Tag Archive: God

Yesterday I had such a wondrous time reading Matthew chapters 5-7 — just alone time with my God and me. I started from the Beatitudes to the end of Christ’s words, and His teaching just struck me as so amazing. Stuff I had heard before, but for some reason I was seeing with new eyes. Like, He says, when your enemy forces you to go one mile with him, you should go with him two miles. Or if he sues you for your tunic, give him your coat also. Wow, how counter-intuitive! How totally lacking in bitterness — what a hard, amazing thing. He’s really saying, in a nutshell, to repay evil with good, to give to your opponent even when you are the one wronged.

THAT takes a lot of maturity — maturity in becoming Christlike. I was just thinking through these three chapters how a lot of it is about our relationships and our character-building — what righteousness is is Christlike character! The whole Christian experience is growing in that character so that we reflect God’s own perfect character. And all the things Christ was saying in these chapters — so counter-intuitive, against your expectations kind of things — it just made me realize how smart, wise Christ is.

Did you ever ponder how He is pretty smart, I mean, like you admire how other people are smart? I’ve been noticing the ingenuity of God lately, like how His greatest act of glory (redemption of fallen humans) is through His greatest humiliation (the cross)! I mean, how genius is that? Who ever thought of winning through utter defeat, giving life through death — that’s just mind-blowing!

My sis and I really started appreciating this because we’re trying to write a novel, and we come up with these story twists and character growths. And then we apply what we’re doing with what God’s doing, and suddenly we see how awesome God is — He is the greatest Storyteller ever. How He ever came up with the cross is astounding. He’s a person who wants to show His great glory — and yet He shows His greatest glory by becoming a weak, poor, tortured man who dies a criminal’s death on the cross. What’s with that — I mean, if I was trying to show my glory, that’s not the way I’d go about it! I’d blast the world with light or something and just everyone will be at their knees. That’s how we’d all do it.

But not God. He really has a humble streak in Him — He loves showing power through weakness, glory through meekness. O how beautiful — can’t you see how incredible He is! God is a genius — we talk about how loving or holy or merciful He is, but has anybody ever just thought of how He’s just so smart, so genius to come up with such a counter-intuitive way of showing all His glory in the most defeating way? Amazing! Awesome! Now He’s Someone to really admire — to revere and worship and just stand in awe!


The God of Love

Yes, God is certainly loving. The most loving Being in the universe, for He is the only One Who would give Himself for avowed enemies. No man was His friend, for no one seeks after Him: “There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Romans 3:10-11).

Yet by His sheer grace, He offered salvation. Now that is love. But His love has many facets, and like we know, His is not a condoning “love” — the “love” that accepts everything, right and wrong, the “love” whose god is personal happiness (temporal, at that).

No, God’s love is mature and holy. He hates sin with a passion: “The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain snares; Fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup. For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness; The upright will behold His face” (Psalm 11:5-7).

Thus, God will not tolerate sin. He cannot stand sin, and it is with great pain that He allows Himself to endure the sin of history, it is with grace He allows this. He could have — should have! — obliterated us first chance He got. We disgrace Him constantly: “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).

We would never love Him, except by the grace He gave us to open our eyes to the glory that is His. Yet He cannot just let sin slide. And this was love: That He absorbed all our sin on Himself and paid the penalty required of disgracing the God of the universe.

He paid it Himself. The God of Heaven humbled Himself as a man to pay our debt so that we could find true happiness, the happiness that could only be achieved by filling our souls with His glory.

Praise the Lord.

Tim Tebow Wins Playoff Game After Storied Journey

I was there, as millions of others were, when Tim Tebow threw the 80-yard touchdown that closed the shortest overtime in NFL history on the night of January 8, 2012. After an intensely passionate game of two quick Denver touchdowns in the first half and a Pittsburgh Steelers comeback in the second, Tebow worked his magic to win the game.

Critics have longtime doubted Tebow’s playing ability — despite his being one of history’s finest college quarterbacks to come into the NFL. His passion for Christ scared too many in the media and in America, causing his name to be a touchstone for conservatism and faith. He won game after game in the regular season, silencing critics for a while under ecstatic cheers of “Tebow Time!” Then came three straight losses, with which Tebow and the Broncos closed the season. The criticism resumed, up to the point of doubt Tebow would return as a starter next season.

"Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:6-7; NASB)

"Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:6-7; NASB)

But they seemed to purposefully forget Tebow’s incredible ability up to that point: He had transformed the Broncos from a failing team to one that had entered the playoffs. He injected a sense of passion, purpose, and work ethic into his teammates. The media had forgotten the values of a soul leaning on Christ can bring. He is a first-time starter quarterback who carried his team to the playoffs.

Before this monumental playoffs game, Tebow was despondent. He watched his alma mater win a bowl game with not so much as a cheer. Yet as the January 8, 2012, game neared and official practice began, his spirit revived. No doubt he did some soul-searching and came to the conclusion that criticism is there to motivate you, critics of you and your faith exist to be defied.


I believe God used this gifted man for His glory. His tremendous college career brought attention to his faith. His NFL drama displayed the reaction to his shamless Christianity. His consecutive wins increased his fame. And I believe his three losses humbled him and brought him back to his humble beginnings and complete trust in the Omnipotent.

Critics should be ashamed of themselves. Denver journalists should realize how unfair they have been in their hasty assessment of an (honestly) rookie quarterback. The CBS announcers had no choice but to “Tebow” after the game: Honestly, there was nothing left to say, but accept his skill and victory.

I cheered like nothing I’ve done before when I watched Demaryius Thomas catch and fly with the winning touchdown. But I can cheer all the greater for the shining example God set up in the world for His glory. Tebow is just like any other man and Christian, learning about God and interacting with his Saviour. He is not perfect. Like all of us, he learns and grows. But he is certainly most blessed by his position in the world to proclaim the Lord’s truth to all the world.

"Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD" (Jeremiah 17:7; NASB).

"Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD" (Jeremiah 17:7; NASB).

In a discussion on the blog post “Does Science Debunk God?” I got into a big conversation about DNA and evidences for God’s existence and the Bible’s trustworthiness. I spent so much time replying and researching good evidences that I figured I should share these thoughts in more than the comment section! So I will be posting some of what I wrote, edited slightly, for your benefit to read here. This first one is about “The Mystery of DNA: Does DNA Point to God?”

DNA is foundational for life. This double helix is within each of our cells in our body and each cell of every life form. This microscopic code (or instruction manual) is composed of chemicals arranged in specific sequences. These arrangements form the letters of a language that communicates to a cell all the information it needs to manufacture everything for life. The DNA in a single human cell contains the information equivalent of 4,000 books! How did DNA come to exist?

Three Possibilities

When we see an object, we can conclude it formed in one of three ways: by chance, by necessity, or by design.

Choice 1: By Chance

By chance means that the parts came about randomly, like leaves clustered in a ditch from the wind. Or a coin flipping. The more complex and delicate the design, the less likely it formed by chance. A computer, for example, would not be expected to form by chance, since random happenings do not generate the specific connections we see in a computer.

Choice 2: By Necessity

By necessity means that the laws in nature decree that something will take place. For example, warm waters over the Atlantic, the trade winds blowing to the US eastern sea board, the Coriolis effect, and other tropical phenomena cause a hurricane to form. Or the characteristics of atoms and the number of their electrons cause certain crystals to form. Both hurricanes and crystals have design, but this design is repetitive. The design is not simple, but it repeats in an ABCD, ABCD, ABCD manner – the same design over and over again. Such repetitive design is a characteristic effect from a relentless cause such as nature’s laws. Some scientists are trying to find a “law” in nature that created DNA, but that is quite contrary to the design of DNA.

Choice 3: By Design

DNA has an irregular design. It is one of the most fascinating objects in nature because of this non-repeating pattern. The pattern appears random at first. The arrangements of the different chemicals in DNA does not repeat ABCD, ABCD, ABCD, like the atomic structure of a crystal. Rather, the four DNA chemicals are arranged in non-repetitive patterns, like GHR TYGREF BUYI. DNA is actually much more complex, because its “random” pattern actually conforms to a “language code” that makes perfect sense of the letters in DNA. For example, once the code is known, the above sequence may mean LET TYLER PLAY.

Cutting Choices 1 & 2

Since the pattern does not repeat, the necessity of natural law is powerless to create it, because necessity produces repetition. Chance has an even more woebegone probability of producing this unrepeated pattern, since mindless chance does not know about the higher code that directs the non-repeating pattern and makes sense of this pattern. Without knowing the higher code, the only thing created would be chaos.

The Key Is Information

DNA is like a foreign language – it looks random at first, but once you understand the “code” and “rules” of the language, all the arrangement of the letters makes sense in this order. This irregular yet patterned aspect of DNA makes DNA very unique, because it is specified information. And information of this kind is only known to result from an intelligent mind.

Dr. Werner Gitt, Director and Professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, states that one thing we have learned from scientific study is that information can only result from greater information that results from a mind and will:

No Known Natural Law”

“A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) … It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required.” In the Beginning was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64–7.

“There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.” (p. 79)

Thus, chance and necessity are unable to account for the information in DNA. This leaves the third option, design. Someone’s mind had to intentionally design DNA so the pattern makes sense and can function.

The Search Begins . . .

Now, who could this higher mind be? DNA is exceedingly complex, far exceeding the complexity of any computer code or other information that mere human minds can create. Not even the most brilliant scientists can create DNA. So whatever mind created DNA, it is a mind far superior to ours.

Option 1: Aliens?

Maybe aliens gave our planet life, including DNA? Some have proposed it in all seriousness. Yet it is not the most reasonable choice, since we have very little evidence that such higher life forms exist in outer space. The most evidence for life outside earth is bacteria in Mars, but that is far from super-intelligent extraterrestrials. Besides, these hypothetical life forms would themselves have to have some information code similar to DNA within their own cells. All life, especially of the higher orders, that we have ever experienced contains DNA, so it is only reasonable to say that DNA or something like it is integral to life. If extraterrestrials created DNA on earth, who created theirs? The problem is only pushed farther back in the mists of time. So who created it?

Option 2: The Life Force

Is the Life Force of pantheistic religions like Hinduism the cause of DNA? Not likely, since this Life Force is supposed to be impersonal – which means it has no will of its own. Such a force would be similar to nature’s laws, another “necessity” unable to create anything except repetitious designs, like the law of karma. But since DNA is an unrepeated pattern of information, an impersonal life force is truly unlikely as its source.

Option 3: A Creator

From a process of elimination, we have reduced the possibilities greatly. From thinking through this process of elimination, here are some traits of DNA’s Creator:

1. This Creator must be super-intelligent, since DNA is super-complex

2. This Creator must be very powerful in order to bring elements together and make DNA from raw materials.

3. This Creator must have the ability to see things we cannot, such as the microscopic world, yet also have the wisdom to know how to make DNA work for life in the macroscopic world.

4. This Creator must have a will and not just be pure law or necessity, since DNA has a non-repeating pattern.

5. This Creator must not be composed of DNA, since that is the very thing we are trying to explain. If whoever made DNA has no DNA, then this mind and will is much different from all life as we know it. Since all flesh has DNA, this being appears not to be made of flesh.

6. This Creator cares about life, since DNA is key to life.

Who is this Creator?

Now, where can I find a super-intelligent, super-powerful, all-seeing, wise, conscious, and non-physical Creator who has a keen interest in life on this planet? Well, every single human society since antiquity already claims that such a being exists: God. Isn’t it strange that all human societies have the consciousness of a being they cannot see, hear, taste, smell, or feel? Yet DNA shows that this kind of being is just what is required for DNA’s very existence! This is no coincidence.

We Knew It All Along

The Creator of DNA put within our consciousness (in our DNA!) that He exists and can be known. No other cause can adequately explain how the non-repeating, incredibly complex information in DNA came into existence. Even the philosopher Antony Flew, the most renown atheist of the twentieth century, made a 180 and admitted near the end of his life that God must exist because of DNA. The discovery of DNA was one of the most pertinent reasons for this atheist’s turnaround.

Thus, DNA is powerful evidence that God exists just as these words right here are evidence that a person exists behind them. These words couldn’t write themselves, even over millions of years, because they do not mean anything in themselves, but have meaning only within the higher code, or language, they belong in. The physics that make these words possible for you to see – the ink, paper, printer – cannot make the words for the simple reason that information is not part of the physical world. The same information could be written with a pencil or even with squirts of lemon juice. Thus, the natural laws of the physical world have nothing to do with information. Physical laws can only work with the information encoded within it. But it can’t create any new information, like DNA. That requires, as Dr. Werner Gitt concludes, a mind behind the matter. And God is the only mind that qualifies as capable of creating DNA.

To learn more: askwitnessingGod@gmail.com

Or check out: www.icr.org



With the rise of technology and the explanation of all nature through science and evolution, is God out of a job? Is faith no longer reasonable? What does the scientific evidence say? Today, fascinating discoveries in science are reopening the question of God.

Let’s begin with a disclaimer: No side can “prove” anything absolutely. We must live day-to-day believing things based on probability. For example, the weatherman may say that there’s a 60% chance of rain tomorrow. Though it’s not a certainty, we probably would bring an umbrella just in case. Or what about race horse betting? Perhaps there’s a 1 in 10 chance that Blue Bailey is a winner? Or maybe a 1 in 100 chance? Would you bet your money on those odds?

So what is the chance that life in all its complexity could form without the influence of an intelligent, powerful Being named God?

Let’s start basic: What are the odds that one protein molecule of the simplest bacterium, Mycoplasma genitalium, formed by chance processes? A protein is made of various parts; how likely did these parts join randomly? Dr. Dwain Ford, former professor of chemistry, puts the odds at 1 in 10 with 451 zeros after 10! Compare that with the number of carbon atoms that could fill the whole earth: 1 in 10 with 50 zeros after 10 (In Six Days, p. 139). That’s not even close to 1 in 10 with 451 zeros! Not even the most insane soul at the race-track would bet on such astronomically low odds. Even the simplest life is complex. Yet that’s only the odds of a single protein molecule forming randomly; a single cell requires thousands of proteins. And cells are much simpler than snails, birds, or humans. Thus, the odds are very high that life was created not by chance, but by an intelligent God. It’s as close to certainty as you can get.

Yet if God created life, who created God?

Here’s some helpful logic:

1. Whatever has a beginning has a cause.

2. The universe has a beginning.

3. Thus, it has a cause.

God has no beginning. Thus, He has no cause.

We all must believe in something that has always existed, either God or the universe. If the universe has no beginning, then it doesn’t need a Creator for its cause. But even atheistic scientists say that the universe (including matter, space, and time) had a beginning. Thus, both atheists and theists, though disagreeing on many points, agree that the universe had a beginning! It couldn’t have created itself, since it would have had to exist before it existed! Thus, it needed a Creator to come into existence. God, however, is eternal and never “began to exist,” so He doesn’t need a Creator.

Okay, so God began it all. But don’t scientists believe that evolution is responsible for life?

Let’s consider DNA, the informational foundation of life. This microscopic code (or instruction manual) within a cell is composed of certain chemicals arranged in specific sequences. These arrangements form the letters of a language that communicates to a cell all the information it needs to manufacture everything for life. The DNA in a single human cell contains the information equivalent of 4,000 books! Can evolution explain this vast amount of information?

A molecular biologist named Sam (apparently he didn’t want to give his surname) said some remarkable statements about DNA in an interview (“The Biologist” p. 2, qtd. in In the Beginning by Walt Brown, p. 16):

Biologist: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words”. . . . .

Interviewer (George Caylor): “Do you believe that the information evolved?”

Biologist: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He’s been there!”

Interviewer: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”

Biologist: “No. It all just evolved.”

Interviewer: “What? You just told me – ?”

Biologist: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures – everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”

That interview helps explain why many scientists, though seeing for themselves much evidence for a Creator, still believe in evolution.

But if God created the universe and life, wouldn’t we have to accept miracles?

Skeptics claim believing in miracles is unreasonable. But is it reasonable to believe that the information in DNA, the equivalent of 4,000 books, arose by chance? This contradicts everything known about complex informa-tion: It’s always the product of an intelligent mind. Not even the most unreasonable person would believe that simpler forms of information such as computer code, encyclopedias, or even grocery lists formed without an intelligent mind, so why should DNA be the exception?

If DNA formed by chance, it would be a “secular” miracle even more incredible than religious miracles.

Why? Because it wouldn’t have the benefit of a powerful God to explain it. Jesus’ resurrection is more credible than DNA arising by chance, because a powerful God caused the resurrection, while evolution says no intelligent being caused DNA to exist.

So a miracle caused by God is a more reasonable explanation than a miracle caused by nothing. A miracle of God would not be contrary to scientific law, since God created the scientific laws in the first place when He set up the universe. So He is perfectly capable of intervening in His natural laws to cause a supernatural outcome for His own purpose.

But isn’t evolution the only legitimate science?

Evolution doesn’t have a monopoly on science. One vital part of science is the ability to make predictions that either confirm or refute a theory. Creation scientists have made predictions that have come true. Dr. Walt Brown, an MIT-graduate mechanical engineer, devised a flood theory that posited that a salty water chamber once encircled the earth 10 miles underground. In 1980 he predicted that traces of this water were under major mountains. Around 2001, evidence of this salt water was found under the Tibetan Plateau, which is beside the Himalayan Mountains (In the Beginning, p. 125). Brown published (p. 332) a list of 39 predictions. This ability to test creation theory shows that it is true science.

Many scientists are questioning evolution

Many books critical of evolution aren’t even written from a religious viewpoint, such as The Great Evolution Mystery; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth; and Darwin Retried. Science Digest reports that “Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science” (Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin,” Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96. qtd in ChristianAnswers.net). Many scientists are challenging evolution in light of its inadequacies.

5 common arguments for evolution that don’t stand up to scrutiny:

1. Mutations and natural selection

Natural selection is “survival of the fittest.” Through mutations, or random changes in a creature’s genetic code, natural selection weeds out the bad and keeps the strong “innovations” in nature until new kinds evolve. But to work for evolution, mutations must add new information to the gene pool that natural selection can work with. Yet mutations are “mistakes” in the genetic code; they often lose information that the genetic code once had. This loss of information cannot be the mechanism for cell-to-man evolution, which requires new information not previously in the genetic code. Even the common example of modern day evolution, bacterial resistance, often relies on mutations that lose information, such as the disabling of a certain gene. This loss of information can never be used for the rise in complexity required in major evolutionary change.

To say that mutations, which are mostly harmful, are the key to evolving more complexity is like saying that by going 99 miles south, then 1 mile north, then 99 miles south, then 1 mile north, etc., that eventually you will arrive at north before south. A species will die out from mutations before it will ever evolve higher complexity.

Because natural selection must work within an organism’s genetic code, it is limited in its abilities. This limitedness is exhibited in artificial breeding, where human ingenuity should at least copy the evolutionary power supposedly held by nature’s chance. But repeatedly in the search for better egg production, milk production, etc., breeders have eventually slammed into walls from where no more change could be mustered (Evolution: Fossils Say No, p. 33). Whether natural or artificial, small changes can’t lead to cell-to-man evolution. Even worse, species adaption can reduce genetic information from its formerly wide variation, which then reduces the ability of the species to survive in varied environments (Refuting Evolution, pp. 35-36). As an example, the survival of a long-haired type of dog, having lost its genes for short hair in the process of adapting to a cold climate, may then be reduced if the climate warmed (Ibid., pp. 34-36). Thus, neither natural selection nor mutation can lead to upward evolving.

2. Darwin’s Tree of Life

This tree shows many transitional forms (creatures evolving into different kinds) leading up to modern species. If this tree is real, millions of transitional fossils should exist. But the actual fossils are starkly absent, as admitted by evolutionists Dr. David Raup, Dr. Colin Patterson, and Stephen Jay Gould (In the Beginning, pp. 62-63). Eminent evolutionist Gould admitted:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” (“Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86 May 1977 p. 14 qtd. in In the Beginning p. 63.)

3. Archaeopteryx and other “missing links”

Despite Darwin’s prediction of countless transitional fossils (Origin of Species, p. 163), only a few questionable “missing links” have been unearthed:

Archaeopteryx: It’s not a half-bird, half-reptile, as even evolutionist Alan Feduccia admits: “It’s a bird, a perching bird.” It has modern bird feathers and other features of modern birds. Its teeth do not say anything about reptilian ancestry, since some reptiles don’t have teeth while some birds (now extinct) did have teeth.

The North American horse series: This series reverses in South America: the fossil of a more “primitive” horse was discovered in rock above the more “advanced” horse. Since creatures are supposed to become more complex the higher they are in the fossil record, this would be “devolution.” Yet the horse series itself consists mostly of horse varieties that are no more evolved from each other than are today’s horse breeds. Only the first in the series isn’t a horse but another animal, so it shouldn’t be in the series (Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, p. 133).

Ape-men: Many of these fossils are fragmentary and hard to interpret. One “ape-man” called Nebraska Man was based on just one tooth, later discovered to belong to a pig. Other “ape-men” are based on bone fragments that are only a fraction of the whole body. Some alleged ape-men were later discovered to be just apes, while others were reclassified as true man. Neanderthal man, for example, was a true human whose fossils sometimes exhibited bone disease, giving the false impression that he stooped like an ape-man.

4. The similarity of Haeckel’s embryos

Actually, evolutionists have known for years that Haeckel’s embryos, a common sight in textbooks, are frauds. Haeckel doctored his embryo drawings to look very similar in an attempt to prove that embryos grow according to evolutionary descent. Now it’s known that embryos of different animals look very different from each other, even at the beginning stages.

5. The Miller-Urey experiment’s creation of amino acids, the simplest elements of life

Textbooks hail this experiment as evidence that life formed by chance. But only amino acids were made, which are very basic elements that compose proteins, the structure of cells. To say that life can form randomly because amino acids form randomly is like saying if bricks can form randomly, then buildings can, too. A simple protein requires 100-150 amino acids in a specific sequence, much too specific for chance to create. Also, this experiment used a model of earth’s early environment that’s no longer accepted by scientists, so the experiment is no longer valid.

Thus, science doesn’t debunk God. Rather, science affirms God’s existence. I can say many more things about how science is a witness to God and His Word:

. . . the scientific evidence for the Genesis flood, such as the 1,000s of mangled fossils around the world.

. . . how the flood worked through scientific laws

. . . why scientific evidence shows that the earth is only 1,000s of years old, despite old-age dating.

. . . how we can see starlight so far away even if the earth is young (it’s a neat answer!)

. . . how all those animals fit in the Ark.

. . . where Cain got his wife.

If you want to learn more, check out Dr. Walt Brown’s www.creationscience.com/onlinebook

Two other excellent websites are www.icr.org (Institute for Creation Research) and www.answersingenesis.org.

Or you can email me at askwitnessingGod@gmail.com