Earth’s Magnetic Field: Evidence that the Earth is Young by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati

Excerpt: "The earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years."

The idea of millions of years came from the belief that the fossil record was built up over a long time. As soon as people allow for millions of years, they allow for the fossil record to be millions of years old. This creates an insurmountable problem regarding the gospel. The fossil record consists of the death of billions of creatures. In fact, it is a record of death, disease, suffering, cruelty, and brutality. It is a very ugly record. The Bible is adamant though, that death, disease, and suffering came into the world as a result of sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin so man could be redeemed. As soon as Christians allow for death, suffering, and disease before sin, then the whole foundations of the message of the Cross and the Atonement have been destroyed. The doctrine of original sin, then, is totally undermined. If there were death, disease, and suffering before Adam rebelled -- then what did sin do to the world? What does Paul mean in Romans 8 when he says the whole of creation groans in pain because of the Curse? How can all things be restored in the future to no more death and suffering, unless the beginning was also free of death and suffering? The whole message of the gospel falls apart if one allows millions of years for the creation of the world. - The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days by Ken Ham, emphases added. Also hear Six Day Creation and The Eisegesis Problem by Ken Ham (Free MP3) and "The Doctrine Of Original Sin (26 Free MP3s) by Jonathan Edwards.

Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young! by D. Russell Humphreys

Excerpt: "Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system. On 14 January 2008, the Messenger spacecraft flew by the innermost planet of the solar system, Mercury. It was the first of several close encounters before Messenger finally settles into a steady orbit around Mercury in 2011. As it passed, it made quick measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field and transmitted them successfully back to Earth. On 4 July 2008, the Messenger team reported the magnetic results from the first flyby. As I mentioned on the CMI website earlier, I have been eagerly awaiting the results, because in 1984 I made scientific predictions — based on Scripture — about the magnetic fields of a number of planets, including that of Mercury. Spacecraft measurements have validated three of the predictions, highlighted in red in the web version of the 1984 article."

Moon Formation Theories Way Off Orbit by Tas Walker

Excerpt: "A separate article in the Journal about recent moon discoveries by physicist D. Russell Humphreys reported findings published by Clément Suavet et al. in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Humphreys explained how measurements of magnetization of lava from a basalt ‘sea’ of the moon conflict with models of how the magnetic field works. “The report shows that uniformitarian scientists, because they assume the world is billions of years old, are still very puzzled about the moon’s magnetic field,” Humphreys said. “They don’t understand why it was formerly strong but now doesn’t exist, or how it could exist in the first place. On the other hand, the moon’s magnetic data fit creation science theories very well. A Bible-based theory for how God created the initial magnetic fields of planets and moons gives a created (6,000 years ago) field for the moon that is about as strong as the earth’s field is today, in accord with the measurements in the latest moon samples.” These latest findings from the moon are reported in the latest Journal of Creation along with much other creationist research."

Age of the Earth, 101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth and the Universe by Dr, Don Batten (Free Online Text)

Age of the Earth, 101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth and the Universe by Don Batten (Free MP3)

The 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm A Young Earth (Free Online Articles From Answers In Genesis' Answers Magazine & Other Free Creationist MP3s, Videos, Books, etc.)

Excerpt: "The earth is only a few thousand years old. That's a fact, plainly revealed in God's Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that's what we find-in the earth's geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy. Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth's age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe."

Dazzling DNA Complexity Demolishes Evolution

Creation's Marvelous Molecular Machines, Creation Magazine Live (Free Videos, MP3s, etc.)

15 Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer - Dr. Don Batten (Free Online Text)

Excerpt: "How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, 'Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.' Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, 'we don’t really know how life originated on this planet'. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?"

Evolutionists Admit That Evolution Is A Confused and Indefensible Mess

Desperate Attempts to Discover ‘the Elusive Process of Evolution’, A Review of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur

Excerpt: "The book gives numerous statements that creation scholars will cheer. I therefore expected its author, Suzan Mazur, to offset those by giving the usual, obligatory, condemnation of creationists or the usual, stern (but empty), warning that ‘creationists will find nothing useful here’. I was pleasantly surprised these were absent from her prose. Though Mazur is an evolutionist, she is clearly a serious reporter, committed to the reporter’s craft of excluding her own views. The book is careful reportage throughout. She asks pointed questions of many evolutionary scientists, and gives lengthy transcripts of their responses, along with biographies, and observations about their appearance, manner, habits, and hobbies. It’s unlikely a creationist reporter could have gotten these same evolutionists to open up that much. The book openly acknowledges the insufficiency of explaining evolution via natural selection (i.e. mutation and recombination plus various forms of selection) — and documents this point with statements from leading evolutionary scientists. ...

One area is obviously the origin of life, since natural selection can’t operate until after life has begun. Yet modern science has revealed breathtaking complexity of the simplest known self-reproducing lifeforms. To explain away these difficulties, evolutionists are claiming the existence, on Earth, of countless lifeforms unlike any known lifeforms. They have no evidence of that; instead they are trying to keep their worldview from being falsified, by floating untestable explanations. In addition, evolutionists are now offering unknown processes of ‘self-assembly’ and ‘self-organization’ (and associated terms like ‘plasticity’).

Another key area is the origin of higher taxa, especially the origin of phyla and classes. According to evolutionists themselves, the origin of all the animal phyla occurred within (or very near) a brief geological twinkling of an eye, known as the Cambrian Explosion. This is a big problem in itself.

But it gets worse. Stephen Jay Gould noted that the fossil sequence shows the most disparate (most different) biological designs tend to show up first! Followed by the slightly less-disparate designs. Followed by the still less different designs. Until, lastly, the last slight bits of interspecies biological diversity are filled-in at the very end of the process. The general trend in the fossil sequence is: the various phyla show up first, later various Linnaean classes are filled in, and still later various Linnaean orders are filled in … and so forth. Gould called this pattern ‘disparity precedes diversity’. And evolutionists cannot blame this sequence on an ‘incomplete fossil record’, as they often try to do.

That contradicts the expectations of Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism), which expects slow change that, over time, will gradually accumulate to large differences. In short, Darwinism expects the most disparate designs to show up last, not first. This is contradicted by the fossil record. (To be honest, to most people not emotionally invested in the matter, it falsifies the Darwinism.) Something is wrong at the core of Darwinian theory.

But it gets still worse. Recent discoveries in genetics are adding another interesting new challenge to the problem. Developmental biologists have observed a small set of genes coordinating organismal development of body plans—and these are present across the multicellular kingdom, in the various phyla and classes. Evolutionists call this the ‘Developmental Genetic Toolkit’. According to evolutionary thinking, this complex toolkit must have originated in some common ancestor to all the phyla. But that common ancestor must have existed prior to first appearance of these phyla—in other words, prior to the Cambrian Explosion. The common ancestor (whose identity is still unknown) must have existed in the Pre-Cambrian— prior to the origin of multicellular life. In short, the genes that control body plans had to have originated when there were no bodies. The genes that control embryological development had to have originated when there were no embryos. ... Natural selection cannot solve that problem: it cannot ‘look ahead’ and create an embryological toolkit for some future use. It cannot develop the ‘tools’ for making multicellular bodies when there are no multicellular bodies. Natural selection is insufficient, so once again evolutionists are appealing to mechanisms of self-assembly and self-organization."

Evolutionary Fraud Exposed - Dawkins and Collings Refuted The Junk DNA Myth Takes A Well-Deserved Hit, A Review of The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells, Reviewed by Jeffrey Tomkins (Free MP3 & Free Online Article)