why I became a scientist who is a creationist

on Icon

Mike's Origins Resources: A PhD Creationist's view of science, origins, and the future hope of the human race; by looking at Creation Science, Biblical Evidence, and Prophecy Molecular History Research Center Other radioactive dating methods
Index Page

why I became a scientist who is a creationist

Origin of Both Extinct Nuclides and
U238 and U235 Nuclides

Not my area of expertise but I am extremely interested in it.
Don't take what is on this page as a scientific endeavor
I am only looking at the evidence and then reporting what I have found to you.

If you are having problems understanding terms such as half-life, Isotopes, Nuclides, nucleon, mass defect, Nuclear Binding Energy, and various Atomic Symbols See the Atomic Structure Page.

If you are having problems understanding concepts such as Average Nuclear binding Energy and nuclide stability; What is it that drives fission; fusion; and other nuclear reactions; Types of radioactive decay, alpha, beta, gamma, positron, and a summary of characteristics; Nuclear reactions; Nuclear equations; The use of nuclide charts to visually chart out nuclear reactions; The U238 decay series shown on a nuclide chart. See the Nuclear Reactions Page.

If you are having problems understanding the basics of radioisotopes techniques, such as. radionuclide geochronometers, half-life, radioactive-decay series. See the introduction to Radiometric dating techniques Page.

Both Carbon-14 and Amino Acid dating methods date the actual fossil. So these dating mechanisms date things which were once living on the earth. So, within the Creationary model, everything must fit within the time since Creation week. A literal reading of the Bible suggests approximately 6000 years.

(K/Ar) Potassium Argon Dating dates the rocks, not the fossils. However the age of the rock is not actually dated; Instead, we supposedly date the time when the rock was last reset or set to zero (Argon-40 is released in the reseting process when the rock is heated than cooled.). Many of these rocks are thought to have been heated then cooled during the time of the flood. So these dates should also result in ages since the time of Creation week, more specifically, the time of the flood. Again, everything must fit within the time since Creation week.

The extinct and non-extinct nuclides that are discussed on this page could be material that was either here before creation week, or was part of the creative act of God in Creation week itself. Extinct nuclides is a different kind of phenomon from all the other dating scenarios that are discussed on all my other web pages which include Carbon-14, Amino Acid, and (K/Ar) Potassium Argon Dating.

If we look at the graphic to the left or above, we will notice that there seems to be two groups of radioactive nuclides. Some nuclides are extinct and others are naturally occurring nuclides, they are found among the trace elements in the rocks. By saying that some of these radio nuclides are extinct, it is meant that at one time they did exist in nature, but at this time they are no longer detectable in the rocks.

We know that these missing nuclides were once around because the evidence of their past existence is still in the rocks. In the past, these missing nuclides broke down into daughter nuclides until there was nothing left, so the reaction stopped. Today we still have the daughter nuclides in the rock, so we know that the parent nuclides were once present in the rocks. This is how we know them to be extinct.

Almost all nuclides/isotopes that have a short half-life of around 100 million years or less, does not exist naturally. It is true that both Plutonium-244 and Niobium-92 have been found in nature, however, almost superhuman effort was done to find it. They are below the level of detectability of the usual testing.

The only radioactive nuclides/isotopes that exist in nature are those that have very long half-lives. If you look at the graphic to the left or above, the radionuclides that exist in nature (identified by the purple color) are indeed the ones with long half-lives.

Of the nuclide/isotopes that have short half-lives, only those who are being produced constantly are present in nature. Carbon 14 is a good example of a nuclide found in nature while having a short half-life. Carbon 14 is produced in the upper atmosphere. Beryllium-10 Manganese-53 and Chlorine-36 are also produced in the same way, so they are present in nature despite their having a short half-life. All other nuclides/isotopes having short half-lives are not present in nature (identified by the green color). So they are extinct nuclides.

So what does this mean? The data seems to indicate that the earth is very old. A sufficient amount of time has gone by since the creation of the elements to cause all the short lived radionuclides to decay. So, all the nuclides with short half-lives are gone. The time has run out for nuclides that break down rapidly. Only those nuclides which break down more slowly are left.

(NOTE: Possible Creationary Explanations are found toward the end of this page. We need to look at the problems before looking at possible explanations.)

Michael E. Brown Ph. D.


From my experiences
described on this
page, I know that
Jesus is truly
coming back to
save us from this
angry and destructive world.
In addition, I have
found, much to my
delight, that science
within the creationary paradigm, works!

It is an exciting
thing to explore our
Biosphere from
a different perspective
than everyone else.
Often new possibilities are
realized when this
fresh new
perspective is explored.

And when I see
new explanations
to phenomena
that no one else
sees, because
I am working in
a new paradigm
it is down right

Mike Brown


Radioisotope Decay series are in a State of Equilibrium

There are some nuclides that form a decay series. Below in the graphic, U235, U238 and Th232 break down into a nuclide that is also radioactive. U235, U238, and Th232 decay into a whole series of intermediate nuclides until a stable lead isotope is formed. Lead 206, Lead 207, and Lead 208 are the ending points of these three series of nuclear reactions.

In a radionuclide decay series such as the three series shown in the graphic below, atoms start migrating through the steps of a series in much the same way that water goes down a stream. When a stream is flowing well, we find that all the lakes and ponds have the same amount of water going out of it as is coming in (ignoring evaporation), so the level of the pond does not change. It is in equilibrium.

The series of steps in a radionuclide decay series can also reach equilibrium when the populations of all the intermediate nuclides do not change significantly over time. What is happening is that each radionuclide decays at the same rate it is produced. Also, in a single radionuclide decay series, all the intermediate nuclides decay at the same rate.

At equilibrium, there will not be equal amounts of all the intermediate nuclides. Rather, their will be larger amounts of the intermediate nuclides that have longer half-lives. In fact, the longer the half-life, the more of that intermediate will be present. Those intermediate nuclides that have very short half-lives will be present in very small amounts.

How Long Does it Take for an Equilibrium to Form?

If we find a sample in the rock that we find is in equilibrium, some time must have occurred before all the intermediate nuclides came to equilibrium. Unless the sample was created by God in equilibrium but that is an issue we will discuss later on this web page. Right now, lets ask the question: How long does it take a radionuclide series to reach equilibrium?

Radioactive equilibrium is not established until a time, equal to approximately three to four half-lives of the longest-lived intermediate nuclide in the series, is allowed to occur. For the Uranium 238 series, U 234 has a half-life of 2.457 x 105 so three or four times that amount of time gives us a range of 740,000 to 1 million years for an equilibrium to develop.

For the U 235 radio decay series, it would take 100,000 to 130,000 years; and for Thorium 232 decay, 20 to 27 years for an equilibrium to develop.

It turns out that there are some uranium ores that are not in radioactive equilibrium. However, most primary radioactive ores that have not been exposed to weathering are found to be in equilibrium and are thought to be suitable for age measurement. What is meant by primary is that the ores have not migrated to some secondary site.

Two Possible Explanations

The Earth and our Solar System seems to be very old. How could God create our world in Creation Week, only about 6000 years ago while having the earth seem very old.


The first explanation is that God made the Earth and the Solar System including all its matter during Creation Week, and He did it in such a way that it looks very old. There are Bible verses suggesting that everything was made when God spoke it into existence: By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. Psalms 33:6, 9.

Many seem to object to this possibility because of the radioactive elements in the earth. They think it would be dishonest of God to have a very young earth look very old. The earth has radioactive trace elements that can be used to date the earth to an age of up to 4.5 billion years! Why would God make a world new only 6000 years ago but make it seem like it is billions of years old?

No one objects to the fact that when Adam was made by God that he was made and brought to life as a fully formed adult. Also, Adam and eventually, his wife, when Eve was made out of Adam's rib, would need food. So no one has problems considering that fully developed trees and plants were present in the garden. However, when considering the rocks in the earth: Why would they have an apparent age of billions of years? Is there any other reason than the fact that we would have to depend upon faith alone? Many people feel this would have been dishonest of God to make it seem much older than it really is.

There is another way to look at this problem. Just because we cannot think of a reason why the rocks would have an apparent age does not mean there is no reason why God would set it up that way. I think it is possible that if the rocks were not made old, there might have been too much radiation for the healthful living of both animals and plants. The radioactive nuclides with short half-lives could have been very hot since they break down over a shorter period of time. God could have lowered the background radiation, so that man and life in general would experience a lower level of dangerous radiation. I do not know how valid this idea is, but I have made this suggestion to suggest that there might be valid reasons why God might want to create an old earth.

The same kind of objections are made for the solar system. Our Solar System looks like it is very old. Various planets and moons are in synchronous orbit. Our moon makes exactly one rotation every time it goes around the earth. This is why we always see the same side of the moon. We never see the other side of the moon. It has been estimated that it would take many hundreds of millions of years for this synchronous orbit to develop. All the moons of Jupiter and Saturn that can be observed by telescope are also identified as having synchronous orbits with its planet. It is also found that all of the inner planets exhibit some kind of synchronism in their orbits. There is also an amazing synchronous relationship that Venus has with Earth. Venus always has the same side facing the earth at each inferior conjunction.

So it is thought that the Solar System has been in existence for at least a billion years. Again, why would God make the Solar System look very old when he made it? The answer might lie in the stability of the Solar System. It might be that these synchronous orbits help stabilize the movement of all the planets and moons. Why would God want to create a world in a solar system that has an unstable characteristic to it? Some times planets are close to each other, at other times, they are quite some distance away. These kinds of variations might effect changes in the the orbit of planets, in the orbit of the Earth it could change conditions on Earth and eventually change the earth's orbit to the extent that life would be impossible? If God wanted the earth to last for a long time, it would seem that He would want the Solar System to also be a safe place for the Earth.

So, the first possibility is that God made the earth have rocks that have already lost radioactive elements that, if present at the beginning of creation week, could have endangered life.


The second explanation is that when God made the Earth, He included preexisting matter.

Some object to the use of certain Biblical statements to show that everything was made when God spoke it into existence: By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. For he spake, and it was [done]; he commanded, and it stood fast. Psalms 33:6, 9.

These Biblical statements may in fact be only general statements of the creative acts of God during creation week, and is not meant to be statements that everything made was done by speaking. Because we know, by Reading Genesis 1 and 2, that God did not create everything by speaking.

Also, when the first few chapters of Genesis are studied, it is clear that the word created or made does not not exclude the possibility that preexisting matter was used. To understand why, click on the word create. So using a literal reading of Genesis, we can understand that there could have been something here before Creation Week. The preexisting matter would be responsible for the rocks dating billions of years.

Both Explanations Have Problems

Either God made the earth to look old when He made it, or when He created the earth, He used preexisting matter. As a scientist, I am not sure I would be able to determine which of the two possible explanations might be true.

Which ever position is used to account for the apparent age of the Earth and the Solar System, we run into problems. If we assume that God used preexisting matter and that the Solar System is in fact very old; What are we going to do with the fourth day of Creation?

Genesis 1

King James Version The Brown Bible
14.  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 14.  Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate day from night. These lights will be used for signs, as tokens of God's promises; and to indicate seasons, days, and years.
15.  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 15.  They will be in the expanse of the sky to give light to the land." And so it happened.
16.  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 16.  Then God made two big lights. He made the brighter light to rule the day and He made the smaller light to rule the night and the stars.
17.  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 17.  And God put them in the expanse of the sky to shine on the land,
18.  And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 18.  to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that all these things were good, they were pleasant and agreeable to the senses so He approved it.
19.  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 19.  Evening passed, and then morning. This was the fourth day.

If much of the Solar System was already present at creation week, then how can the wording of what was created on day four be explained? Did God create the Sun on the forth day? If He did, then how did the Solar System exist before creation week? There would be no massive sun for planets to orbit around.

To solve this problem, some say that the sun existed before the forth day but it was on the fourth day that it became visible on the surface of the earth. So they see the Genesis account of creation as an eye witness type description of what a viewer located on the surface of the planet would have seen had he been here during creation week. He is describing step by step what would appear before his eyes from some vantage point on the earth. It seems to me that this kind of thinking could be leading away from a simple direct reading of the text and it leaves me uncomfortable. On the other hand, if God gave Moses a vision of creation, then he might had very well described creation week from his vision experience, which very well could have been from some place on earth.

An additional problem, what is meant by the creation of light on the first day. If the sun is already there, why is it necessary to create light on the first day? One possible answer; Maybe, the sun was created on the first day to produce light, but that the sun itself was not seen until the fourth day.

Another explanation might be that the mass of the sun was in the center of the Solar System but the sun was not turned on as a sun. This idea does not agree with present day science of how we think suns work and it would require the light to come from some other source, such as God Himself.

On the other hand, if we assume that God created and made everything in Creation Week with no preexisting matter, then what do we do with the definitions of the various words in the Genesis account of Creation? There is no place in the text that mentions the earth as a planet. Earth is defined as dry ground in the book of Genesis. sky is defined as atmosphere and the sea are the bodies of water on our world.

In the Genesis account, the planet seems to already exist when God starts creating light, the sky, the ground, the sea, and all the animals.

Genesis 1

King James Version The Brown Bible
8.  And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 8.  God named the atmosphere "sky". Evening passed, and then morning. This was the second day.
9.  And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry ground appear: and it was so. 9.  Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered together so that the dry ground will appear." And so it happened.
10.  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 10.  God named the dry ground "land" and the water that He gathered together, He called "seas". God saw that it was pleasant and agreeable to the senses so He approved it.

So instead of a globe or a planet, Genesis only mentions the kinds of things that are found on the surface of a planet; Dry land, sea, and sky, etc. There is no planet specified in Creation Week!

The account of creation does not talk about a planet being created. Only things like the sea, the land was created, and the animals, plants etc. So at present, I (the author of this web site) cannot determine which explanation is correct.

This Problem is Put on the Shelf

Obviously, science works best in areas that deal with the here and now. If an experiment is conducted and the information needed to answer the problem is not forthcoming, then another experiment can be designed to answer the problem. The process can continue until some answer to the problem is understood.

Concerning the age of the earth, problems are hard to answer because of the fragmentary nature of the data we have today. Not only do we have very little data to work with, but we are dealing with questions that probably are not possible to determine via the scientific process. I do not know how I would distinguish between something that looks and acts old versus something that really is old.

Since we can not presently get at the kind of data we would need to distinguish between the two possibilities, it is probably best to keep them in mind as two possibilities, or a combination of the two. At least until an idea or new data can help solve our dilemma.

Unchanging Half-lives are a Fundamental Phenomena

In the scientific literature, radioactive nuclides (Isotopes) have been shown to have virtually unchanging half-lives. They have been subjected to extreme conditions, including: high pressure and vacuum, heat and cold, electrical fields, and as well as other conditions. Yet, the half-lives have not changes more than perhaps 2% in the harshest of conditions. So the half-lives of radionuclides are thought to be extremely dependable.

Indeed, the nature and stability of nuclide (isotope) half-lives is thought to be a consequence of the nature of the fundamental nuclear and electric forces phenomena, the same fundamental natures that determine the nature of matter itself and the basic laws of chemistry and physics. So radionuclide half-lives are thought to be as reliable as other natural phenomena, such as the speed of light, electric, gravitational, and nuclear force phenomena.

So, according to what is found in the scientific literature, there has been absolutely no scientific reason for thinking that radionuclide half-lives have dramatically changed in the past; Nor is it thought that there are conditions that would cause half-lives to radically change, meaning that the spontaneous radioactive process does not speed up or slow down. It always proceeds in a predictable rate as indicated in the published book values of mainstream scientific literature.

So, because spontaneous transmutations (the breakdown of one nuclide into another nuclide through radionuclide decay) are thought to be absolutely unchangeable, and because science has not been able to change the half-lives of nuclides in the laboratory; the rate of decay (the half-life) is considered to be something that does not change!

This unchangeable nature of radionuclide decay has been a real problem for Creationists because radioactive time clocks are thought to be absolutely dependable in the story they tell. Creationists say that the earth is young when various dating techniques say that rather, it is very old. This is a very real problem! To say that God created the earth 6000 years ago, with newly created rocks that already had daughter nuclides in them! And that the created daughter nuclides is the reason why we presently have apparently old age rocks that date the same as if normal radionuclide decay of the nuclides had gone on over a very long period of time! This goes against everything we know in science and it is a serious problem!

The other explanation, that God used already pre-existing matter when He created the world does not have the same problems as that of the new earth explanation. So at this stage it seems from a scientific stand-point, that the pre-existing matter explanation of creation Week is more scientifically plausible from the human viewpoint than the new earth creation where the planet earth was created without any pre-existing matter.

However, I do not want to deviate from what the Bible says has happened! I do not want science to dictate the meaning of Hebrew words and sound language translation. Scientifically, we are dealing with so many unknowns that we cannot get at the problem, so our effort is futile. In all probability, we are dealing with questions that cannot be determined via the scientific process. At least with the data discussed so far.

Possibly A New Development That Could Change Our Position

In spite of the assurance that half-lives do not change, a new development in the field of nuclear reactions seems to say otherwise.

Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced to the world in March 23, 1989 that they had been able to produce excess energy in a process that was called "Cold Fusion" (also called Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions). They had a heavy water electrochemical cell with palladium and nickel that was running at near room temperature. This cell produced excess energy, a much greater amount of energy, by orders of magnitude, than would be expected by standard chemical reactions. In addition, neutrons and tritium were also detected in the cell after it had been run for a while. This evidence (excess energy and the presence of neutrons and tritium) showed them that some sort of nuclear fusion reaction had occurred.

The idea that Fleischmann and Pons were able to achieve a controlled nuclear fusion reaction, and at near room temperature seemed ridiculous when compared to the efforts of mainstream scientists in the major universities that have failed in their attempt so far to produce any significant amount of energy in spite of billions of dollars spent to produce apparatus that would help replicate the plasma conditions in our Sun, or a star.

The subject became extremely political as the President of the United States wanted people to look into this new process. This kind of action was seen as a threat to the already existing efforts that amounted to billions of invested money. So the scientific community did not fairly assess the new experiment. As a result of the special panel, no one would be able to fund cold fusion research nor could a patent be made on cold fusion. Even if cold fusion is referred to, in a paper; That paper would be labeled as "pathological science" or a "fraud". So the cold fusion experiment was labeled as a fraud or a failure. And of course the scientific community and the popular media blasted the idea that cold fusion was even possible.

However, since that time, there has been a growing grassroots movement of scientist who have taken to do experiments in their garage on their own time! Today, there are researchers all over the world that are achieving controlled low-energy nuclear reactions in their experiments and they are reporting their results for all to see. Many countries are spending millions while those in the US are still ignoring the process. If you want to know more about this topic, I think the easiest way to start, is to click on Infinite Energy and look for: Download our FREE selection of IE articles. When you click it, a pdf file containing an introduction to cold fusion will download onto your computer.

Now, why did I introduce you to cold fusion? Because, when ever radioactive nuclides (isotopes) are in the solution of a cold fusion system (a Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction System), they transmutate into their daughter elements. So at very mild conditions, the half-lives of isotopes can shorten so that the complete transmutation of samples can be done in a very short time. In addition, there has been another group that has been conducting experiments for the express purpose of speeding up the transmutation process. What these experiments do is to change the half-life characteristics of nuclides (isotopes) by making the half-life much shorter. It may be that both of these groups, cold fusion (also called Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions), and half-life modification transmutation, are studying the same kind of phenomena, we do not know, it is too early to tell.

The Baumgartner process works when radioactive sources were subjected to both high temperature and an applied DC voltage field. As it turns out, it only takes a well equipped high school lab to deactivate isotopes, according to the Nuclear Half-life Modification Technology news letter. An alternate site has a preface letter listing other web sites. In addition, there are new deactivating methods, with completely different sets of conditions that are discovered every year. Some occur in mild conditions. (NOTE both sites are now down. Here are the original addresses: http://www.gdr.org/nuclear_half.htm and http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/NuclearRemediation/Geer/YuccaMountain/#Yucca_Mountain )

So, rather than being a hard thing to do, it seems that there is a growing number of discovered ways that change the half-lives of isotopes, and the conditions needed for many of these processes to occur is mild!

What Do We Do With This Possibility?

Anybody who works in science, knows that half of the papers that they read in the scientific literature are valid and the other half will eventually fail scrutiny. The papers that have had confirmation from others are valued more highly than those that are totally new with no confirmation from others.

When considering cold fusion and half-life modification, we are dealing with processes that science, with our present knowledge, is unable to explain. According to everything we know, it just should not work! The reason why the big boys are using high pressure and heat to produce plasma is so that the coulomb barrier can be overcome. It is considered absolutely essential that the coulomb barrier be overcome so that nuclear fusion is achievable. In spite of all of this, the cold fusion movement seems to have the evidence going their way. It has a world-wide group of people working on it with many different systems achieving excess energy. So it seems to be a valid process even though there is no known mechanism for the process. On the other hand, those trying to modify the half-lives of isotopes are a smaller group without much of a following. There has not been a lot of people publishing their conformation of the process. I have not seen any paper on the subject. However it must be remembered that these kinds of experiments will not be accepted by the scientific community at large. (The cold fusion people created their own publications.) So we do have a problem.

It does seem that the experiments themselves for half-life modification are simple and easy to do. They are much easier to do than the cold fusion experiments and much less expensive. So anyone who would need to try to verify the process would be able to do so very easily.

As a creationist, I see the need for various creationists to investigate this area with experimentation. Are the half-lives of isotopes as unchangeable as evolutionists say they are or does the half-life change much easier than we originally thought? This would be an important question to answer.

The fact that half-life modification is considered a pseudoscience should not scare creationists into holding back doing research in this area. We are already familiar with the fact that the scientific community is not an arena in which we have academic freedom, especially when our alternate theory goes against mainstream science in such a manner so that the politics of our day will have the final word! In spite of these problems, we must try to answer these questions on the nature of radionuclide decay.

Does this new development change the situation?

There are some Creationists who believe that since the nature and stability of nuclide (isotope) half-lives is thought to be a consequence of the nature of the fundamental nuclear and electric forces phenomena, the same fundamental natures that determine the nature of matter itself and the basic laws of chemistry and physics, thus making radionuclide half-lives to be as reliable as any other natural phenomena, such as the speed of light, electric, gravitational, and nuclear force phenomena; These Creationists feel that God would be working against His own nature if He suddenly changed the half-life of nuclides. If the half-life characteristics of nuclides (isotopes) were shown to be easily modified even in mild conditions thus allowing the half-life of nuclides to be drastically shortend, then this kind of thinking could be eliminated.

If half-life modification can be shown to occur in natural conditions in the rocks of the earth, then yes, it would change our understanding of the nature of the problems we face concerning radionuclide decay.

I have not yet seen evidence that this is a possibility during and following the time of the flood. Age measurements of fossils using Carbon 14 work out the way we expect them to work when we assume that the ratio of C14/C12 was much less before the flood, mostly because of the dilution factor of having excess Carbon 12 before the flood. Also (K/Ar) Potassium Argon Dating of some rocks known to be made underwater in the time of the flood, and afterwards, also work out the way we expect them to work. This is when we assume that the weight of the flood waters is keeping the rocks from degassing, thus giving them abnormally old ages from what would be expected in a short time span since the flood.

The flood occurred around 3500 years ago, so at least during the time of the flood and the time following the flood, the rate of transmutations has probably been stable. This means that the rate that nuclides break down has not changed during this time and the measurements in the lab can be a good indication of what has happened in this time period if we make the correct assumptions.

However, Creation Week is still wide open to possibilities. It could be that the transmutations of nuclides is a normal part of the creation act of God.

If the half-lives of nuclides were known to be easily modifiable, then the conditions needed for transmutation of nuclides to occur in the creation act might easily be met. It might even be, since matter is a creation by God, that matter itself is made for easy adjustment as part of its design features.


Origin By Design by Harold G. Coffin with Robert H. Brown, Pub. 1983 by Review and Herald Publishing Association

Creation - Accident or Design? by Harold G. Coffin (Chapters on dating by Robert H. Brown), Pub. 1969 by Review and Herald Publishing Association

why I became a scientist who is a creationist

on Icon

Mike's Origins Resources: A PhD Creationist's view of science, origins, and the future hope of the human race; by looking at Creation Science, Biblical Evidence, and Prophecy Molecular History Research Center Other radioactive dating methods
Index Page

why I became a scientist who is a creationist

What is new at this creation science and prophecy site?

Email criticisms and comments to Mike Brown brownm@creation-science-prophecy.com

Copyright 2005 - 2021 by Michael Brown all rights reserved
Officially posted June 4, 2005
last revised February 24, 2021