Candle Detectives and Dating Methods

Greetings friends! I have received some very good questions from readers, and I thought the answers may help others, so I am making a short series of feedback on reader questions. The first has to do with RadioDating methods and the age of the earth/dinosaurs/Twinkies/Willie Nelson (and determining which, if any, are older).

A friendly reader asks:

“To do with the dating methods, there are quite a lot of dating methods out there and multiple ways to date something. How is it that if none of these methods work that scientists continue to use them? I feel like if these methods didn’t actually work SOMEBODY would’ve pointed it out and scientists all over the world would’ve stopped using them years ago. Now chemistry is actually my weakest area of science so I don’t quite understand how Carbon dating works or anything that might be wrong with it, but it is a common tool for dating fossils and I feel like most scientists would’ve stopped using it by now if proven inaccurate.”

A great question and worth answering!


Dating methods are based on assumptions. Most scientists probably don’t think about these assumptions and almost no textbooks will ever address these. We are told what happens today (Some chemicals decay), we are told it has always happened (and at the same rate), and based on that, we can date things. When I argue that they don’t work, I do not mean that the science is so bogus that any thinking person should see through it. As presented, it’s actually fairly reasonable. What I mean is, the science is based on assumptions which are entirely untestable, almost always unspoken, rarely examined, and which must be taken on blind faith. More than that, I point out that those very assumptions have been proven false by observational evidence.

As a metaphor- imagine two detectives come upon a lit candle and trying to use science to discover how long it has been burning. There is a law in their town against having a candle burning for more than 24 hours at a time and they need to see if they ought to arrest the owner of the house.

They take some measurements and discover that the candle burns down a quarter of an inch every hour. The candle is exactly 15 inches tall now. How long has it been burning?

In order to answer that, they have to make some assumptions. First, they have to decide how tall it was when it was first lit, since they did not observe it before it was lit. Tom believes it was 18 inches tall, but Carl believes it was 18 feet tall.

Based on that one assumption, Tom concludes that the candle has been burning for 12 hours while Carl concludes that it has been burning for 33 DAYS.

This is the same way in which secular science and Creation science disagree while using the same science and data. We have the same fossils and chemistry but our starting assumptions are very different and so we come to very different conclusions. Both conclusions are based on some assumptions- i.e. faith in something we can’t test directly. So, how do I justify saying the Young Earth Creation position is correct and the Deep Time Evolutionary position is false?

Imagine that Tom finds the box the candle came in and a note from the man who lit the candle which verify his assumption that the candle was 18 inches tall to start. More over, the ceiling in the room is only ten feet high, meaning it is impossible for the candle to have been 18 feet tall- it would not have fit in the room! Additionally, Tom notes that when the heater kicks on, the candle burns twice as fast as it does when the heater is not on. Thus, the previous assumption that the candle always burns at the rate he and Carl measured it was false. It can burn faster that they observed, which changes the outcome. Tom has shown that Carl has made two false assumptions- first that the candle was 18 feet tall (it cannot have been) and second, that the candle ALWAYS burns at the rate they have measured (it has been seen to burn twice as fast). This doesn’t necessarily prove that Tom is right, but it does show that Carl cannot be right.

To explain the metaphor, there is a list of observable data which contradicts the deep time conclusions. For instance, evolutionary paleontologists tell us that dinosaur fossils are between 65 and 300 MILLION years old, but geologists tell us that the continents should have eroded down to sea level MANY TIMES in that much time. So, why do the fossils still exist? Also, we observe that, at the present rate of decay, carbon 14 should not be found in anything more than 100,000 years old, yet we find it in dinosaur fossils. How did they die out 65 million years ago when carbon 14 says they were still living less than 100,000 years ago? Again, this list is long, but suffice it to say, even if you accept the deep time, evolutionary assumptions, the model cannot work. It self destructs even when you grant the untestable assumptions.

The note Tom has found was written for the man’s daughter, and it says, “I lit the candle on the table at 6AM. You can leave it burning, as I shall return home tonight. If you do blow it out, please relight it before you leave, as I shall not return until after dark.”

According to the neighbors, the daughter has already come and gone. She was there all morning, which means it is possible that the candle was blown out and not burning for several hours. This makes Tom realize that the man’s use of the candle this morning may not have been his first use of that candle. The candle was 18 inches tall when FIRST lit, according to the man’s note and the box of candles found in the room, but it may have been FIRST lit days ago and not been burning consistently since being first lit! Realizing that the candle can be lit, blown out, and relit, Tom realizes that the note left by the man is the best clue to discovering how long the candle has been burning since it was last lit. If they can determine when the note was written, they can get an outside estimate for the most time the candle could have been burning that day. If the note is correct, and was written that day, then it could not have been burning for more than 12 hours.

Carl, on the other hand, refuses to accept the note as legitimate. He is skeptical of the author or his intent, and chooses to accept his own observations and measurements, and his own starting assumptions. Furthermore, Carl and Tom have been given instructions by their boss to arrest the man and if they do not, there is a good chance they will both be fired. If they want to keep their jobs, they will turn in Carl’s report. If they each turn in a separate report, Tom will probably be fired and Carl’s report will be published in all of the newspapers anyway. At the end of the day, what most people know about this incident will come from Carl. People who hear Tom’s story and believe it will be mocked as “unscientific.”

One of the reasons scientists still use the methods which I reject is because the establishments which pay them to work insist that they do. If you’ve not seen it, I recommend Ben Stein’s “EXPELLED- No Intelligence Allowed.” It shows what I have seen first hand, which is a blind bias against any evidence which does not support the Evolutionary paradigm. If you discover evidence that goes against the Darwinian dogma, you have two options- suppress it, or lose your job. Papers which do not preach to the Darwinian choir are not published, and scientific papers have been rejected by publications even because one of the editors of the paper was found to be a Creationist, even though the paper itself did not support Creation or argue against Evolution. The prejudice and bigotry in the scientific community and many publications is that ridiculous. I have said for years that it is safer to argue against the existence of God in church than it is to argue against Evolutionism in school. As you say, if the methods used are invalid, then SOMEBODY would have said so- and they have said so for decades. But some have lost their jobs for saying so and others have found that none are willing to listen. The only institutions or individuals who make these arguments are people who feel the argument is worth having, which means people either attacking Darwinian Dogma to defend scientific freedom or defending the Bible because they know people need Jesus. Scientists and science teachers don’t always have the motivation which would encourage them to risk their careers, even if they know the truth, which most probably do not. If you knew Global Warming was a lie and you could prove it with science, but you knew it would get you kicked out of school- would you write a paper on it and turn it in? Probably not.

Because publications are so biased, evidence against the deep time/ Evolutionism is not published, which means those people open minded to it have little chance to encounter the evidence at all. The only places where it is openly published is in Creationary sources like Answers in Genesis, which are themselves dismissed by many as “Unscientific” because they do not accept the Darwinian Dogma, which means their evidence and arguments are not encountered or addressed.

It’s a cultural circular argument: If deep time dating methods were invalid, someone would say so. Answers in Genesis DOES say so. AiG can’t be taken seriously because it is anti-science. How do we know they are anti-science? Because they reject deep time dating methods, and if those methods were really invalid SOMEBODY would say so.

Finally, consider the position this puts the atheist in. If he rejects the Bible but accepts all of the scientific data which shows these Darwinian arguments to be invalid, then what conclusion can he come to? First, he loses the ability to use this so called science to argue against the validity of the Bible. Evolutionism is often used as a tool against the Bible and so many are determined to defend it, no matter how weak or even how indefensible it really is. There are MANY examples of people admitting this in public, but here is one to get you started (See below for more). Published in the scientific journal NATURE in 1999 was this confession, “‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’”

But, surely science is Naturalistic because science has proven that God doesn’t exist? Or that deep time is real, or evolution a fact? Again, our atheist friends provide a useful confession:



If the methods by which we defend deep time are abandoned because they are not scientifically defensible, then the Bible might be true, and that is unacceptable. Also, once you admit the flaws in the methods, how do you determine the dates of anything? There is no better tool available which still provides the dates demanded by evolutionism, so they will use a flawed system until a better one can be found. Comments like this one show up regularly in publication from secular sources (cited here):

“It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as ‘acceptable’ by investigators.”

Many in the field admit that these methods are a ruler made of silly putty, but some don’t care or some are merely ignored. I will not say that all or even most scientists are that kind of dogmatically atheist, or even that most have heard about this discussion. Deep time, like evolution is taught, I believe, mainly by people who have NEVER heard the case against it. Most will not even know there is a case against it. They have been told that there is Evolution (science), Deep time (Science) and Big bang (Science) and on the other side there is hysterical, religious, blind-faith anti-science. This is why scientists still use the methods I reject. They simply do not know any better, and for the most part they have little reason to know there is another side to the story. This is what happens when politics gets its claws into science and makes scientific theory into legally protected dogmas. It is science which suffers.

I thank all of you for your questions and I welcome them. As for me, I have heard both sides, I have made it my job to know all of the data and arguments, and I have one very good motivation for teaching you what others want to suppress. The Bible is true, which means this is true:



Enjoy some further reading.

  1. Radio dating methods: See here for details:

  1. For lots of other quotes, videos, and articles which relate to these topics, just search for “Carbon” or click this link:

3. For more on the acceptance of bad science to reject good theology, see this:

4. And because I love a good quote mining, here’s some more real comments from real evolutionists:



“Why do geologists and archeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the number do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better … ‘Absolute’ dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.

“No matter how ‘useful’ it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.”
Robert E. Lee, “Radiocarbon: ages in error”. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19(3), 1981, pp.9-29. Reprinted in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19(2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125)

Frederic B. Jueneman, FAIC,  Industrial Research & Development, p.21, Tune 1982

“It is now well known that KAr ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant.”
Joan C. Engels, DIFFERENT AGES FROM ONE ROCK, Journal of Geology, ,Vol.79, p.609

Situations for which we have both the carbon-14 and potassium-argon ages for the same event usually indicate that the potassium-argon ˜clock did not get set back to zero.  Trees buried in an eruption of Mount Rangotito in Auckland Bay area of New Zealand provide a prime example.  The carbon-14 age of the buried trees is only 225 years, but some of the overlying volcanic material has a 465,000-year potassium-argon age.
Harold Coffin, Origin by Design, pp. 400.


2 Responses to Candle Detectives and Dating Methods

  1. Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to answer these questions 🙂

    Now one thing that caught my eye immediately was this quote of yours: “Dating methods are based on assumptions. Most scientists probably don’t think about these assumptions and almost no textbooks will ever address these.” Now of course reading the rest of your article you do go into detail on these assumptions in the form of a metaphor. But here’s my biggest problem with this. There hundreds of thousands of scientists all over the world writing peer-reviews articles and publishing them for other scientists to read and these articles get critiqued all the time and yet nobody is willing to question these out of risk of losing their jobs? That’s what science is all about!

    This actually reminds me of when I recently watched Richard Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” documentary on YouTube. He told a story in it and whether or not it’s true I don’t know but the message is more relevant than the story itself. He talked about how his college professor – whose name I’m not sure whether or not they gave so let’s just call him Professor X (X-Men reference lol) – and how he had a theory that he often talked to his class about. One day a scientist was in his class and after Professor X told the scientist his theory the scientist showed him evidence that instantly disproves his theory. Rather than being upset that his precious theory was debunked, Professor X actually went up to the scientist and shook his hand with a smile knowing that he was one step closer to knowing the truth. That’s how most scientists seem to feel to me! They want the truth! And honesty is extremely important to a scientist. If you lie about something as a scientist and you’re caught then your credibility is shot! Lies are not tolorated.

    And you add near the end that most scientists don’t dare question dating methods as to prevent losing their job? Before the Germ Theory of Disease was created in the 1500s everyone believed illnesses were caused by demons. The scientist who discovered them was criticized and considered insane for thinking anything but demons could cause diseases and yet here we are with the knowledge that most diseases are caused by bacteria! Heck Charles Darwin received plenty of backlash from Christians back when he came up with the theory. Looking back on history, scientific accomplishments keep getting denied and supressed do to religious beliefs and if every scientist throughout history was afraid to question what we already know than we may not be where we are today in terms of technology and science.

    “Papers which do not preach to the Darwinian choir are not published, and scientific papers have been rejected by publications even because one of the editors of the paper was found to be a Creationist, even though the paper itself did not support Creation or argue against Evolution.” Can you cite an example where this happened? Because the likelyhood (which I’m simply just guessing here) is that their belief in creation didn’t help their reputation considering that like .02% of scientists deny evolution or something like that.

    One last thing before I leave you with this rather long comment (sorry about that), you seem to only mention Carbon dating in this. Now i I’m understanding this correctly, Carbon dating is based off of Carbon-14’s half life and measuring the radioactive decay and if it’s true that scientists are assuming what the original amount was then that’s only one dating method debunked. Scientists determine fossils by their rock layers as well as other factors. You didn’t even touch upon the ice layers in Antartica or the trees. And there’s even more evidence than that that the earth is billions of years old. The light from some stars takes millions of years to reach Earth and so we’re just now seeing them today. And during the Bill Nye Vs Ken Ham debate, Bill Nye stated that if the Earth was 6000 years old than we’d be discovering 7 species of animals daily due to how fast speciation will need to be in order to reach the diversity of life today.

    Thanks again for answering these questions! 🙂


    • [FYI- an article addressing much of this in more detail will be posted on the 16th, so check back for more later. This ought to be enough to get you started. Enjoy!]

      My my! You are an endless fountain of questions. Good thing for you I am an endless fountain of answers. I think I can stave off a great deal of them at the head when I address this comment: ” I recently watched Richard Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” documentary on YouTube.” My dear boy- and I say this with all due respect to Dr Dawkins and because I value your education- Richard Dawkins is an idiot whose failure to use logic in the God Delusion has been called, by his fellow atheists, The WORST argument in the history of western thought. William Lane Crag is much more polite that I am in commenting on Dawkins, but the end result is the same. Watch the video below where Dr Craig dissects it and you will see why even his peers dismiss him for the circus performer he is.
      Dr Craig on Dawkin’s God Delusion:

      Here is my favorite video clip of Dawkins which illuminates my point about his being an imbecile:
      He is asked THE CENTRAL QUESTION OF EVOLUTION- can you name an observation which shows an increase in genetic information (which is required for evolution if it is to happen at all). This is like asking an astronomer to give evidence for the existence of stars and planets. Dawkins stares blankly for a few moments and then asks them to turn off the camera. When he comes back, he talks about something completely different. In the time since, he has written about how unfair this question was, or how it was used to attack his credibility (whining and whining) but he has NEVER answered the question because he knows there is no observable data which shows evolution happening. In fact, he once said “It’s not that we don’t observe evolution, it’s just that we don’t observe it while it’s happening.” Try that one in a court of law and see what happens to you.

      You need to find better sources for information, as you seem to have had your worldview corrupted, not (as I suspect you believe) by facts and information, but by vague lies and hallow propaganda. Or as I like to call it, “The Internet.” I am very encouraged that you remain open minded enough to ask good questions, and I shall do my best to serve you by providing information which is true and applicable.

      That said, let me address a few of your questions and comments:

      You say “If you lie about something as a scientist and you’re caught then your credibility is shot! Lies are not tolerated.” This is a wonderful ideal, but sadly, this is not the truth.
      Yes, questioning common beliefs because of new information or new discoveries is what science is all about. Science is the search or truth and knowledge, but it has been corrupted by politics, just as many things have been. Even secular sources, like the Evolution minded The, are declaring science to be dead or at least broken due to the corruption, politics, greed, and fraud.

      Furthermore, your faith in the process of peer review is also founded not so much in fact as in marketing. As Ian Juby points out with many examples, peer review in many or most of those publications are not only OVERTLY biased against Creationists (or anyone who dares to question Darwin) but they also stifle new discoveries because they stubbornly stick to what they already believe.

      Dawkins little story is cute, and I hope it is true. But history is full of scientists who have fought, not for the truth, but for their own fame, or their own pre existing beliefs. Just watch “EXPELLED: No Intelligence allowed” and you will see what I am talking about with far more real examples.
      Richard Dawkins is in it and does a classic (but not rare) job of shooting himself in the foot.

      You say “Looking back on history, scientific accomplishments keep getting denied and suppressed do to religious beliefs.”
      Once again, this is a popular view on the internet, but not among historians. History tells us that the Christian Church created the sciences as we know them. Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Medicine, Physics, and Astronomy are what they are today due to Christian men studying the creation of God and the word of God. Here is a partial list of some of those men and their accomplishments:

      Just as one popular lie which leads to your stated belief, Galileo, we are told by the internet, was punished by the church for saying the earth is round and goes around the sun. There is a popular stage-play which tells this story of a scientists looking to follow the evidence wherever it lead, even if it meant going up against the powerful church authorities. The problem, aside from the fact that it is a dull play, is that it is a lie. Galileo was supported by the church, and the church did not question the shape of the earth- they knew it was round- they questioned the positions of the earth and sun in the solar system. One of the reasons they rejected his claim that the earth went around the sun was because some of his arguments were bad. But he was not punished for proposing it or even for teaching it as theory. What we have been told about this case, and about many others, is atheist propaganda which seeks to make us believe, as you said, that religion is the enemy of scientific progress, when History tells us the exact opposite is true. Watch this video to see the facts of the Galileo case, and note that the presenter us using atheist publications to support the actual history of the event.
      Origins: Galileo

      And as for the church opposing Darwin- he’s buried in Westminster Abby. The church in England hardly gave him a dirty look and when he died they placed him with Newton. The church in America provided better, and for good reason, but I digress.

      For one example of evolution being sold with lies, look into Haeckel’s Embryo drawings which have been presented in textbooks for a hundred years as evidence for Evolution. The truth is, he faked the evidence and was accused of fraud in his lifetime. He admitted that they were fake, and he invented them to support evolution. They are still used in textbooks today, even though they are a lie and acknowledged to be a lie by evolutionists.

      For another, just look into the history of human evolution. There are many examples, but my favorite is Nebraska Man. For decades this evidence was used to support evolution and human evolution. A picture of the Nebraska Man and his cave wife was printed in newspapers:
      The truth is, it was constructed of a SINGLE TOOTH. And not a human tooth or an ape tooth- a PIG’S tooth. This was not mere error, but fraud for fame and fortune. The fossils of Human evolution contain quite a few of these frauds.

      There’s a MAJOR fraud in the story of whale evolution, which of course will get chalked up to being a “hypothesis”- but then why it is constantly proposed as evolutionary fact? Why is it in textbooks and museums? Someone is lying to you.

      Speaking of lies in the name of Darwin, Consider the case of Archeaoraptor.
      National geographic had a cover story of a fossil showing a creature which was CLEARLY part reptile and part bird, thus being the missing mink between birds and reptiles. The lie is two fold. First, the fossil was a fraud, created by a Chinese artist and sold to American evolutionists as a missing link. Second, National Geographic knew it was a fraud BEFORE THEY PRINTED THIS EDITION. They knew it was a lie and published it anyway- they published it THREE MONTHS AFTER they found out it was a fraud. In the video below you will hear from the lab which discovered the fraud.

      In his Complete Creation series, Juby discusses not only these frauds in the name of Darwin, but he explains how the concept of Deep time was invented by Charles Lyell for the express purpose of discrediting Genesis, and using what he knew to be false data.

      Here’s a collection of similar stories from the history of science showing that scientists themselves have been a great hindrance to progress because of arrogance and dedication to wrong ideas:

      I have no doubt that MANY scientists have considered the search for truth to be paramount, but the publications, universities, and other money sources do not share this priority. If you present evidence which opposes Darwin, your career is over. If you lie in the name of Darwin, you get a hall pass. MANY examples can be found on both sides of that equation. The evidence I have given you is the tip of the ice berg, but I encourage you to search for the truth and stop accepting the propaganda.

      This answer is long enough, so I’m going to sum up the C14 bit. You understand it well enough from what you’ve said, but the problem is that the issues which discredit it apply to all other forms of radiodating. ALL of them are based on assumptions which can be shown to be false, and all of them assume billions of years and the Darwinain time scale, and ALL of them are used ONLY to support the Darwinian paradigm, and when they fail to do that, they are tossed out. What is special about C14 is that, if you accept it, you must accept that dinosaurs cannot have lived more then 100,000 years ago. If you reject it, then you have no basis for saying humans lived more than 6,000 years ago.

      There are FAR MORE pieces of observable data which show the earth CANNOT be billions of years old. There are very few which would suggest that it is, and all of them have been discredited by observational science- but as I have shown, the evolutionary institutions and publications will not allow that message to be spread.

      About Ice Cores, those too have been shown NOT to support the millions of years by recent observational data. Here’s a video showing how a lost air plane gave us the chance to debunk deep time via ice cores.
      Breaking the Ice:

      The time startlight takes to get here and the age of the earth is, again, based on some assumptions- and not unreasonable ones. However, it does not prove an earth which is billions of years old. The question of distant starlight and the age of the earth has a couple of simple answers, and all of them best delivered by Jason Lisle.
      Here’s a summary:
      And one of my favorite models which provides a plausible explanation that agrees with all observable data is Russell Humphrey’s White Hole Cosmology. It is built on Einstein’s Special relativity which tends to be the commonly accepted scientific paradigm when it comes to time and space. Check it out here:

      Finally, Bill Nye the Science guy: Like Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye should not be taken too seriously. He has a degree in engineering, a kid’s show from the 1990’s, and is a skeptic in his free time. I think you ought to just watch the entire video below where in Ian Juby dissects many of Nye’s debate arguments and shows how very bad they are.

      But since you asked specifically about the number of species- first, Bill Nye is wrong about how many species there are. Evolutionary sources disagree with him considerably on that first point of data. Also, he includes microbes such as bacteria, which means he can expect a new species, not every seven days, but every 20 MINUTES. This is the same way in which he calculated how many animals needed to be on the ark by including all fish and other sea creatures. Once again, evolutionary propaganda depending on ambiguity and shunning clarity. His claim also requires a fringe definition of “species” where in slight variations between two creatures can be considered speciation, which, as I have pointed out in past writings and video, is always the result of gene shuffling or loss, and has NEVER been observed to be the result of NEW genes coming into existence, which is what evolution NEEDS in order to happen.

      Science is a very big world my friend, and you are not going to learn it from people like Dawkins and Nye. They have a vested interest in preaching evolution no matter what the facts are. Lies have been told in the name of evolution since its inception, and the science of deep time was likewise INVENTED and built on lies, and NOT discovered as you may have been lead to believe. Big bang/Deep time/Evolution/atheism is paper thin and an inch tall and is, every pat of it, debunked by science- real observable, testable science. I promise you that if you keep searching you will come to find that this is the case. I used to believe that Deep time/Big bang was compatible with Genesis, and that it was defended by science. What changed my mind was science. The facts DO NOT fit the atheist religion. They fit the Bible.
      Keep asking questions- and not just to me. Check out In the upper right hand corner is a button that says “Get Answers! Search Creation.” This will provide good answers from good sources. Also, I recommend Ian Juby’s videos. He’s clear, entertaining, in depth, and provides LOTS of sources, almost always from evolutionary sources in order to back up his positions. And its video, so you don’t have to read so much. Sometimes I prefer that, like when I want to learn and eat nachos at the same time.

      While I do not doubt that the majority of scientists and science teachers in the west accept deep time and evolution (at some level) I do want you to see that many have and continue to be persuaded by the actual evidence that evolution is merely fiction. I have seen many scientists in many different fields say this about their own fields, and if you can get a copy, check out the book “in Six Days” where scientists of all different fields explain in their own words why they believe the Biblical creation account. In the mean time, Here are some scientists explaining how they were persuaded by the evidence that Evolution is a lie.

      Here’s Astronomer Spike Psarris. Spike was previously an engineer in the United States’ military space program. He entered that program as an atheist and an evolutionist. He left it as a creationist and a Christian. He was persuaded by the evidence from Astronomy that there was a creator, and then he found out who that creator was- Jesus.
      He tells his story in this video and then explains why The Big Bang never happened:

      And because I like his style, here is Spike going through space to show how only Creation by God explains the observable data. Like most creation speakers, he uses almost exclusively atheistic, evolutionary sources in his presentations just to make sure you know he’s giving you the facts which the atheists accept as true.

      Enjoy. And as always, thanks for you comments and questions!


Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s