Letters to the Editors

{Note: Newer letters appear first}

Al Hidell Exposed
Look, all the circumstantial evidence says that "Al Hidell" is a CIA agent. I appreciated Joan's email, but (a) she hasn't emailed me since last December, (b) Al Hidell has been bound and determined to blackball me since I started this, and (c) if Joan were serious about publishing any of the CONJURELLA series, "Hidell" probably has her bludgeoned and in a deep freeze by now. Getting CONJURELLA published in a magazine that looks like CREEPY, EERIE, and VAMPIRELLA may SOUND good, but what in the hell have I done to my people, in the long run? I don't want spooky Goddamned Hidell deciding that gives him the right to go out to Kenockee Township and start looking for witnesses, and maybe kill more of them than have already been killed. Hidell is a CIA pig, Joan D'Arc didn't email me back.

Best, T. Casey Brennan

[Yes, I admit it, Mr. Brennan, it's all true. Damn you! Now that I've had Joan d'Arc put on ice, I'm off to kill more JFK assassination witnesses.- Al]

Osama in Suburbia
Regarding Al's excellent article I have just read on PARANOIA, one very small detail I would like to point out: Wembley is not "a posh London Suburb ." In fact, it is a fairly unsightly area but a good one for Bin Laden to own a property as there is a very high Muslim population there. It is also a sad fact that Britain is an international centre for Islamic Militancy, as reported in The Daily Telegraph. In fact, days after Sept 11 young Muslim men were on the streets of Luton (another area of high Muslim population) actively backing the Taliban Regime and Osama Bin Laden. Unfortunately, these people will be allowed to continue recruiting terrorist sympathizers because of the UK authorities fear of upsetting the politically correct. On a lighter note, I am new to the PARANOIA site and have enjoyed reading its contents.

Regards, Sean Dunne

The Wildcards

Just wanted to give you some feedback on your excellent geopolitical analysis of the terror war and its possible repercussions; that could lead to WW III. Another aspect of the equation in U.S. interest in this part of the world is to prevent the almost inexorable advent of the Eurasian Alliance. There are strong historical currents that are pushing towards a United States Of Europe, (via the Euro), that would align itself with both Russia and China, as well as India. This geopolitical move could dwarf the power of the U.S. in terms of both military power, and economic power. The Eurasian Alliance could cut off the U.S. from trade conduits as well as devalue the dollar and U.S. corporations through massive disinvestment. The dollar could be made worthless, and the World Bank would issue an American Euro that would be devalued in relation to the European Euro, and through the currency exchanges the U.S. economy could be picked clean. The U.S. HAS to try to grab a chunk of Asia's resources and territory to offset this arrangement, but the U.S. is facing steep odds. China and India are the wildcards that will decide the matter. If these nations side with Europe against the U.S. you are going to have WW III, count on it. My take on 911 is that it is the first move on behalf of NWO elites to destroy the United States as we know it. Enough terrorism will evoke massive government repression; these two factors combined will destroy the U.S. economy and you will have total social disintegration in America, like in Bosnia, and the U.N. will take over. This is the most dangerous epoch in human history where the battle lines have been re-drawn. There are patriots in the military, the F.B.I., and private and public sectors that are not going to just roll over for this. The invasion of Afghanistan is a necessary move for the U.S. to survive as a nation, even though the consequences are tragic for the Afghan people. I am a pacifist and I do not agree with the war. But I understand why it is being fought, the present era is one of pathos indeed.

Name Withheld
(To the writer: If you want your name here, please let us know

Inside the ORB
As the cyber curtain falls over an unwitting world, enmeshing the industrialized nations in an inextricable sheath of surveillance, cyberspace becomes the surreal theatre of warfare wherein the controllers of the internet will dominate distant battlefields while comfortably ensconced in remote bunkers and underground cities, unleashing death, destruction, and mayhem from Air-born Opto-electrical Rotating Browser Bots equipped with TROLL cams and the most sophisticated weapons yet devised by humankind. Make no mistake about it; whosoever controls cyberspace will control the world.

To those who control cyberspace, war will resemble a sophisticated artificial intelligence game, a new techno-sport, but to those at the receiving end of the incredible new technology, war will be dirty, ugly, monstrous, and horrible, as always. Even so, history will offer no precedent to this anti-revolutionary warfare, because, first, there will be no outside nation to help those who resist, and secondly, the possibility of gaining victory over the adversary will be remote indeed!

But first, the people of the industrialized nations must become utterly dependent upon the internet. Already we see what appears to be a deliberate strategy to accomplish this: web-based software that cannot be registered or used without first connecting to the internet; web-based hardware that cannot be run unless connected to the internet; the elimination from the marketplace of any portable, hand-held device, which could substitute for a desktop or laptop PC, which essentially makes all hand-held devices mere extensions of an internet-dependent desktop device; the lure of unfiltered and uncontrolled information available only on the web, which, in addition to free porn, lures many into internet-dependence. These trends, and many others, tend to assure the advent of TOTE (Technology of Total Enslavement).

Next, once most people cannot think or dream of living without internet access, the content of the internet will begin to be filtered and controlled, and, of course, taxed to support GOG's voracious appetite. This is tricky for the powers that be. By not filtering internet content, they run the risk that too many people will catch on to what they're up to. On the other hand, if they blatantly filter the content, people will disconnect from the net in droves and ire against the powers will fulminate and fester. However, since their goal is total control, they no doubt plan to become the gatekeepers of cyberspace - a truly frightening prospect when you consider that the dehumanization of the kleptocrats will be exacerbated even beyond our present capacity to endure as they become increasingly isolated from interaction with the general public in their cyberized ivory towers.

Future cyber-warriors, instead of scrambling outside to jump in the cockpit of a human-controlled aircraft, will instead buckle themselves into an ORB (Opto-Electrical Rotating Browser Bot). This device will remain stationary but simulate real flight by spinning the "pilot" around inside the ORB as the pilot directs. Using the ORB, the cyber-warrior will remotely control a hovercraft equipped with sensors and multiple cameras of various kinds; the information from the mobile unit (the hovercraft) will be fed, via the internet, to the ORB in such a way that the pilot will have the illusion of actually being buckled into the mobile craft. When the pilot turns the ORB to the left, signals are sent to the remote unit to turn left, thus positioning the cameras in that direction.

Likewise, inside the ORB, there will be cameras and sensors to feed information to the control center, so they can see and communicate with the pilot remotely. That way, multiple mobile units can not only operate in sync, just as they would if they were flying along-side each other in formation, but if need be, they can view what's transpiring inside another ORB. This will also allow pilot crews to be shifted out without needing to land the mobile units. Global Hawk technology can control an aircraft remotely, honing in on a specified target or sending the craft to a designated direction, but the drawback, of course, is, first, that you lose a lot of flexibility which goes with having a "hands-on" human controlling the craft.

The TROLL cam system will allow the ORB pilot to hover outside a building, then target the building's inside TROLL cams for monitoring, thus allowing the pilot to see the target(s) before and after they exit a building. Already the underground bunkers, the hover craft, and the TROLL cam system are rumored to be in development. As for the ORBs themselves, which are the stationary units that interface with the mobile craft via the internet TROLL cam system, there's not, to my knowledge, any evidence that they've been under development, but as for me, I nevertheless have no doubt that they are being developed, very secretly, and news of them will be forthcoming in time, I'd wager. E-war, what do you think?

Yours in good faith,
John Paul Jones

Wendy Wallace Responds to R.B. Cutler and K. Klemenchich
Dear R.B. and Kathy,
Thanks so much for taking the time to read the article and thoughtfully reply. How good to hear from you, Mr. Cutler. While I'm familiar with your excellent and persevering work on the Kennedy assassination, I hadn't known you were a fan of "The Web." Your paradigm has the great advantage of breaking only one of the Laws of Thermodynamics, the second. I would just point out in response, that to my knowledge "The Web" has never written nor preserved a book claiming creation of the universe, nor has the god of any religion/belief system but the God of the Bible. He alone claims creation, and establishes and explains the origins of the Laws of Thermodynamics and Bio-genesis as scientifically discovered and observed. Interestingly enough, that God is also familiar with "The Web" (the ten emanations), and addresses the issue thusly, warning those to whom it appeals: "So are the paths of all that forget God; and the hypocrite's hope shall perish: whose hope shall be cut off, and whose trust shall be a spider's web" (Job 8:13,14 and following). He also suggests that those who have promoted trust in that web are not the good guys, nor the wise ones: "None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. They hatch cockatrice's eggs, and weave the spider's web: he that eateth of their eggs dieth..." (Isaiah 59:4,5). Perhaps you'd take that under consideration? I'd hate to see you, of all people, bamboozled by the bad guys!

And Kathy, You're working throughout with the same erroneous assumptions the evolutionists do regarding dating and cross dating (as evidenced by your use of the terms "slow erosion," "Cambrian," "pre-Cambrian" et. al.) in an effort to reconcile pseudo-science with the Word of God. Your claim that God doesn't lie is most certainly correct, but misapplied. He never said the earth was billions of years old: the assumptions of such an age flow naturally from the fallen nature of mankind, which does "not like to retain God in their knowledge." While affirming Him as a "God that cannot lie," you actually contend that He's lying six times in just the first chapter of the Bible when He does say, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night (Genesis 1:5). "And the evening and the morning were the first day.. ."...........And the evening and the morning were the second day..."....................And the evening and the morning were the third day.. .".........."And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.. ."...."And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.. ."..... .".........."And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Of course "day" can mean a much longer period of time, but He defines the precise period he's referencing for us right there in verse 5, and holds to it throughout.
As for our "seeing stars forming," that's another assumption promoted by the same folks that repeatedly tell is there is or has been life on Mars, that the universe must have produced many life forms, that changes in a finch's beak demonstrate macro-evolution, that life comes from non-life, etc. What we "see" is what we "see" - magnificent moving formations in the universe.

Thanks very much for your letter. Nice to hear from you, and am looking forward to your articles in PARANOIA.

Yours truly,
Wendy Wallace

"Everything needs a Designer"

Ms. Wallace:
I've just finished reading your article in PARANOIA magazine. First of all, I admit there are some holes in the Evolution theory and scientists have been pretty smug in their defenses of it. Your problem, however, is making it explicitly clear that you are tackling these insufficiencies with a Christian agenda. I will now demonstrate, with two questions, how this always come back to bite you on the butt.

By pushing the whole designer requirement you are leaving yourself wide open for counter punches. The fact remains that you cannot use the whole "everything needs a designer" assertion only when it pleases you and promotes your theory. Your God doesn't get to be the only causeless cause just because that concept is also embraced by Islam and Judaism. Many people find ALL religion to be illogical and unnecessary, so making this statement doesn't get you off the hook. No, Wendy, you DO have to answer the question: If everything requires a designer, then who designed your God? You can't just throw it in the face of creationists when it's convenient for you.

Can you honestly answer: why is your God exempt from this rule? Why? Also, Let's say for argument that you have made an airtight case for creation on this planet: Why can I be sure your God is the creator? I've had Krishna practitioners assure me that THEIR God, not yours, is responsible. So what's up with that? Remember, evolution is just a theory, it's not a scientific fact. I do understand that it's frustrating to you that it gets taken more seriously (in scientific circles) than your belief system, but I would be VERY impressed if you actually wrote back and answered my two questions.

Thank you,
Steve Funderburg

Wendy's Reponse to Mr. Funderburg

Well Gosh, Steve, I thought the article did a pretty good job of pointing out that it's not "science" vs. "my belief system," but pseudo-science in service of a necessarily false belief system. Guess not.

As for your questions, I'd have to answer "Because He's the only One who says so, and proves it." There is no other religious or scientific paradigm that even pretends to account for the origin of all things, nor is there any other "god" that wrote a book claiming to have done it. They all begin with something pre-existing the universe, whether it be dust and energy or stacks of turtles. THE God, on the other hand, says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," and then goes on to explain how, in the first chapter of Genesis. John 1 expands on it, beginning with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made." Since no effect can be greater than its cause, I'd have to say God wins on this one, because you can't get a universe from dust or turtles.

Why is "my God" (how 'bout THE God?) exempt from the First Law of Thermodynamics? Because He MADE that Law, and upholds it. 2 Peter 3:7 "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

The concepts of God embraced by Islam and Judaism are entirely different gods. The Koran does not recognize Jesus as "The Word" by whom all things were created, nor do they know Jehovah God as the Bible en toto presents him. They are also without any concept of the need for forgiveness of sins and the necessity of the blood of Christ for payment. As for current Judaism, it has accepted the Talmud as its final authority rather than the Torah or the Tenach. The Old Testament pointed to the coming Messiah with over 50 clear prophecies, all fulfilled by Jesus Christ, but the Jews in large part did not recognize Him when He came because the "traditions" of the Pharisees in the Babylonian Talmud had eclipsed the original Word (read Matthew 23). In truth, one must be, as the Bible states, "born-again" (John 3:1-8), which most professing Christians aren't. It's simply become a catch-phrase used to identify sets of church-goers who've "made a decision" to "accept Christ." This is unbiblical, as Jesus says, "Ye have not chosen me , but I have chosen you"(John 15:16). Being born again by the Holy Spirit is truly a supernatural act, and once it's happened there's no going back to the old belief systems and skeptical questions. I oughta know: I was always a scoffer and cynic re: Christianity until I got gently whupped upside the head by the Holy Spirit one morning shortly after "waking up." Then I really woke up.

Oooops, digressed there. As to why "my God" is THE God, I return to my earlier statement, i.e., "Because He's the only One who says so, and proves it." If your doubts are sincere and the truth is what you're really after, I would suggest you read Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. He wrote it trying to disprove the Bible, and in the process got converted. Or you might just pray to the real God, if there is one, to reveal Himself to you. If to know the truth is your primary motivation, you'll meet Him personally, because God's only begotten Son IS the Truth (John 14:6).

Hope that answers your questions. Thanks for asking!

Yours truly,
Wendy

Mr. Funderburg's Response to Wendy's Response

Hello Wendy:

I want to thank you for responding, arguing with theists is my passion (yes, I sincerely seek "the truth") and it's tough to find many who enjoy healthy debate. I will always contact any theists I encounter in any secular magazines. On to your response...

Answer #1: "Because He's the only One who says so, and proves it" Wow. That's a packed statement. Let's start out with . .".He's the only One who say's so." So your going to use the old hayseed slogan "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

In reality, however, it's a bit more sticky. First of all, what is your evidence that the writings of the Bible are the words of "God"? Because it says so? That's a little circular. I'm sorry but you'll have to do better than that. While your at it, there's another sticky problem: Are you aware that on the back of the very magazine which printed your article there is an ad for tapes which explore the alteration of religion in the middle ages? There are many Catholic historians who openly admit the Catholic church itself altered portions of the Bible, I believe there was a Time magazine article in '96 that interviewed a few of them. Just because something is written doesn't automatically give it veracity. It would take a physical appearance of "God" to claim credit, and we both know that aint gonna happen.

Well, you probably believe it will happen on Judgement Day. The truth is it's possible that the Bible was written by a bunch of self serving Jewish and white men to help their own personal agenda. Besides, the writings of the Bible are so nebulous that not only have there been widely varying interpretations, there are SEVERAL different types of religions based on it! Jehovah's, Jew's, Catholics, Mormons, Lutherans, etc. Jeez, Wendy, what if the Jehovah's version is correct and yours is wrong? Uh oh!

David Koresh knew a lot about the Bible, he could probably have out quoted YOU, maybe he WAS the second coming just as he claimed. The ATF would be in a heap a' big trouble then, wouldn't they?

I'm not sure about your claim that no other deity makes the exact same claim, but let's just say for argument, that's the case. Why, exactly, are other God's claiming to have started out with dust and energy necessarily less credible? How does the first chapter of Genesis explain "how" God created existence?

From what I read, it just say's he did it. There is no lengthy scientific explanation of how. If there were, we would be in a much different world right now. The Big Bang doesn't really explain it either. I agree, you cannot get a universe from dust or turtles. You also can't get it by showing me a book which makes the flat assertion that "God" simply just did it.

Also, why is it a requirement that the being or beings involved in the creation of reality would be compelled to take credit? Christians are fond of telling me "The Lord moves in mysterious way's." Maybe the Aliens/Faeries/ Genies who created the fabric of our reality are moving in mysterious ways beyond our ability to fathom.

Answer #2: "He is exempt from physical laws because he created them." I see. So your saying that it IS possible for a being to be the first uncaused cause as long as that being causes it. Even though you don't explain HOW that is scientifically possible (and you wonder why mainstream science doesn't embrace that answer?), you DO claim it's possible, cuz the Bible says so. O.K. then, since it's possible, I guess it's just as possible that my Aliens, Faeries and Genies could do it as well, right?

May the Force be with you,
Steve

P.S. I have sincerely tried to pray. He doesn't answer me.

Hubbard Was Against Mind Control 

I work in the Media Relations department of Bridge Publications, Inc., the publisher for Mr. L. Ron Hubbard. I am writing to you because of two recent articles in your magazine that give mention to Mr. Hubbard. The first is Aleister Crowley: The Midnight Messenger  by Mike Culkin [PARANOIA Issue 21], and the second is Science Fiction as Manipulation by Robert Guffey [PARANOIA Issue 27]. I know that as the magazine editor you have a responsibility to publish accurate and entertaining information to your subscribers and readers. Unfortunately, in these two articles you have printed information regarding L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetics that is not factual. I have no doubt that the aforementioned articles could have been just as educational and interesting - and maybe even more so-if you had printed the truth about L. Ron Hubbard's stance on mind-control and hypnotism techniques - techniques that he stood firmly against, both in his writings and with his actions. Moreover, Mr. Hubbard exposed - as a result of his research - very disturbing techniques of mind control, which he aptly labeled "pain-drug-hypnosis" or "PDH" (reference the book: Science of Survival, first published 1951). It is clear from the bibliography of the articles that your writers were ill informed by some of their sources, and I can see how such materials have led them astray. The untruths which you have been subjected to can easily be brought to light with a document from Times Newspapers Limited (copy enclosed) in which they had printed similar comments as was published in your articles and later retracted them with a legal statement. In order to fix the two articles you published as mentioned above, I request that a correction statement or this letter be printed in the next issue (hardcopy and online version) of your magazine.        

Sincerely, 
Blake Silber 
Bridge Publications, Inc. 

The Cosmic Web 

To Wendy Wallace: At the end of your interesting thesis (Desperation Science: The Hidden Agenda of Darwinian Evolutionism, PARANOIA Issue 27), you make an assumption that all designed things require a designer. That goes along with our way of doing things which has evolved from you know when. May we suggest we agree with design but of a different type which has not been considered by you re: The Cosmic Web in NY Times (8/14/01). From here their imprint, their constitution, are the 10 meridians: the first items which come before/with/at birth/conception of the fetus. The web is your designer. We call them the Merries. Acting, interacting, the web creates design, cause, evolvement and evolution of the existence we know, in which we evolve continually. 

AHIMSA,
R.B. Cutler 

Creation not Creationism 
I am responding to your article (Desperation Science: The Hidden Agenda of Darwinian Evolutionism by Wendy Wallace,  PARANOIA Issue 27). I thought it was well researched and while I agree that evolution is far from proved, I strongly disagree with the 'young Earth' hypothesis: that the six days of creation in Genesis refer to six twenty-four hour days. The attachment to the anti-evolution argument of the days of creation being 24 hours in length is what is termed "Creationism." "Creationism" is not supported by the Bible, is not supported by the evidence, and greatly detracts from an otherwise strong Creation case. Genesis 1:1: says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This statement does not attach any time period at all to the creation of heaven and earth. The six creative days of Genesis refer to the preparation of the already existing Earth for life and the creating of life, human and animal. Each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning" a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day (Gen 1:5, 8, 13,19, 23, 31). The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the Earth, continued on. 

At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God's rest (7th) day was still continuing in his day, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This shows that each creative day, or work period was at least thousands of years in length (See Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, "Day" published by Watchtower). That "day" can refer to varying periods of time is shown elsewhere in Genesis where the entire period of the creation of heavens and earth is referred to as one "day:" "This is the history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven" (Genesis 2:4). In Genesis, when it speaks of days according to God's view we should not assume a day according to our view. God does not live in our solar system or anywhere in our universe and so is not affected by its various cycles and orbits.

Under the subheading, "Oh, Those Billions of Years" the writer makes the point that evolutionists need billions of years in order to make their theory seem viable. It's true that the earth has been in existence for 4.5 billion years, but that does not mean that an unbroken period of 4.5 billion years was allowed for evolution to have occurred. There have been six mass extinctions on earth according to gaps in the geologic column. These gaps would have interrupted any evolution process. In fact, these extinction events narrow the window of opportunity for life to evolve down to just a couple of hundred million years. "This early bombardment would also have frustrated the development and evolution of early life, with the largest impacts having the capacity to effectively sterilize the surface of the globe" (http://gdcinfo.agg.nrcan.gc.ca/ crater/paper/index_e.html). One of these extinctions in the geologic record is highly correlated with the Chicxulub impact crater, estimated to be 65 millions years old. The dating is due, not just to radioactive techniques, but also to shocked lithic fragments-intensely disturbed and fragmented rocks at the flank of the crater that correspond with rock layers in the geologic column already found to be at least millions of years old (see below). In other craters rocks, which form a hill in the center of the crater, have also been correlated to ancient times in the geologic column.

If one measures the rate of sediment deposition on the earth, the typical rate is millimeters per decade. The average sediment accumulation rate remains very, very, low. In many sites around the globe, one sees sequences of sedimentary rock exposed that are 10's of kilometers thick; and when you see that these stacks are on top of older stacks, and those stacks themselves are often made of reworked older sediments, there are 100's of km of sediment represented. At the bottom of these layers are the Pre-Cambrian rocks, which lie below the Cambrian rocks, more than 550 million years old. The Pre-Cambrian rocks comprise 87% of the total mass of the earth according to measurements made by earthquake waves. Adding up just the time needed to lay down these layers, not including the Pre-Cambrian mass, you get 100's of millions of years at a minimum, and billions of years, easily. There are at least 150 known large meteorite impact craters covering a period of 2.5 billion years, according to shocked lithic fragments and erosion evidence.

For instance, at Carswell Lake in Canada, the formation of the central uplift in this crater underlies the Precambrian granite that had been raised several hundred feet above its normal position in the region. Another way of dating impact craters is to note that, for instance, craters discovered on the Canadian Shield had been subjected to glaciation and other kinds of erosion during vast geologic ages.

The fact that impacts were more numerous during older geologic periods than today correlates with the theory of the origin of the asteroid belt that now produces the meteorites. This theory is that an earth sized planet exploded approximately 2 billion years ago, perhaps due to a collision. One can reason that all the major pieces that could collide with something else have already done so: by now they should be used up except for pieces the size of a small house to fine dust. The average time it takes for a cycle of metamorphism of rocks is from tens of thousands to millions of years. At the Manicougan crater, which is estimated at 212 million years, the meteorite impact hit igneous and metamorphic rocks, rocks that had already taken tens or hundreds of thousands of years to form before the meteorite hit. Regarding the Pre-Cambrian rocks which comprise 87% of the earth's mass, it is estimated that the time it took for planet earth to accrete it's mass was about 100 million years. Star formation takes from 10,000 to ten million years; and in this period our Sun was forming and the earth and planets were all embedded in the solar nebula, a swirling mass of gas and dust. 

The fact that we can see star forming regions today, like the Eagle and Orion Nebula with the help of the Hubble Space Telescope argues that star formation is a process taking tens of thousands to millions of years-and against an instantaneous creation of stars. Another line of evidence for an old earth is tree ring chronology. The longest continuous tree-ring chronology in the world is composed of many, many series of oak sequences that overlap back in time to more than 10,000 years (http://www-sci.lib.uci.edu/ SEP/CTS/TreeRing.html).

Some Creationists have tried to argue that the reason why the physical evidence from the earth yields billions of years of age is that the Creator has somehow sought to deceive observers with the evidence, i.e., that He has deliberately made things appear as though they are millions or billions of years old when they are in reality, only 6,000 years old. Deception is not in harmony with the Creator's personality. The Bible states, "It is impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews 6:18). There is simply no need, according to the Bible, to prove that the heavens and the earth are six thousand years old. The evidence, both written and physical, shows otherwise. 

K. Klemenchich 
Email: kxk24@scientist.com