The Truth About The Creation
God's Glory, God's Handiwork, God's
Word, The Genesis Account
A Dissertation by Pastor Ed Rice January 2017
7: Relativity and the Age of Rocks
Diligent Bible believers insist that the world is only about 6,019
years old, that is 4004 BC date of creation, according to the works
of James Ussher, added to AD 2016 and less the year for leaving out
zero BC on our Julian Calendar. Evolutionists insist that it must
have taken millions of years for dogs to evolve into Clydesdale
horses, and lizards to evolve into bald eagles, i.e. since one cannot
see such evolution occurring in our tiny little time frame, it surely
must have taken millions of years of random chance. Atheistic
evolutionists also KNOW that since it takes a million years for light
to travel a million light years from the outer regions of space, then
rocks must be millions of years old. This chapter is intended to add
evidential trace to the creationists assertion that evolutionists are
deceived, self deceivers, and some times outright liars. The primary
purpose here is to provide additional insight as to how the
evolutionists numbers can be so very wrong. Radioisotope dating
methods are not the end-all authority that they are made out to be.
For the Bible believer, the LORD God is our end-all authority, and he
distinctively revealed that rocks are only 6,019 years old.
An article titled “Doesn't Radioisotope Dating Prove Rocks
Are
Millions of Years Old?” by Brian Thomas and John Morris,
opens with
this informative declaration:
Geologists do not directly measure the age of a rock. They choose
rocks containing radioactive “parent” isotopes that
emit
particles and radiation to become a different
“daughter” element
and measure ratios of elements to their isotopes. Attempts to
transform these ratios into dates are where this becomes problematic.
Assigning a date requires that the rate at which the parent decays
into the daughter element has been the same throughout the
rock’s
history. It is similar to assuming that the constriction in an
hourglass has always been the same diameter, and the same number of
sand grains passes every minute.
Radioisotope decay rates
are
renowned for constancy under normal conditions, so this assumption
appears reasonable. But two observations and two clues omitted from
physics textbook discussions of radio dating show that these
radioisotope “clocks” are broken.
The cloud of doubt about the radioactive dating of rocks is further
exposed by consideration of relativity and its effects on radioactive
dating methods.
RATE
casts doubt on three radiometric assumptions
The acronym RATE is short for Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth.
The eight year RATE project, supported by Answers in Genesis, The
Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and The Creation Research
Society (CRS), demonstrated that conventional radioisotope dates are
suspect and manipulated by atheistic evolutionists with an agenda.
Excellent documentation of the work of these eight doctors is readily
available in two volumes, “Radioisotopes and the Age of the
Earth -
(Results of) A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative”
both available from ICR and CRS who hold its 2000 and 2005
copyrights. There is also an excellent condensed version for non
technical readers, “Thousands Not Billions, Challenging an
Icon of
Evolution Questioning the Age of the Earth”
by Dr. Don DeYoung.
In the RATE work there is an initial assumption that on the
microscopic level, God's creation of the Earth did not include an
appearance of age. There has been a common explanation among
creationists that since Adam was created with obvious age, rocks were
likely created with an appearance of age. This argument was simple
and forthright, but it was so vague that it left some inconsistency
in the world of radioisotopes.
The RATE team instead cast doubt on three assumptions made for
accurate radioisotope dating methods.
First, the initial conditions of rocks are assumed to be known
accurately. This assumption may be closely tied to the old argument
about the appearance of age, but it is more precise. One cannot know
the initial microscopic levels of isotopes when God spoke things into
existence, but because of the RATE work it is in evidence that one
cannot even know those levels when volcanic rocks are presently
formed. In the study radioisotope dating often assigned ancient dates
for volcanic rocks known to be very recent in origin.
The second assumption about radioisotope dating had to do with
movement of isotopes through rocks. While the dating method assumes
that samples closed off from the outside have not gained or lost any
isotopes, RATE showed that rocks and minerals can undergo
hydrothermal transport which effects the isotope levels. These
changes directly effect the accuracy of the dating method.
The
third assumption made for accurate radioisotope dating methods
involves the constancy of nuclear half-lives. The idea that
everything has always continued as it now does is called
uniformitarianism and it has been preached by atheistic evolutionists
since Charles Lyell (1797-1875)
first outlined it for them in the 19th
century. Lyell, a British geologist, opposed the idea that the
universe has experienced cataclysmic changes, especially opposing
those changes recorded by the LORD God in his Holy Bible.
Radioisotope dating methods, to maintain any accuracy at all, relay
on no changes in the nuclear half-lives of radioisotopes. It is a
goal of this dissertation to use relativity considerations to expose
a malady in this third assumption. Time, on the atomic level, and on
any level, has proven to be relative, not displaying Lyell's required
constancy. This effort wishes to explore more fully the RATE Volume 2
chapter of the report, “Accelerated Decay: Theoretical
Considerations” by Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D.
Radioisotope
Dating Methods
The radioisotope dating method relies on measuring how much of a
radioactive material remains after it has undergone radioactive
decay. Stories of nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants melting
down to leave our planet a radioactive wasteland, need not come to
mind when we consider radioisotopes. Radioactive materials are quite
natural and all around us. Dr. DeYoung gives a brief history and
overview of radioisotope dating,
but here suffice it to say that radioactive materials decay and
change from one element to another. The measure how much of the
unstable element decayed into the stable element gives a measure of
time like sand passing through an hourglass.
Radioactive decay is a pretty well understood activity in this 21st
century. Most Americans have unwittingly acquainted themselves with
it at the dentist when a technician dons a lead apron and instructs,
“Don't move this will only take a second.” She then
darts out of
the room to turn on an X-ray machine. The dictionary describes the
radon we were thus exposed to as, “noun, Symbol Rn, a
colorless,
radioactive, inert gaseous element formed by the radioactive decay of
radium. It is used as a radiation source in radiotherapy and to
produce neutrons for research. Its most stable isotope is Rn 222 with
a half-life of 3.82 days. Atomic number 86; melting point
–71°C;
boiling point –61.8°C; specific gravity (solid)
4.”
Radioactive decay is happening all around us, and is thought to be
pretty well understood, but we are talking about things happening
inside of the nucleus of an atom; an atom which was only demonstrated
to truly exist by Neil Bohr in 1915. This effort will primarily
concern itself with a radioactive isotopes half-life, and how it is
used to date the age of rocks.
Potassium-40 is a common radioactive element used in radioisotope
dating of rocks. In the nucleus of a Potassium-40 atom, there are 19
protons (via its atomic number), and 21 neutrons, to give it an
atomic mass of 40; it is abnormal, and actually called an isotope,
because Potassium normally has an atomic mass of 39. If one of the
protons in its nucleus somehow absorbs an electron and changes to a
neutron, it turns into a noble gas called Argon-40. Argon normally
has this atomic mass of 40, and has an atomic number of 18, which is
the number of protons in this newly created nucleus. That proton
turning to into a neutron bursts out a blast of gamma radiation. That
proton mysteriously turning into a neutron is also a very poorly
understood aspect of God's creation and God's hand in the matter
continuum's consisting.
If one has a measure of this Potassium-40, an isotope of Potassium,
half of it miraculously changes to Argon-40 over a period of time
called its half-life. The half-life for Potassium-40 is 1.25 billion
years. If one watched our measure of Potassium-40 for 1.25 billion
years they would find that exactly half of it changed to Argon-40. If
they then watched it for another 1.25 billion years the remaining
half measure would be halved again and there would be a quarter
measure of Potassium-40 left, and three quarter measure of Argon-40
produced. That is a very simple explanation without all the
consideration of gamma radiation, alpha particles and beta particles
flying around.
Why only half of the parent element is transformed into the daughter
element in any half-life period of time, is quite a mystery. It does
not matter the measure that you start with, a pound, an ounce, a ton
or a microgram, precisely half of it miraculously changes into the
daughter element. As Georgia State University states it:
The radioactive half-life for a given radioisotope is a measure of
the tendency of the nucleus to "decay" or "disintegrate"
and as such is based purely upon that probability. The tiny nuclear
size compared to the atom and the enormity of the forces which act
within it make it almost totally impervious to the outside world. The
half-life is independent of the physical state (solid, liquid, gas),
temperature, pressure, the chemical compound in which the nucleus
finds itself, and essentially any other outside influence. It is
independent of the chemistry of the atomic surface, and independent
of the ordinary physical factors of the outside world.
That is some of the miracle of God's creation of matter where his
hand causes all things to consist. It is thus His hand that is on the
hourglass of time for all radioisotope dating. Suffice it to say
that numerous samples of radioactive decay have been observed,
particularly those with much smaller half-lives than Potassium-40,
and the mysterious half-life time period is uniformly expected for
all radioactive decay.
Consider again the three huge assumptions which the RATE study
maligned. One does not actually know the initial Potassium-40 and
Argon-40 percentages. It could be that some Argon-40 was initially
present which did not come from degrading Potassium-40. One must
ASSUME the initial levels were all Potassium-40 and no Argon-40.
Also, one does not actually know if the some parent element
(Potassium-40) or of the daughter element (Argon-40) came into, or
expelled out of the sample by some sort of thermal transport. Lastly,
we are ASSUMING that a half life is constant and could not somehow be
accelerated. There are several things which might account for this
change of time in an isotopes half-life, not the least of which is
the topic exposed in this dissertation, time is relative.
Relativity
Changes Atomic Clocks
The atomic clock is so accurate that it is now the standard for all.
In 1967 the National Institute of Standards and Technology in
Boulder, Colorado set the oscillatory frequency of the atomic
transition of the cesium, C-133 atom as the perfect standard of the
second. From now on 1 second = 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard
Cs-133 transition. Prior to this the second was based on the orbital
period of the Earth, “but the cesium clock period was found
to be
much more stable than the Earth's orbit!”
This atomic clock standard is so accurate in measuring the Earth's
orbit that the “leap second” was devised to make up
for the decay
and slow down of the Earth. According to the BBC news, the leap
second is added to the last minute of June, but the Earth's orbit is
so irregular, compared to the atomic clock, that the leap second is
announced at quite irregular intervals.
Adding this leap second at such irregular intervals causes all kinds
of consternation in networked computer systems. I suppose this might
be futile ground for conspirator conspiratorists who love to predict
the end of the world with Y2K
type concerns.
Consider here, that if the atomic clock is sensitive to Albert
Einstein's general theory of relativity, and its ever changing of
clock tics, then so to is the radio active decay that happens at the
atomic level of God's creation. Indeed the cesium clock, and all
atomic clocks, change their clicks according to Einstein's theories.
Cesium
Clock Measures Relativity Time Changes
The atomic clock works because of the quantum energy jumps of
electrons in the outer orbital shell of the atom. These outer shell
electrons are called valence electrons. Cesium in a crystal has
valence electrons that resonate at a very consistent frequency. It
can thus be used as a very accurate oscillator to measure time very
very accurately.
One can imagine that two extremely accurate atomic clocks might be
synchronized together, sent off on vehicles with differing relative
motions, and then brought back together to see if there was a
variance in time on either clock. A dilation of time which followed
Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, could demonstrate the
validity of his theory. Just such an experiment was set up in 1971.
It was undertaken by the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington DC.
Georgia State University
reported the results of this Hafele and Keating Experiment as
follows:
During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on
regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice,
once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of
relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of
each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with
reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost
40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained
275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the
atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks
lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7
nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the
corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an
unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox"
with macroscopic clocks.
This was profound; it demonstrates Albert Einstein's theories of
relativity in a conceivable fashion. It also seizes on the fact that
these theories of relativity operate on the atomic level. Time
dilation, from relativity, operates on the atomic level and alters
what is going on inside of a cesium atom. There is no reason to doubt
that it also alters what is going on in the radioactive decay of the
Potassium-40 atom. Radioisotopes which undergo various relative
velocities, experience accelerations, rotations, or changes in
gravity have their clock rates adjusted by the theories of
relativity.
Radioactivity,
Relativity, The Flood and the Age of Rocks
The radiometric dating methods used to estimate the age of rocks has
a notable singularity around the time of the flood, and the dilation
of time due to relativity multiplies the uncertainty of these dating
methods. The RATE work used radiohalos to highlight the singularity.
A singularity is a trait marking one singular, as distinct from
others. It points out a peculiarity, signifying something uncommon or
unusual. The RATE work also eluded to the dangerous assumptions in
relying on radiometric dating methods to suppose millions of years of
uniformitarianism.
Relativity, and its dilation of time, was not factored into the RATE
team's excellent prognosis, but it certainly casts substantially more
doubt onto the atheistic evolutionist's ability to date the age of
rocks with any accuracy.
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the
earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the
Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is
kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in
him (Psalm 2:10-12).
To be certain it is best to put trust in the Son of God, and heed
what he has said about the age of the Earth. No matter what the
atheistic evolutionists theorize about the age of the universe or the
age of rocks, their suppositions are clouded in doubt. The Bible
believer's suppositions are grounded in the truth of an inerrant,
infallible, verbally inspired Bible, trust the Creator, our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Son, on these things.
Figure 16 (7-1) DeYoung's Table 5-1 Data in a Bar Chart
The singularity concerning the age of rocks around the time of the
flood has not, heretofore been fully exposed. The geological changes
that happened just prior to, all during, and immediately after God's
miraculous and human damning flood, cannot be fully known; nor can
the meteorology, the astrology, or the radiology. There have been
noteworthy hypotheses presented, but the flood had a notable effect
on all of God's universe. The RATE studies clearly showed this
singularity in Dr. DeYoung's Table 5-1.
That data comes alive more profoundly in the figures below.
Figure 17 (7-2) DeYoung's Table 5-1 Data in a Stacked Bar Chart
There is little hope of denying that God's flood had a profound
effect on every aspect of his universe. Here changes in radioactive
decay are in the limelight and time dilation caused by relativity are
certainly part of these changes. Rocks undergoing massive
accelerations as the fountains of the great deep were broken up (Gen
7:11, Prov 8:28), might activate relativity changes that we cannot
know. We are just now beginning to fathom the time warps caused by
relativity. An accelerated radioactive decay that RATE research has
exposed may certainly be part of an operating relativity time
dilation.
The age of rocks can be supposed by atheistic evolutionists using
their principle of uniformatarianism and radiometric dating of rocks.
Their results are convoluted at best. All of their findings are based
on a belief system, not on the practice of a rigorous science. Any of
their findings need not shake the faith, stir the reproach, nor
reduce the compassion of the Bible believer who has a hold on God's
truth. Jesus said “I am the truth” (John 14)
There is a myriad of creation research available to the believer and
it shows overwhelming evidence of this convoluted reasoning of the
atheistic evolutionist. Marvin Lubenow displays their uncertainty
through their failings in the fossil record. In his article
“The
Dating Gap” he states:
Human evolution demands precise dating of the relevant fossils.
Evolutionists now admit that the dates for the human fossils in the
significant Middle Stone Age period and elsewhere are uncertain. It
means that there is no such thing as a legitimate evolutionary fossil
sequence leading to modern humans. It also means that evolutionists
cannot make accurate statements regarding the origin of modern humans
based on fossils discovered thus far. Their continuing to do so
reveals that their statements are based on a belief system, not on
the practice of a rigorous science.
Some exceptional Institute for Creation Research articles for further
study in this area are shown below.
The Dating Gap by Marvin L. Lubenow, M.S., Th.M.
http://www.icr.org/article/dating-gap/
(accessed Nov 2015).
Rethinking Carbon-14 Dating: What Does It Really Tell Us about the
Age of the Earth? by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *
http://www.icr.org/article/7311/
(accessed Nov 2015).
Why Do Scientists Trust Flawed Methods? by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
http://www.icr.org/article/7265/
(accessed Nov 2015).
Doesn't Radioisotope Dating Prove Rocks Are Millions of Years Old?
by Brian Thomas, M.S., and John Morris, Ph.D. *
http://www.icr.org/article/7242/
(accessed Nov 2015).
Both Argon and Helium Diffusion Rates Indicate a Young Earth by
Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. * http://www.icr.org/article/6229/
(accessed Nov 2015)
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable by Brian Thomas,
M.S. * http://www.icr.org/article/6246/
(accessed Nov 2015)
The dilemma that Bible believers are faced with, in light of all this
evidence, is that science-so-called will not back away from their
unbelief. In 1974 Dr. Morris published overwhelming evidence of their
malady in his book “Scientific Creationism.”
His effort publicly and emphatically declared that “Their
Emperor
has no clothes!” It is well attested in the 1985 forward to
the
second edition that, in their specific areas, many scientists
admitted to the malady in their little corner of the evolutionary
kingdom. But the construction of the kingdom went on unabated, and
today, it is formidable. The purest logic of the argument does not
change minds or lives, God does.
A Bible believer can be versed in the truth, but always remembering
that it is God's verse that changes lives. A ready apologetic is
essential in this battle, but it is the foolishness of preaching that
will sway the individual. The Apostle Paul puts this perspective in a
paragraph:
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with
wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none
effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish
foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For
it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring
to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where
is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made
foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God
the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness
of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign,
and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified,
unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But
unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of
God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser
than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men (1Cor
1:17-25).
The Institute for Creation Research has repeatedly tried to persuade
men without clubbing them over the head with the Bible, as they say.
They have presented the very best of research, logic, and argument.
Unfortunately when they do pick up a Bible, it is a compromised,
ecumenical, modernist, copyright one. Hitting one over the head with
that is like using a Nerf
Bat. The Bible believer is herein encouraged to pursue the very best
research, logic, and argument, but never lay down their sword or use
its two edges as a club. “For the word of God is quick, and
powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the
dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart”
(Heb
4:12).
Why
Bother About the Age of Rocks
Creationists have much researched and documented the incredulous
claims made by atheistic evolutionists concerning the age of rocks.
Their writings are emphatic, evolutionists are deceived and very
deceiving when it comes to the age of rocks being millions and
billions of years. It is reported via the Rocky Mountain Creation
Fellowship, “The most convincing data in the RATE book is the
discordance between dating methods (same rock, different isotopes),
and the fact that rocks of known age give isochrone ages with
discrepancies of millions of years.” Works by these
accomplished
creationists, are only highlighted in this effort, however, they are
substantial. Again, giving the remarks of Bill Browning of Rocky
Mountain Creation Fellowship:
Before you leave radioisotope dating, you would be remiss if not
covering the flip-side of rock dating, called the
“helium” age,
which was the quintessential RATE finding. A Billion years worth of
alpha particles (which become He atoms) generated by Uranium-to-lead
decay was discovered in zircons mined from granitic biotite. The
diffusion rate of the Helium was measured, and showed that the zircon
crystals would not retain much Helium: In fact, the measured
diffusivity agrees with a 6,000 year-old age for the host granite. From
this data, the RATE scientists concluded there had to have been
a rapid decay event which released the He in a short period of time.
Thus, the assumption of constant decay rate postulated for
radioisotope dating methods is false.
It is asserted here, as in the aforementioned works of creationists,
that atheistic evolutionists have fudged all their dating methods by
millions of years. This mass produced fudge is necessary to sustain
their ongoing belief that natural forces evolved life with no
Supernatural involvement. That is not to say they are all conspiring
to change the facts, but to recognize “we all filter data
through a
grid of prior assumptions.”
So too, the Bible believing creationist has a-prior assumption, it is
just that we are upfront and honest about ours. Atheistic
evolutionists have taught children from their youth that bald eagles
evolved from lizards, and that rocks are billions of years old. These
children are now adult scientists taking rock samples and doing the
radiometric dating. One dares to presume that they have a strong bias
and a “grid of prior assumptions.” These also must
needs reject
God's world flood which happened only 4,563 year ago.
Rejection of these Bible discerned facts has been trained into
atheistic evolutionists since their youth. It also resonates well
with man's depravity. God says:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none
that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are
all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there
is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open
sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of
asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and
bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and
misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known:
There is no fear of God before their eyes (Rom 3:10-18).
That sounds, pretty harsh on the atheistic evolutionist. Always
remember that it is a description of the Bible believer's sorry
caucus as well, “but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified,
but ye
are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our
God” (1Cor 6:11).
There does not, however, seem to be a pending collapse of the house
of cards built by atheistic evolutionist. The world has gone after
their deceit and found it more comfortable than a Creator who will
one day be their judge. Religion, also, is more comfortable with the
lie than with God's truth. The 2015 visit of the Roman Pope sought to
endorse evolution with its big bang, socialism with its war on
poverty, and global warming efforts attempting to shut down fossil
fuel industries to reduce a carbon footprint. Pope or Protestant,
they lead a path straight down the progressive liberal's evolutionary
highway.
Some creationists have become optimistic about the soon coming
collapse of evolutionary theory. They realize that all the evidence
is on the creationists side, but it was our Lord Jesus Christ who
said, “As it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in
the
days of the Son of man” (Lu 17:26). The depravity of man will
not
allow the collapse of the atheistic evolutionary rebellion against
the Creator. We labor, then for individual souls. Souls who have been
taught evolution from their youth. They need to get a glimpse of the
great lie they have been told before they can hear the glorious
gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In 1Cor 5 the Apostle Paul gives three reason why we labor (vr. 9):
1) “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of
Christ; that
every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that
he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (5:10), 2)
“Knowing
therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (5:11), 3)
“For
the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if
one died for all, then were all dead” (5:14).
“Therefore if any
man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away;
behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who
hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us
the ministry of reconciliation” (5:17-18). Labor over
theories of
relativity, over radioisotopes, and over the truth of the six-day
creation because sincere Bible believers are to be reconcilers, not
compromisers, but reconcilers.
To Continue in this series click the link below:
8:
The Six-Days. . . 150
www.truthaboutthechrist.com/thetruthaboutthecreation/8six_days.html
. . . Sunday The First Day of
Creation. . .
. 151
. . . Monday The Second Day of
Creation . .
. 159
. . . Tuesday The Third Day of
Creation . .
. 163
. . . Wednesday The Fourth Day
of Creation
. . . 166
. . . The Stars Used for
Seasons. . . 170
. . . The Stars Used For Signs.
. . 171
. . . The Creation of Angels
with the
Stars. . .
173
. . . God saw that it was good.
. . 174
. . . Thursday The Fifth Day of
Creation .
. . 174
. . . Friday The Sixth Day of
Creation . .
. 177
. . . Saturday The Seventh Day
of Creation
. . . 179
God's Glory, God's Handiwork, God's Word, The Genesis Account
Series Complete Table of
Contents