***Pages Are Currently Under Construction, research, finding sources, double checking, etc… but feel free to check out the current links and descriptions below***
I intend for this page to have point by point arguments, but there are so many, I probably won’t even come close to getting them all. And this page is very long and drawn out, especially the introduction, so, with that in mind I wanted to present you with at least two easy sources to look up:
Creation Seminar 1 – Kent Hovind – Age of the Earth (FULL)
Dr. Kent Hovind – Carbon Dating Dinosaur Bones. 7-7-17
Also see the evolutionfacts.com website, they have material divided by topics in their 3 Vol Encyclopedia and Evolution Handbook, very extensive, and where I’ve gotten much of the below resources. You can also see here: http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_TOC.htm
Also: Ex-Atheist shares why he now believes that the Earth, solar system, and universe are all young – see the bottom of the page.
Finally, before getting into the introduction, I’d like to present Christians with Mark 10:6, where Jesus says: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” – among other Biblical evidence of Creation, miracles, taking God’s Word for what He says, and who Jesus is (John 1:1-3 among many other verses), we need to trust what Jesus says, after all, He was there and He did it. This passage says that Adam and Eve were made at the beginning of Creation, not millions of years later. And I think you’ll find that a deeper look at science shows this to be the case. Even if it didn’t (which it does), science often has to change it’s views based on new evidence (if they’ll even look at it), and there is a history of bad players and flawed “science” in the sciences, including outright frauds, especially when it comes to evolution, and there is an extremely mocking attitude against God, the Bible, Christians, and Creation (even though Intelligent Design is growing)… and yet, God’s Word never changes, God never changes, and He is truth. So, ultimately, who should we trust? Put your trust in man, and you will fall short, put your faith in Jesus, and He will lift you up.
*Resources & Topic Pages Below Introduction:
Introduction:
Before we begin, let me state the purpose of this page and the reason for writing it at the time that I am. The point of this page is not to discuss evolutionary theory (that will be a separate page (or set of pages), though it will appear by necessity, as evolutionary theory requires millions and millions of years to (in the minds of evolutionists) be valid, and thus has pushed this false narrative, making huge oversteps, and numerous assumptions in their quest not so much for science, but in being intellectually convinced that science disproves God and the Biblical narrative NO MATTER WHAT, and many are more then willing to turn a blind eye to science, in order to achieve that narrative. It’s very dogmatic, militant, deceitful, and by no means scientific… as I hope you’ll realize while reviewing various topics that I hope to post on this website in the future.
As is the nature of what I have just described, I believe it to be the case that “millions of years” has been so ingrained into the minds of “scientists” and “intellectuals” and university professors, that I think hardly any of them would dare ever to question it. And those that do have faced severe consequences by the hands of the “scientific” community and their school boards. This is perhaps more the case for Evolution vs. Creation, but I think it’s very closely related to the age of the Earth and the Universe as well.
As such, many Christians have abandoned their faith outright, or at the very least have abandoned what I believe to be traditional Christian understanding of Scripture and in particularly that of Genesis (which then has led to more “open” and loose interpretations of other parts of the Holy Scriptures), in order to be in agreement with what they have been told is “science” and “fact”. But they don’t know that even many scientists assume these matters are true – even oftentimes when something has already been proven to be false, OR when there are equally legitimate interpretations of data that differ from the traditional view (when the data is correct and unbiased of course) OR even when due diligence in the scientific method is not being followed.
*I’ve started working on this page as a challenge from a friend, who wanted some of the “best arguments” for a young Earth. In my opinion, based on the works I’ve been reading, and people I’ve been listening to, almost everything, if it’s looked at objectively and fully, without assumptions, either: A. proves that it’s not a reliable method (or is false altogether, or has been creatively twisted & selectively used until they get what they want to see – after disregarding data that they don’t want to see), or B. points to a much younger Earth and Universe then millions and billions of years.
The reader should also consider the following: 1. No dating method can be assumed to be 100% accurate proof of any particular age, as a number of very fine details are required which are subject to various changes, and there’s pretty good evidence to suggest that the Earth has not always been in a state of Uniformitarianism, but has indeed undergone catastrophic events in the past (Catastrophism) which could indeed throw such measurements off. Additionally, just look at the inflation of the age of the Earth over the years. Look at the differing results of the same test material using different dating methods (and even the same dating methods) – results that can vary by thousands of years. And look at the ridiculously precise numbers, that even DARWIN tried to assign to the Earth well before any “modern” methods of dating were introduced. 2. As such, one must look at a variety of evidences (if not all), fully exposed, and consider what the overwhelming evidence seems to point to. 3. Those who try to argue Old Earth mostly use “evidences” that point to tens of thousands of even hundreds of thousands of years. This is merely a stepping stone to believe in millions and billions of years. Given the margin of potential error, I would say most of these arguments actually point to a much younger Earth then traditional Evolution would try to teach us, and which many Old Earth advocates would try to lead us to. On that same note, some evidences may be more prone to environmental changes, contamination, extreme finesse, throwing out of results that are not desirable, and dependence on other factors to be considered ‘accurate’ (even with varying results) then are other available evidences… may I suggest that those evidences with less of these factors have a better chance at being MORE reliable? 4. Furthermore, IF a particular dating method proves to be unreliable (ie. it gives varying dates for the same subject, or it disagrees with other methods thought to be reliable, or it relies on a false precedence and false assumptions in order to work), then it should be thrown out as a reliable method of dating, and should not be considered as ‘solid’ evidence of any particular age.
So, with that in mind, I don’t feel adequate to be writing about all of this myself, as it’s extremely extensive, and each subject has so much that goes into it. I’d much rather just point you to resources for you to read and watch yourselves, rather then trying to rewrite it all myself. So, because I know that I may not cover each topic to the extent that it deserves, I’d like to encourage you to read the Resources provided below (before the Topic Pages), within the Topic Pages, and also any resources on the main “Science” page. Also, there are so many topics to cover, and I may not cover all of them, in fact, the beginning of the page was only supposed to be about 10 or so – though I hope to expand. So again, please look at the different resources recommended.
With that in mind, please take a look at the Topic Pages below to read about some of the scientific reasons I believe in a Young Earth, and also scientific reasons against an Old Earth.
NOTE: It’s important to note that almost all dating methods require every aspect to be constant… this is not the case throughout Earth’s history. Catastrophism is a more accurate way to look at the Earth then Uniformitarianism. Also note, Naturalism (the belief that the natural world is all that exists) was never supposed to be a part of science. Modern science was brought about by Christianity, and was never meant to disprove God or spiritual matters, which indeed it cannot… but strangely enough, as science continues, it actually seems to be proving that there is a spiritual side to things, and even very much so points to God the Creator.
Final note: I will, grudgingly, grant that there is (maaaaybe) room within Scripture to plop in millions of years if one feels it’s necessary to keep their Christian faith. However, I believe it’s more Biblically AND scientifically accurate and in line/consistent with all (or at least a majority of) the facts, to believe in a much younger Earth than millions of years. Evolutionists MUST push millions of years because a young Earth would undoubtedly point back to what I believe to be a traditional Christian understanding of Scripture. As long as they can say: “A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away” then despite any other evidence they come across, or scientific or philosophical or moral problems that they cannot solve without the Biblical world view, they can still live in a fairy tail where they are the gods of their own universe, and answer to no one for their actions and lifestyles but themselves… this is indeed the motive of many a past militant evolutionist, leading up to where we are today.
Resources – Extras & Fuller Content:
Scientific Evidence For A Young Earth:
Topic Pages – The Earth:
#1: The Geologic Column & Stratification
The Bastion of the “Millions of Years” monologue. Though you’ll see that this entire concept was false from the beginning, it’s been used to “prove” that the Earth and Fossils are millions and even billions of years old, and has been the staple diet, the bible even if you will, of the evolutionists. You’ll also discover, that although it may not be mentioned, it’s also necessary to be assumed to be correct in order for certain dating methods to be considered to work properly and to be considered “accurate”. But if a necessary part of your dating method requires a drastically false assumption… then can you really expect to get accurate results? It is interesting to note that this false evidence which has become dogma, was introduced well before any sort of radiometric dating methods were developed (which many depend upon this false evidence to be true in order to be considered accurate). You’ll also be introduced to a much more plausible (yet negated) explanation of our stratified soil. I hope you’ll ask yourself: “Why is this still taught in school books?”
And: “Why wasn’t I taught all this before?”
A few quick points:
*Mt. Saint Helens proved that much of what we see in today’s geology, can happen in a rapid period of time, from thousands of stratified layers, to rapidly carved canyons, perhaps even the beginnings of massive coal beds (tree bark at the bottom of Spirit(?) Lake, and more.
*Grand Canyon – shows signs of a massive spill way, including barbed canyons, a massive once-lake above, and a natural dam that was breached (ie – there’s a mountain ridge that cuts right across the canyon – rivers don’t climb mountains. Furthermore, the top of the canyon at it’s ending point, is higher than the top of the canyon at it’s beginning point – again, rivers don’t flow uphill.
*No where on Earth is there the perfect geologic column you see in text books… that’s one of a few different versions from different locations that won out in the end by the guy who got his way. Throughout the Earth, you have “older” layers on top of “younger” layers, layers missing, entire mountains composed of deposited rocks, layers of strata and rock that are thousands of miles away from the sources, folded rock layers, including entire folded mountains, a whale found sticking upright through several feet of diatomatious earth – which is composed of billions of dead microscopic sea creatures, totally smooth layers of coal and practically all other stratified layers – showing no signs of weathering over long periods of time, petrified trees running through several layers of rock, some being coalfield in two separate coal layers, while also being petrified through different layers of rock, and much much more, fossils that were in the middle of giving birth or eating, etc showing rapid burial, fish and clam bed fossils at the tops of mountains, and much much more.
For more links, visit this page:
*Strata, Fossils, And The Flood
#2: Earth’s Magnetic Field
A beautiful thing that almost no one gives proper thought to. Earth’s Magnetic Field is slowly declining. At it’s current rate of decay, you can work it back to a point at which life would not be possible. Evolutionists have seen this problem, and have been forced to come up with non-observable theories to make up for this very observable fact, and even going as far as to maliciously misrepresent data. We’ll discuss more about magnetic fields in the Cosmology Topic Pages below.
#3: Polonium Halos
Evolutionists teach that granite formed over metamorphic processes involving long periods of extreme heat and pressure, from [rock? – double check all info, currently from memory – search how did granite form/evolve?]. Who would have thought that taking a microscope to one of Earth’s most abundant rocks, would reveal evidence that it formed instantly? Also of interest, is who discovered this evidence…
#? – Extra: OOPARTS (Out Of Place Artifacts)
Ever have a puzzle piece that just doesn’t fit where you want it to? Well, evolutionists have those too… only, it’s far more frequent in real life, and the pieces actually don’t fit on the puzzle board of evolution. They fit on the creation puzzle board quite nicely though. What do these have to do with the age of the Earth? Well, they’re constantly refuting traditional evolutionary thought. If an evolutionist seriously considers these OOPARTS, then they’re forced to make one of two conclusions: A. They’re WRONG about the AGE of the sediment, etc. in which the object was found, or B. They’re WRONG about the AGE of people… and which do you think they’ll choose? That’s right, B of course, because they aren’t willing to sacrifice the age of the Earth. They’re more willing to say that humans have “REALLY” been around for hundreds of thousands (or even for millions of years) then to admit that perhaps the Earth is much younger then they presume it to be… even though OOPARTS could equally point to that as a fact. However, in many cases, OOPARTS are simply ignored, and almost never put into the data for considering Earth’s age. OOPARTS can include man-made gold chains, metal pots, intricate bells, etc found within coal, petrified human artifacts, hammers, etc. seemingly electric batteries found in Iraq, metal alloys that cannot be fused in today’s atmosphere. OOPARTS can even include evidence of giants, and more intelligent human beings in the past then were thought possible.
#5: Dinosaurs
-recent blood in dino bones, dinos in the Bible, dinos throughout history, dinos in modern day discoveries + “extinct for millions of years” animal species (fish, etc) found to still be alive today.
Topic Pages – Cosmology:
#1: Lunar Magnetic Fields – Shocker… Again!
Evolutionists predicted that lunar objects wouldn’t still have magnetic fields, let alone strong ones… after all, millions of years would have cooled their inner cores, and brought them to a slow, cold, death… wouldn’t it? Thanks to modern scientifically advanced tools and satellites, we got to find out the answer, and SOMEONE actually made a correct prediction.
(Include Kent Hovind’s video – explains not only the growing distance and working it backwards for a young enough time, but also the increased gravity as it gets closer to the Earth, which dramatically decreases the possible age to a striking number.)
#2: Star Clusters
Aren’t they beautiful? It’s just too bad they wouldn’t exist if they were around for millions and billions of years. Everything’s in motion… in fact everything’s in motion – going AWAY from everything else… for the most part that is, and that includes star clusters and galaxies. Which reminds me… #3
#3: Spiral Galaxies
Spiral galaxies… majestic, beautiful, feels like home. But these amazing collection of stars, like our own Milky Way, would look very different if they were millions and billions of years old.
#4: The Big Bang
Despite whatever conclusion you come to about the age of the Earth & the Universe (I would hope through careful examination of ALL possibilities, real findings, and logic), the Big Bang certainly does one thing: It points to a definite beginning of the universe… the only reason evolutionists even mention the Big Bang today is because they’re forced to, as it’s widely accepted as fact through our mathematics and (limited) observations (and also because if taken at face value, it supports an old universe at the very least)(however, it is not without error, nor is it the only viable theory out there – more on that below). The previous mainstream evolutionary and atheistic thought was that of the Greek philosophers, that the universe was endless and without a beginning, eternal. The created universe became a substitute for the Creator. Even now, some evolutionists and atheists (who tend to be evolutionists) are spending countless hours trying to create their own models of the universe to convince themselves and others that it didn’t have a beginning, so they can try not to think about God. Not only are these models fallacious, misguiding (such as using imaginary numbers in their mathematics), and far inferior to The Big Bang theory, but even if they did think of something that was to their standards successful, it wouldn’t really negate the subject of God, our Intelligent Designer. The real question is… what’s the driving force behind people like Hawkins? They DO NOT, under any circumstances, want to even entertain the idea of there being the Christian God. That is their drive. Naturalism is their credo.
Now as mentioned, the Big Bang Theory IS NOT without error and it is NOT without contest from other viable theoretical modals of the universe (some of which conclude a young universe). The reason I mention it, is because it’s a well accepted universe modal that shows that there was very likely a BEGINNING (Genesis 1:1). However, it IS NOT an indisputable FACT, and should NOT BE taught as such. The reason that THIS is important, is because taking it as fact, pretty much ignores it’s errors and accepts an older universe (although one could argue it wouldn’t necessarily), and at the same time brushes to the side several other evidences AND viable universe modals that suggest a young Earth/universe – modals that make accurate predictions, and that solve problems in the current Big Bang Theory.
To learn more on the subject, see these pages:
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/
https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/
Also see:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/successful-predictions-creation-scientists/
*Big Problems with the Big Bang Theory
https://youtu.be/UOkUM2BQpmI
Dr. Jason Lisle of AnswersInGenesis.org shares many different Biblical & scientific problems the Big Bang has, showing that not only is it not acceptable for a Bible believing Christian, but that it also has several scientific problems, that make it anything other than rocksolid, including a Distant Starlight problem of it’s own. This appears to be a high school or college class, and the editors present curriculum at the very end of the video that looks interesting. It should be noted that these are not the only problems with the Big Bang theory (backward spinning planets for example), AND that the Big Bang theory has many different modals, to try to account for various ‘problems’ in the universe that the other modals cannot account for. It should also be noted that there are creationist’s universal modals that show a young Earth, and account for such anomalies. One such problem I must put out there, is that you might (maybe) be able to go from asteroids to planets, but you can’t go from dust to asteroids, even evolutionists know this. Also, there are only 3 very light gases that could have come from the proposed Big Bang theory, and the population lll (?) stars that they claim would be needed for making heavier elements do not exist as far as we have currently observed.
I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory, as it contradicts our traditional understanding of the Genesis account, as well as the nature of the God we serve, as well as many other Biblical truths – learn more about that in the /big-bang/ page above. And considering it is still a theory, that it has unsolved problems, and that there are other modals that account for these problems, and make accurate predictions themselves, as well as the other evidences found on this page and in the resources mentioned, I think it’s foolish to say that the Big Bang is undisputed fact, because it simply is not.
This man is a former Atheist, who became a Creationist based on the scientific evidence, and THEN became a Christian after that! This talk is about whether or not the Big Bang is scientific, if not why not, and what other theories have come about to try to explain its inadequacies… and are they scientific? Where do modern cosmological models come from? Is the multiverse scientific? Where does the vitriol and outright rejection of the Creationist’s view by secular cosmologists come from, and is THAT based on any sound reasoning? Can you be a Bible believing Christian and try to fit the Big Bang model in there? This video is about 1 hr and 10 minutes, but I guarantee you that if you enjoy science, if you enjoy talking about origins, if you’re a creationist or an evolutionist, a theist or an atheist, you should find this very interesting and useful to say the least (watch it all the way through). You can make the time.
#5: Distant Star Light – Does It Prove Millions Of Years?
*Distant Starlight – Part 1
https://youtu.be/D0D6guJ6RQ8
*Distant Starlight – Part 2
https://youtu.be/91PGejN_xpM
*Distant Starlight – Part 3
https://youtu.be/4LsfVBE-ShA
Dr. Jason Lisle discusses the Distant Starlight problem. “It may be the best argument against a young universe, but it is not a good argument against a young universe”. Dr. Lisle discusses many different possibilities for the speed of light to fit with a young earth/young universe modal, and again shares that the Big Bang theory has it’s own distant starlight problem, mainly the uniform temperature of cosmic background radiation, which is uniform everywhere we look, and which is too great of distances apart for currently accepted speeds of light to have traveled with currently accepted ages of the universe, to have had any form of contact to create such equilibrium. The Big Bang theory actually predicts a wide range of varying temperature for the cosmic background radiation, which is not what we observe today. Note, he doesn’t expand much on the possibility of the one way speed of light – which we can’t really know currently (and which Einstein allows for), but some of the proposals in here are very interesting, and should be testable with time, some use already well established facts physics. This is the nature of science, keep questioning, keep proposing, keep testing, keep searching, and don’t stop or be dogmatic about something, just because you’ve found something that appears at first to support your worldview.
*New Physics Of Starlight Travel Time In The Universe
Time/Gravity Wells, Time Dilation, and the Heavens Stretched Out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFyWLOS2dE4
*Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion – Rupert Sheldrake at TEDx Whitechapel
https://youtu.be/1TerTgDEgUE
Note, there are other videos on this man and his presentation which are longer, but I haven’t seen them. Also note that despite what he says, it’s astounding that he does not seem to even consider questioning the evolutionary theory, which this should actually help to do.
Sheldrake claims to have researched papers on the speed of light in recent decades, and he found that: #1. the speed of light varied around the world with different scientists, and #2. the speed of light collectively varied significantly from one time period to another.
When he brought this information to an institute where they create standardized measurements, the man he met with expressed embarrassment at the fact that the speed of light did vary, calling it one of their ‘most embarrassing episodes’. The man was also quite pleased to announce that they had ‘fixed’ this ‘problem’ by tweaking the formulation for calculating the speed of light so that everyone will always get the same number, seemingly oblivious to the fact that this was and is an obstacle to science.
Self Notes For Future Reference:
(quantum positioning[?], one way speed of light, distance at original creation, etc) – probably the strongest old earth argument, but makes assumptions and neglects possibilities at the initial Creation (or the fact that there was even a Creator) and theoretical concepts. Speed of light slowing down (?). Scientists have been able to artificially speed up and slow down light particles… could our Creator not do the same? Way in which we measure light uses atomic clocks, we have a rubber ruler (?) – 10 other ways (all on Earth?). No way to tell if the speed of light has always been the same. Distance and way to measure is very very narrow. God made a full grown man, a full grown garden, why not a full grown universe? – It’s not deceptive, it’s necessary. Stars were created for signs and seasons. God could have created the stars and the light simultaneously, or the light could have traveled faster. (Look up Danny Fokmer? – Astronomer). Photon with particle and wave properties, but what is it exactly? Could there be more to it in different circumstances that we don’t understand, as we are constantly finding out new things about water, for example. Light pulse.
#6: Hydrogen In Abundance
Why is there so much hydrogen in the universe?
“According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintain that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars, therefore the universe must be youthful.”
Excerpt from: The Evolution Handbook, pg. 127.
*Link To Site: http://evolutionfacts.com/
Also see: http://evolutionfacts.com/sci-ev-PDF/sci_vs_ev_PDF.htm
*Note: as mentioned above, even The Big Bang theory flew in the face of common evolutionary thought which believed that the Universe had no beginning, and STILL has evolutionists trying to create alternative theoretical models. And again, who knows how far God FLUNG and BREATHED (Biblical terms) the stars at the initial creation (the Real Big Bang) (10% the distance they are now, 50%, 80%, 99%? We don’t know). Again, this world and universe cannot be explained by uniformitarianism, but rather by catastrophism – major and drastic events which changed the course of history. A naturalistic worldview just doesn’t cut it either.
#7: The Shrinking Sun
Whooooaaaa! No, not the Rising Sun and Samurais… the shrinking sun, son. That’s right, the sun is shrinking. And, at current rates, that big hanging ball of fire in the vacuum of space would be twice as big 100,000 years ago… that’s not good news for the Earth. In fact, in as little as 50,000 years ago, it would have been big enough to boil our oceans, and in far less time then 50,000 years, life would have ceased to exist. In fact, the sun could not be much larger or smaller then it is now before life would not be possible.
– see The Evolution Handbook, pg. 128 (more info)
Also look at: high energy stars, same book, pg 127. (include here?)
To the intellectuals out there who have vowed allegiance to Naturalism. If you find that you cannot refute this evidence… then before you go off trying to use this new found evidence in a new theory that you hope will refute God and the Bible… first ask yourself: why was this evidence ignored in the first place?
*Could it be that you’re fighting against an inescapable conclusion?
#8: There Is… STILL Water On Mars
As shocking as it may be to some that there IS water on Mars, even more shocking is that it’s STILL there. I’ve recently come across this article by GodInANutShell.com giving statements by scientists (with a Naturalistic worldview – very important to note) that they have no current models to explain how the ice could have survived for hundreds of millions of years. The elephant in the room is the ASSUMPTION that it’s been hundreds of millions of years. That time frame simply doesn’t accommodate this modern discovery, as is OFTEN the case with many different discoveries, as you’ve been learning thus far. And again, there IS a time frame that accommodates this new discovery… that is the time frame of 6,000 years or less. The author of the above article finishes with this:
“The a priori, faith-based assumption of the passage of immense spans of time elapsing has caused the illusion of many “anomalies,” both in biology and in astronomy, that are easily resolved if we simply assert that everything is 6000 years old or younger.
Ah, but that sounds too much like “faith” to the secular astronomers to consider. To whom I answer, “Get a mirror.””
I couldn’t have put it more distinctly. I will add geology to that list as well. Why is this important? Again, it draws people away from the obvious and more plainly read interpretation of the Biblical account of Genesis, and thus… to many, discredits the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, who has proven Himself time and time again. And this leaves room for deception and physical and spiritual destruction. From Evolution to Span-Spermia, evidence and facts are twisted. Ultimately, millions and billions of years not only conflicts with scientific findings, but also opens the door for mass deception. It is a primary faith-based belief that evolution “requires” (even then it would be less then hopeful), which has been the basis for the bloodiest past 100 years or so since Darwin. It could also likely help produce the narrative that “Aliens” (likely demonic inter-dimensional creatures) “seeded” us here on the planet and that THEY are our gods. Don’t believe me? This is the talk coming out from some of our top scientists, and even the Vatican (which is not truly Christian) who has been putting ever more emphasis on the subject of aliens. Governments as well are getting involved in the subject. And if you don’t understand it from a Biblical lens, or have a Biblical explanation (which there is), other than trying to get creative with your interpretation of Genesis, then you will likely be deceived and/or turn others away when they think that you don’t really have the best and most complete answers – which the Bible provides and elaborates on, and which Christian researchers that I listen to seem to have the best and fullest grasp on. People such as: LA Marzuli, Timothy Alberino, Tom Horn, Steve Quayle, and others. Look them up if you want to get into the subject of Aliens, giants, etc.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Christian Answers & Resources 