If this scenario were true, we would be able to find evidence of it in the fossil record. What do we find? We find no evidence of massive accumulation of organic compounds.^{332/50; 4/192-193} J. Brooks and G. Shaw in their work Origin and Development of Living Systems wrote concerning this fact:

"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes [graphite-like nitrogen-containing materials]. In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth.... There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but for a brief moment."^333/336

Spontaneous generation of life in nature, without a Supernatural controlling factor such as a Creator, is a chemical scientific impossibility. In 1953, when Stanley Miller and Harold Urey produced several amino acids by applying electricity and ultraviolet light to a mixture of select gases, not one of the four primary construction materials: proteins, nucleic acids, polysaccharides and lipids, for the simplest life were produced. None of these have ever been produced since then anywhere in the world under any type of controlled environmental conditions.^334/104 Neither have scientists been able to produce the 50 or so small organic compounds from which these four primary construction materials are made.^{332/3, 47} If we cannot produce this with all of our intelligence, technology and with controlled environmental factors, it is deliberate self-imposed ignorance to think any of this could come about by chance. If we could by our intelligence produce any of this, this would support a Creator, not random chance happenings.

Another problem with Miller’s experiment was the gases he used. He used methane (CH₄) and ammonia (NH₃). The quantity and potency that he used of these gases could not exist at the beginning of life as evolutionist define it. Why? The ammonia would have been dissolved in the oceans and the methane had it been present would be found today in the sedimentary clays. What we find in the clays is no methane.^335/22

What Miller did in his spark chamber was under controlled conditions and with the exclusion of Oxygen. Scientists now know that not only was oxygen present at what they called the beginning of life in the past, but that there was as much as 10% more oxygen present in the atmosphere than there is today. Even 1% of oxygen in the atmosphere would have acted as a poison to prevent these combinations from coming about naturally or otherwise. We also know now that ultraviolet light coming from the sun hitting water vapor automatically creates an oxidized atmosphere and water was always here from the beginning.^336/138-139 We also know now that volcanoes spewed out carbon dioxide and nitrogen which is not conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other building blocks of life.^337/121

Another factor that was set up in Miller’s spark chamber that does not take place in nature, was the artificial protection of amino acids as soon as they were formed through the application of the spark. How did they accomplish this? By siphoning off the amino acids as soon as they were formed. Why did they do this if it did not take place naturally in nature? Because if they had not, the next spark of electricity applied would have destroyed the amino acids just formed. This siphoning off does not happen in a random chance situation.

A physical chemist, D. E. Hull, has calculated that in this scenario, and only under these controlled conditions, the only likely amino acid to form and survive would be glycine, but then only 0.2 mg. in a swimming pool full of water. Other amino acids and sugars would be far less.^338/214-216

Another controlled factor that was used in this laboratory experiment was using only short wavelength ultraviolet light. They purposely left out long wavelength ultraviolet light, which naturally occurs in nature, because they knew it would destroy any amino acids formed.^333/1/366

Lets examine the facts. We already know that the presence of oxygen is completely destructive to the possibility of any amino acids or proteins forming or surviving after forming. The highly corrosive oxygen destroys it as soon as it forms. Because of this fact evolutionists by necessity must postulate that there was no oxygen in the atmosphere at the beginning and inception of life.

What is wrong with this scenario? Life as we know it on earth could not exist without the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere. Why? When Molecular oxygen, O₂, in our atmosphere is influenced by the radiant energy from the sun, it produces triatomic oxygen, O₃, better known as Ozone.^339/175-176 Ozone exists about 12-21 miles above the surface of the earth. This Ozone layer filters out deadly ultraviolet light. If it did not, the ultraviolet light would come through and destroy any living organisms from one celled creatures to plants to animals to man. It is for this reason that we use ultraviolet light for sterilization purposes. Ammonia is one of the substances evolutionists say would have had to have been present in the beginning of spontaneous generation of life. However, without the ozone layer being present, ammonia would have been rapidly destroyed by the intense ultraviolet light. This is also why there is so much concern over the ozone layer. Again without it, life as we know it could not exist on earth or anywhere else. For this reason, oxygen had to be present when the first life forms appeared on earth and could not be present if spontaneous generation of life had any possibility of forming. Either way the evolutionist loses. This is why in order for life to have been present on earth and survive in any form that it would have had to be created fully fuctional to start with.

Second, no life forms on earth are able to utilize the light of the Sun directly. The direct energy from the Sun is completely destructive. All things left out in the direct sun light, living or dead, within a short time do not evolve into higher forms but disintegrate completely.

How do living organisms utilize the energy of the Sun? It is done through a process in plants called photosynthesis. The engines in plants called photosynthesis takes the raw destructive energy of the sun and turns it into energy that the plants and our bodies are then able to use.

From a blade of grass to a giant redwood, 90% of it came from thin air thanks to Photosynthesis. Photosynthesis could not happen by chance, it is the result of design by our Creator. In order for a plant to catch light, many pigment molecules are necessary. These molecules are bound to specific proteins that are arranged in well ordered structures. Each contain as many as 600 chlorophyl molecules that act as antenna for light. These antenna touch the proteins that activate the chemical reactions of photosynthesis called photo-systems.

The photo-systems contain a variety of components including specialized chlorophyl termed the reaction center. Light absorbed by pigments of the antenna are transferred extremely rapidly to the reaction center chlorophyl by a process called resonance transfer. Again, these reactions occur very rapidly, as fast as 1 picosecond which is 1 trillionth of a second or 10^-12 power. The slowest occurs in micro seconds. 1/1,000,000 of a second is a microsecond.

By this process billions of tons of carbon atoms are taken from CO₂ each year and are made into amino acids, sugars and other organic compounds. It is the amino acids, sugars and other organic compounds that we need for DNA and RNA protein replication to build and maintain our physical bodies. Without plant life these buildings blocks would not exist. If this were true, neither would we be able to survive and exist. This is why God on the third day of creation created the plant life first and the light of the sun on the fourth day before He created the ocean life and animal and human life on the fifth and sixth days. Without the plant life and the sun for photosynthesis first, no human or animal life created would have been able to nourish itself to sustain its physical life. All animal life on earth is dependent directly or indirectly on plant life to exist. Animals eat the plants and we eat the animals. This is what I mean by indirectly.

If there had been no oxygen In the beginning of life, the ultraviolet light would have destroyed any possible plant life as well. If all plant life on earth was destroyed, in a very short time all animal life would come to extinction. A former biology teacher and close friend of mine, Elroy Robinson, used to say, "Man has not quite reached deity yet, he is still dependent on the lowly green plant." It is not possible for blind chance to put together this incredible complicated photosynthesis machinery. Evolutionary theory has no means of explaining how this could have possibly come about by chance. Evolutionists are not able to explain how the necessary photosynthesis process came about which was necessary for any kind of life to exist on the earth. Without it, plant life as well as animal life is not able to utilize the energy of the Sun it needs.

The Book of Genesis answers this problem completely. It tells us that after God created the earth and the dry land on the first and second days, that on the third day He created the plant life. He did this even before he created the life in the ocean. Why? Because even ocean life is dependent directly or indirectly on plant life to live and survive. Next God created the animal life in the ocean and the animal life on the earth including man. Then God said,

"Behold, I have given you every herb-vegetable³⁴⁰ yielding seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit in it yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to every thing that moves on the earth which has in-it a living soul, I have given every green herb for food; and it was so." (Genesis 1:29-30)

God in the beginning, first, before he created animal life, created plant life with the photosynthesis machinery built in ready and able to take the destructive energy of the sun and turn it into energy our bodies could utilize for our own health and well being. Why then do we now eat meat? Because of the past World wide flood. Before the flood there was a water canopy above the atmosphere of the earth which first filtered out the destructive radiation in space and the ultraviolet light of the Sun. Second, it created an even temperature and green house effect around the earth which made plant life abundant. Under these conditions plant life was profuse enough to feed both man and beast including the dinosaurs. Part of what brought about the flood was the collapse of this water canopy. This means that after the flood, since this water canopy no longer existed, that we are now getting more direct sunlight. Plant life is now not as abundant as it was before the flood. Therefore, in order for man’s survival, after the flood God commanded Noah and his descendants:

"And Elohim blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the terror of you shall be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant." (Genesis 9:1-3)

This also explains why the dinosaurs died out. After the flood there simply was not enough vegetation available to sustain them. Evolutionists and Hollywood portray dinosaurs as vicious meat eaters. The Bible, however, teaches clearly that they along with man were all plant eaters. Genesis teaches that before Adam and Eve sinned there was no death in the world. Death and destruction are the consequences, the fruit of sin, not the natural order of things as God intended. Now, in order for man to survive, God has given man all animal life for food also.

Miller’s experiment came up with completely wrong results. He was trying to produce amino acids and he did, but not the kind needed for life processes. Proteins in living cells are made up of specific kinds of amino acids that are called "alpha" which means they are short and "left-handed." Miller’s soup contained long beta, gamma and delta amino acids and equal numbers of right and left-handed forms. The problem with this is that just one long or right-handed amino acid inserted into a chain of short left-handed amino acids would prevent the coiling and folding necessary for proper protein function. What Miller did produce was poisons that would only destroy any possible chemical evolution of life. His experiment rather than demonstrating spontaneous generation of life demonstrated instead the impossibility of spontaneous generation of life. The experiment demonstrated very clearly that molecules could never put themselves together into living cells without the careful selective engineering of a very intelligent Creator.^335/23

None of these scenarios demonstrates scientists scientifically investigating the facts to find out what is true. Instead what we find are pseudo-scientists trying to create a scenario to deliberately defraud the public into believing that life came about through spontaneous generation. Everything in nature, and especially in early history, does not only not support this hypothesis, but demonstrates clearly that not only could life not have come about this way in nature, but not even when man provides all the needed controlled factors. Spontaneous generation of life is a chemical scientific impossibility.

A dead body has all the necessary molecules needed for the building of life, however, outside of Jesus raising men from dead and his own body to demonstrate that He is God the Creator, no one has ever witnessed a dead corpse come to life spontaneously and get up and walk away. What happens when someone dies? The living tissue losses its highly complex biological order and is no longer able to assimilate food the body ingests to keep this highly complex order going.^{341, 342, 343, 344, 345}

The relationship between DNA and protein is very complicated. DNA uses a series of basis, three at a time, to line up what are called R-groups. R-groups are the part of the amino acid that stick out along the protein chain. "R" stands for "variable radical." This means an R-group can be an acid, base, hydrogen atom, a short chain, long chain, a single or double ring, fat-soluble or water-soluble. As far as science has been able to find, there is no factor in nature which lines these groups up for a desired result, especially for what is required for life. Base/R-group orderly, with a purpose, relationships must be imposed on matter from an outside force. There is nothing existing in matter to bring about these relationships.^335/24

Scientists knowing these facts come up with all kinds of hypothesis to try and explain this. They call it the chaos theory: that order comes out of chaos. However, no scientist has ever observed or demonstrated in any capacity order coming out of chaos without outside manipulation. What we do observe is order degenerating into chaos. We observe the order in the universe degenerating into chaos. Just as in a society, when they do away with God’s moral laws which create order in society, greater order does not result. Eventually everything degenerates into complete chaos as we have witnessed in Russia and are now witnessing in America. When we do away with God’s moral laws everything degenerates into chaos, disease and death. The only way you have order in society is when it is imposed from the outside. The same is true in nature. Everything we observe indicates an outside force, Creator, which has forced order upon the chaos. Everything in the universe we observe shows us that the order we see is slowly degenerating back into chaos. The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ holds the atom together. The order we see in the universe was imposed upon it by Jesus (Gen 1:1, John 1:3, Col 1:16-17, Heb 1:3)

This is clearly observed in our DNA. Because of all the chemicals and radiation we have imposed upon society, it is having a debilitating effect upon our DNA. Each new generation finds itself with new negative DNA medical problems. God made us perfect in the beginning, but the sin of man is slowly destroying him physically as well as morally. We are not getting better. As time goes on we are getting worse, degenerating spiritually and physically and if Jesus does not return and reimpose the needed order in our world morally and physically, in time man will see his end.

This in fact is the hope of the Bible believing Christian. Paul wrote in Philippians 3:20-21,

"We eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will-transform3345b the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that he has even to subject all things to Himself."

There are four biopolymers, primary construction materials, required for the simplest life form. They are: proteins, nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), polysaccharide and lipids.

Proteins: any of a group of nitrogenous organic compounds of high molecular weight, synthesized by plants and animals, that upon hydrolysis by enzymes yield amino acids, and that are required for all life processes in animals.^92/1063

Nucleic Acid (DNA, RNA): any of a group of complex acids occurring in all living cells, especially as a component of cell-nucleus proteins, and composed of a phosphoric acid group, a carbohydrate, two purine, and two pyrimidine.^92/911

Polysaccharide: a carbohydrate, as starch, inulin, cellulose, etc., containing more than three monosaccharide units per molecule and capable of hydrolysis by acids or enzymes to monosaccharides.^92/1029

Carbohydrates: an organic compound, sugars and starch, made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in which the number of hydrogen and oxygen atoms are in approximately 2:1 proportion. Carbo means "carbon" and hydrate means "water"; because of the 2:1 proportion of hydrogen to oxygen which is the same as water (H₂O) these compounds are hydrates of carbon.^346/55

Lipids: a class of organic compounds composed of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen in which the oxygen content is relatively low — fats, steroids. Lip means fat.^346/55 Also these organic compounds that are greasy to the touch, insoluble in water, and soluble in alcohol, ether, and other fat solvents. Lipids comprise the fats and other esters with analogous properties and constitute, with proteins and carbohydrates, the chief structural components of living cells.^92/780

Not one of these have ever been produced by man in a laboratory.^334/104 This is because their construction is very complex. For example enzymes which are special proteins which act as catalysts for chemical reactions are made of amino acids that must be arranged in a specific sequence. there are 20 amino acids involved in the construction of enzymes and all of these bond to each other equally. Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe state that the probability of these amino acids forming together correctly in sequence by chance is 1 in 10²⁶⁰.³⁴⁷ 2,000 different functioning enzymes are required to duplicate the simplest bacterium. The probability of all 2,000 forming by chance is 1 in 10²⁰ multiplied together 2,000 times, or 1 in 10^40,000.^334/127 We humans use over 200,000 types of protein in our cells.^333/1/80

It becomes more complicated than this. This is because experimenters are only able to produce 50% L-type and 50% D-type amino acids. What is the problem with this? Living tissue is made up of exclusively L-type amino acids, and glycine which is neither. Under these conditions the odds increase from 1 in 20 to 1 in 39.^338/71 This increases the chance formation of life to a much greater degree than has already been stated.

How big is 10^40,000? If every atom in the known universe, 10⁸⁰ atoms, pulsated one million times per second for five billion years, the total number of pulses of all atoms would only come to 10¹⁰³.^349/85 For this reason Hoyle and Wickramasinghe state that even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup, the chance formation of life would still be impossible.^347/24 For this reason they write,

"The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation. . . . Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific."^347/130

Biochemists Harold Blum, Professor of Chemistry Perry Reeves, the late astronomer Carl Sagan and Professor of Cell biology E.J. Ambrose have reached similar conclusions.^{333/1/304, 19/45-46, 348/81-82} These probability numbers are so high that within the boundaries of space and time as we know them the probability is zero chances of life forming by chance. Carl Sagan wrote, "One could randomly assemble all the elementary particles in the universe a billion times a second for the age of the universe and never get this [simplest] protein."

Now we move to the DNA molecule and the chance formation of life becomes even more ludicrous. The simplest life form scientists like to use for discussion is the bacterium E. coli. E. coli’s DNA consists of 3-4 million base pairs. These pairs are not arranged randomly but intelligently with a purpose for the life of the cell. This number of base pairs can be arranged in 10^2,000,000 different ways. This means that if evolutionists are correct that by chance these base pairs, built on every other factor we have already discussed, came together to produce a reproducing organism called E. coli. Frank Salisbury who is a Professor of Plant Physiology at Utah State University wrote in an article in American Biology Teacher (1971),

"Since there are four kinds of nucleotide in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4^1,000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms), we can see that 4^1,000 = 10⁶⁰⁰. . . . Imagine how many universes it would take to accommodate 10⁶⁰⁰ DNA chains!"^333/1/321

This means that even if billions of planets were covered with a solution with the necessary amino acids that the chance formation of DNA would not occur over billions and billions of years.^333/1/305 If only 100 genes were necessary to synthesize the proteins necessary for the simplest life form, the odds of this coming about by chance in ten billion years is 10^-30,000..^350/142 In light of these odds Fred Hoyle stated that chance formation of life on earth is "nonsense of a high order."^333/1/304 Molecular biologist Michael Denton calls it "an affront to reason."^56/351

So far we have only talked about the components that a living cell is composed of, not the complicated workings and environment of a living cell itself. How complicated is a living cell? More complicated than anything man has ever imagined to build technologically. We have seen how impossible it is for the components of a living cell to come about by chance. For these components to then come together to form a living cell, the probability becomes beyond any possible reasonable measure. One Yale biophysicist, Harold Morowitz, has calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of a bacterium at 1 in 10^{100,000,000,000}.^334/128 Because of this figure he stated that the origin of life coming about through random processes is not possible given the age of the universe as evolutionists define it (15 to 20 billions years).^351/105 Wickramasinghe and Chemist John Keosian in different words said the same thing.^{352/26, 3/1/303}

Despite these evidences, these scientists continue to believe in evolution. Why? Because of the scientific evidence? No, there is no evidence as stated by themselves. Despite this, they continue to believe in evolution because of their philosophic base which is that there is no God or Creator; therefore, however impossible the odds or evidence, there is no other possible explanation but that it happened by chance. This is not science, this is science fiction. Evolution is not based on any evidence of science, but on myth. We have returned to the dark-ages. This is not reason, but escape from reason. Note the statement of one of their scientists Harold Urey,

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."^333/1/325 [emphasis added]

The Apostle Paul was correct when he wrote in the Bible,

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they know God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:20-22)

If scientists who choose to not believe in God from this standpoint were honest, they would simply say based on the evidence, "We simply do not know how life began. What we do know is that the tangible scientific evidence before us clearly indicates that evolution is not how it came about." This then would be science, but this is not what they do. Despite the evidence, they hold onto a theory they know the evidence clearly does not support. As a result they move from true science to Science-fiction and instead of promoting true science and true knowledge actually hinder science and true knowledge. They are no longer scientists but only philosophers and dreamers. They have by their own admission moved from the discipline of science to faith based on myth with no tangible scientific evidence to back it up.

Despite the tremendous complexity and complete scientific evidence against the spontaneous generation of life, evolutionists continue to insist that some how life did come out of the randomness of dead matter. They don’t know how, but they have faith that given time they will find the answer.^334/207 Sir Fred Hoyle has pointed out that if this were possible, they would be able to find the solution in half a day through experimentation. All experiments, however, through electrical sparks and all other added factors have only produced "a tarry sludge.".^334/208 The reason why evolutionary scientists hold onto the theory of spontaneous generation so tenaciously is because of their undying belief that all that exists is matter and its motion. It is based on their philosophy of life, not due to the scientific evidence at hand.^55/77

Evolutionists reject the Creationist’s point of view because they claim it is outside the realm of investigative science, yet they hold onto the view of evolution despite all evidence to the contrary. Therefore their view is more a position of faith, as they define faith, than the Creationist’s. However, the faith evolutionists have in evolution is not the same kind of faith that Creationist have in Creation. Evolutionists faith in Evolution is a blind faith meaning without proof or verification. The Creationist’s faith in Creation, however, is based on proof and verification. Christian Creationists base their view on the investigated facts of science and Jesus’ stated proof to us of the absolute reliability of the historical record of the Judeo-Christian Bible: His Resurrection from the dead (John 4:46-47, 2:18-22). The Evolutionist’s position is what is known in Philosophy as an existential leap of faith. This means they do not know how it all began and despite the lack of evidence for evolution, they take a leap of faith that it is true anyway. A leap of faith is anti-scientific and anti-rational. It is anti-rational because it is not based on reason or evidence of science, but on blind choice completely contrary to reason. It is not a hypothesis developed into a theory because of the evidence, but despite the evidence to the contrary. The Evolutionists position is a rejection of science, a rejection of scientific fact and a rejection of all rational processes. This can be demonstrated by the following statement by an evolutionary biochemist at Harvard named George Wald:

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."^334/120 [emphasis added]

This is not a scientist. A scientist is someone who hypothesis what may be true and then goes out and investigates and collects data to see if his hypothesis holds out or not. If the data collected appears to support his hypothesis and the scientific community agrees that it does based on the evidence, it then becomes a theory. If it does not, then the hypothesis is rejected and another one is created based on the current evidence at hand. This is not what George Wald has done. He has stated that all evidence shows that spontaneous generation of life is not how we got here, but despite this evidence, he states, "Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." It is a leap of faith he has chosen to take based on his world view, not on the collected data he has at hand. When George Wald did this, he stopped being a scientist, he stopped operating in the realm of science. If he continues to hold his position despite the evidence to the contrary and so teaches others, not only does he cease operating as a scientist, but also becomes a hindrance to finding out what is true.

If George Wald is not a scientist, what is he? He is an existentialist, operating out of a leap of faith. This means he chooses to believe what he believes without evidence and despite the evidence to the contrary.

Because of the lack of evidence in support of evolution, all kinds of new theories have appeared to explain our being here: Life was brought here from another planet from outer space is one of the more popular ones. All this does is side step the issue at hand which is how life came about in the first place, but does not answer it and again does more to support creation than evolution. There are many others. Concerning all these different theories, Klaus Dose, Director of the Institute for Biochemistry at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, stated the following in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (1988):

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

Despite these facts all secular universities across the country will not accept any scientists who hold any other view other than evolution, they will not allow published in any of their magazines any articles which give views or theories contrary to evolution, and anyone who proposes theories contrary to evolution based on scientific research and evidence are called non-scientists.^353/3-5

God speaking through Isaiah said,

"For a fool speaks nonsense, and his heart inclines toward wickedness, to practice ungodliness and to speak error against Yehovah [God], to keep the hungry person unsatisfied and to withhold drink from the

thirsty. As for a rogue, his weapons are evil; he devises wicked schemes to destroy the afflicted with slander, even though the needy one speaks what is right." (Isaiah 32:6-7)

The Apostle Paul wrote,

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

1. Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker. What is Creation Science? Green Forest, AR: Master Books, Inc., 1987.
2. Parker, Gary E. Creation Facts of Life Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994.
3. Sunderland, Luther D.. Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 3d ed. Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1984.
4. Lubenow, Marvin L. Bones of Contention. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, © 1992 by Marven L. Lubenow.
5. Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record. El Cajon: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985.
6. Camp, Ashby L. The Myth of Natural Origins. Tempe, AZ: Ktisis Publishing, © 1994 by Ashby L. Camp.