objects that could never have formed by chance mutation and natural selection:
  • Cell
    By Mark Armitage
    Fungal cell of a lichen is as complex as a huge modern city, but miniaturized.
    Microscopic parasites, probably once beneficial to humans before the entrance of sin, exhibit exquisite design for the functions they perform.1 , 2
  • Scarab beetles showing amazingly complex sensory and defensive apparatuses that defy evolutionary assemblage.3
  • Lichens, those simple (yet utterly complex) symbiotic combinations of plant and fungus, have resisted every attempt to combine them artificially.4
  • The insides of the mammal bowel show complex design, especially at high magnification.5
  • Diatom frustules manufactured from silica glass (SiO2) by single-celled plants contain incredible geometric designs.6
These, as well as innumerable other examples, reduce the pillar of random assemblage to rubble. Mark ponders, ‘Evolutionists need to realize that chance is not their creator so they can come to know their God through faith.’
Also, Mark has seen the pillar of deep time toppling beneath his microscope. He has found radiohalos (minute spheres of discolouration) of short-lived radioisotopes in biotite in granite. These show that granite rocks (a major component of the earth’s crust) formed suddenly, maybe within days or minutes. He has even found such radiohalos in diamonds.7 He has been involved with other research, which found that moderate heating erases radiohalos.8 Mark mused, ‘Radiohalos are evidence that granite did not take millions of years to form and may have formed at much lower temperatures than previously envisaged.’9
Some recent exciting microscopic work has focused on zircon minerals (ZrSiO4)—tiny crystals in biotite from granite.10 Scientists discovered these crystals contain a large proportion of helium, which is a by-product of the radioactive decay of uranium.
Why would helium in zircons be significant to the age issue? Mark explains: ‘When my electron microscope develops a vacuum leak, the technician pumps it full of helium. Helium is so “slippery” that it readily escapes through the tiniest leak. So, using a helium gas detector, the technician can easily find the leaks.’
When we apply this to the zircon crystals, we see that helium will quickly diffuse out. Indeed, the rate of diffusion of helium from zircons is quite high. Why, if the crystals are supposedly billions of years old, do they still contain lots of helium? The only logical conclusion is that these zircons are not billions of years old. In fact, calculations based on the amount of helium still inside the zircons indicated their age is only 6,000–8,000 years.11
Mark is excited at how creation ministries are affecting the world today, and that his work with microscopes can play a part. ‘God has once again chosen “the things that are not”? to nullify the things that are! Just as David conquered the giant Goliath with a small stone, God is using “insignificant”? microscopic things to smash the pillars of evolution.’
Images by Mark Armitage
Diatoms (Bacillariophyta) are microscopic single-celled organisms that produce beautiful opalized shells called frustules. Their intricate and ornamented designs display near endless variety: e.g. circular, six-sided, square and triangular.

Images by Mark Armitage
Left: These radiohalos in mica are spheres of colouration caused by decay of radioactive material at their centres.
Right: Human red blood cells, or erythrocytes, are about 7 µm (micrometres, 1 µm = 1/1000 of a mm) across and look like a cake depressed in the middle.


  1. Batten, D. (Ed.), How did bad things come about, The Answers BookCreation Ministries International, pp. 91–100, 1999. Also Death and Suffering Questions and AnswersReturn to text.
  2. Armitage, M., Man, micro-parasites and electron microscopy of trematodes, Journal of Creation 11(1):93–105, 1997. Return to text.
  3. Armitage, M., The scarab beetle under SEM—fluted vase or sensory appendage? CRSQ 36(3):135, 1999. Return to text.
  4.  Howe, G. and Armitage, M., Lichens: a study in color, CRSQ 39(4):245–251, 2003. Return to text.
  5.  Armitage, M., The goblet cell, CRSQ 37(4):248–249, 2001. Return to text.
  6. Armitage, M., God’s micro world, Creation 14(4):10–13, 1992. Return to text.
  7.  Armitage, M., Internal radiohalos in a diamond, Journal of Creation 9(1):93–101, 1995. Return to text.
  8.  Armitage, M. and Back, E., The thermal erasure of radiohalos in biotite, Journal of Creation 8(2):212–222, 1994. Return to text.
  9. Wieland, C., Radiometric dating breakthroughs: New evidence for a young earthCreation 26(2):42–44, 2004. Armitage, M., New record of polonium radiohalos, Stone Mountain granite, Georgia (USA), Journal of Creation 15(1):86–88, 2001, and Walker, T., New radiohalo find challenges primordial granite claimJournal of Creation 15(1):14–16, 2001. Return to text.
  10. Armitage, M., Helium retention in deep core zircons, American Laboratory 36(14):17–21, 2004. Return to text.
  11. Humphreys, R. et al., Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay, 5th International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 175–196, 2003. Return to text.


Real Science brings people to God.  Darwinist lies cannot withstand scrutiny, which is why they have built mighty defensive walls - propaganda, censorship, ending careers and denying tenure to anyone who dares stray from their Dogmatic Ungodly creed and fighting as hard as they can to keep evidence away from any students at any level lest they see the truth and turn from the Darwinist Fairy Tales...regurgitated Pagan mythology with the patina of science upheld by lies and BS!

No comments: