President - Scott Lane 599-7240
Vice President – Capt. Harry Jackson, USAF (Ret.)
Secretary – Clarence Johnson Treasurer – Carl Williams, M.D.
[website – www.sabbsa.org ] [P.O. Box 34478, San Antonio, TX 78265]
We hope you are staying cool this summer. We in San Antonio are baking in our normal heat and drought
conditions. We pray for the reprieve of rain from our Creator. Thanks to God for the good rains we had
last weekend!
Our newsletter this month features a little publicized young Earth and solar system evidence involving the
sun that I think you will find illuminating (pardon the pun). We also have articles on how the “godfather
of global warming” has now reversed his views in light of current scientific evidence and now not only
says that they were alarmists in most of what had been predicted for global warming, but that there is now
a whole religion grown up around it. We also have articles on Gallup poll results which show how well
our message is getting out to the public and one showing a ridiculous “mermaid documentary” which was
shown on the cable channel Animal Planet.
Most of these articles articulate a rather tight theme of how much we as humans are willing to blind
ourselves from the truth of God’s creation to suit our own wills. These articles repeatedly exemplify how
our society has decided to ignore and manipulate science to promote their own agendas and the religion of
humanism. The result is that the field’s of biology, astrobiology and global warming are now self
sustaining public policies which will perpetuate themselves regardless of the evidence against them, and
in fact are now so engrained in our government policies and our culture that the “system” now works to
reject any exploration of evidence against these tightly held myths of our culture.
The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System
by Danny Faulkner, August 1, 2001 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v15/n2/faint-sun
According to theory, the Sun derives energy by the
thermonuclear conversion of hydrogen into helium, deep
inside its core. There is convincing evidence that the Sun is
getting at least half of its energy by this method. Such a
thermonuclear source could power the Sun for nearly 10
billion years. Most scientists think that the Sun (along with
the rest of the solar system) is about 4.6 billion years old,
which means it would have exhausted approximately half its
‘life’.
Over the Sun’s lifetime, the thermonuclear reactions would,
according to theory, gradually change the composition of the core of the Sun and alter the Sun’s overall
physical structure. Because of this process, the Sun would gradually grow brighter with age. Thus, if the
Sun is indeed 4.6 billion years old, it should have brightened by nearly 40% over this time.
Evolutionists maintain that life appeared on the Earth around 3.8 billion years ago. Since then, the Sun
would have brightened about 25%, though there is some uncertainty in that figure. This would appear to
present a temperature problem for the evolution of life and the Earth. With the current hand-wringing
over global warming, one would expect that such a large difference in the solar output would have greatly
increased the Earth’s temperature over billions of years. Yet most biologists and geologists believe that
the Earth has experienced a nearly constant average temperature over the past 4.6 billion years, with
perhaps warmer conditions prevailing early on. The problem of how the Sun could have increased in
brightness while the Earth maintained a constant temperature is called the ‘early faint Sun paradox’.
Just how great is the problem? A simple calculation can be made assuming that, over time, there has been
no change in the Earth’s reflectivity or the ability of the Earth to radiate heat. While this approach is
almost certainly unrealistic, it is useful to illustrate the problem. With these assumptions, we find that a
25% increase in solar luminosity increases the average temperature of the Earth by about 18°C. Since the
current average temperature of the Earth is 15°C, the average temperature of the Earth 3.8 billion years
ago would have been below freezing (-3°C). Thus when life supposedly was just beginning, much of the
Earth would have been frozen.
Even with such a low average temperature some tropical portions of the Earth may have remained icefree. Naturally, evolutionists could argue that life developed in the warmer areas and then held on until
the Earth warmed. However, there are at least two problems with this.
1. Most geologists seem to insist that over the past 3.8 billion years the average temperature of the
Earth has not changed that much. If anything, temperatures before 2.5 billion years ago would
have been warmer.
2. If the Earth had ever been mostly covered with ice year round, then its average temperature
would have been even cooler than the -3°C mentioned above. The increased ice cover would
increase the reflectivity of the Earth, reducing the heat absorbed from the Sun. This is a common
problem with the popular idea of multiple ice ages—once one commences in earnest, the
increased reflectivity due to additional ice cover leads to decreased solar heat absorption that is
difficult to reverse toward a warmer climate. (The Oard model of a single post-Flood Ice Age
caused by warm oceans and volcanic dust in the atmosphere does not have this problem.5 As the
volcanic dust eventually dissipated, the oceans provided the heat to melt back much of the ice
cover.)
How do evolutionists resolve the early faint Sun paradox? Most assume that the early atmosphere of the
Earth had more greenhouse gases than the current atmosphere. This would have kept the Earth warm
despite the Sun being less luminous at the time. As the Sun increased in brightness, the amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is supposed to have decreased in such a way as to exactly cancel the
increased heat received from the Sun. In other words, as the Sun evolved, the Earth’s atmosphere also
evolved to cancel out the effect of the increased solar luminosity. The evolution of life is supposed to
have played a role in this evolution of the atmosphere.
Clearly, such evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere would require a very delicate balancing act. While there
is some tolerance for deviation, any prolonged deviation from ideal conditions could have led to
catastrophic heating or cooling from which the Earth might not have recovered. Venus and Mars are
possibly examples of each of these scenarios.
Planetary scientists think that while the Earth and Venus are very similar, Venus’ closer proximity to the
sun gave that planet an initial temperature higher than that of the Earth that led to a runaway greenhouse
effect. As a result, today Venus has the hottest surface temperature in the solar system. Conversely, Mars
is a very cold planet today, yet there is abundant evidence that, early in its history, liquid water once
flowed on its surface, indicating that Mars was much warmer. Most researchers say this happened about
3.8 billion years ago. However, at that time the Sun would have been 25% fainter than today. Therefore,
the early faint Sun paradox provides a very different problem for Mars: why was that planet much warmer
when the Sun was at its faintest?
With the obviously disastrous results on our nearest planetary neighbors, how did the Earth avoid a
similar fate? How did the Earth’s atmosphere manage to evolve in such a delicate fashion? One
possibility is that it just happened that way. The geological and biological processes removed greenhouse
gases at exactly the same average rate to compensate for the increased solar luminosity. What would be
the probability of this happening by chance?
Because the evolution of such a delicate balance is so improbable, some have suggested that the Earth’s
biosphere behaves as a giant single organism. This pantheistic idea, seriously proposed by scientist James
Lovelock, has been dubbed the Gaia hypothesis, after the goddess of the Earth. Repelled by the
teleological connotations, many scientists reject the Gaia hypothesis, opting for the appeal to chance.
Of course, another logical possibility is that the solar system is only thousands of years old. In this case,
there is no paradox to explain because the Sun has not been around long enough to increase much in
luminosity. Many may object that we know that the Sun is 4.6 billion years old, but that is not true. There
is no direct way of measuring the age of the Sun. Our understanding of the Sun’s structure does not
permit a precise calculation of how bright a ‘zero age’ Sun should be compared with a 4.6-billion-yearold Sun. All that we can conclude is that the older Sun should be brighter than the younger Sun. The 4.6billion-year age comes from the alleged age of meteorites, and it is assumed that the Sun is the same age.
Of course creationists reject the billion-year age for meteorites as well.
So, the early faint Sun paradox is evidence that the Sun, and therefore the solar system, is young and
consistent with the 6,000 – {10,000} year age of the solar system as recorded by Biblical chronology.
Editor’s Note: This article excerpt is reprinted from the AIG website and for a full reading of the
article and its accompanying references go to the link at the top of the article.
Here is evidence that most have not considered, but it is just another in the long list of reasons to
believe in a young solar system. The implications of this evidence extending to Mars is both
fascinating and shows how the young solar system-creationist worldview is well supported when we
look elsewhere in the solar system.
Green ‘Drivel’ Exposed
The godfather of global warming lowers the
boom on climate change hysteria
BY LORRIE GOLDSTEIN ,TORONTO SUN
FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 2012
Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of
global warming, gave a startling interview to
msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been
unduly “alarmist” about climate change.
The implications were extraordinary. Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist
whose Gaia theory—that the Earth operates as a single, living organism—has had a profound impact on
the development of global warming theory.
Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent
retirement at age 92, was a much-honored working scientist and academic. His inventions have been
used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations. Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture
detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in
the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.
Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the
way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t
know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a followup interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the
global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that
billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.
Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its
greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al
Gore’s) were incorrect. He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate
scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never
been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.
Among his observations to the Guardian:
(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has
made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favor of natural gas
fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal. As Lovelock
observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way.
This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it…Let’s be pragmatic and sensible
and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh
Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments
last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of
conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save
millions of lives in the Third World.)
(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion. “It just so happens that the green
religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have
noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use…The greens use guilt. That just shows
how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon
dioxide) in the air.”
(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines. As he puts it, “socalled ‘sustainable development’…is meaningless drivel…We rushed into renewable energy without
any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand
windmills at any price.”
(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist
has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can
only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t
know it.”
Editor’s Note: It is interesting to see how the whole support and supposed science for “catastrophic
global warming” seems to be unraveling. At the same time it is sad that our government has no
intention of adjusting its policies in light of these new revelations. A recent court decision has given
the Environmental Protection Agency the right to force multiple states (Texas included) to meet new
stricter emission standards in spite of the problems with the data underlying these rules.
It should be noted, that “global warming” just like evolution, is government supported policy and not
science. Both ceased to be science when government stepped in and “poisoned the water” of research
science on these two topics. To get funding in the field of biology you have to have a thesis which is in
concert with the theory of evolution. If not, then you will not get funding. Thus evolution is assumed
to be true before any evidence is examined and all research to the contrary is excluded. That is not
science, but it is the perfect formula for advancing propaganda.
Likewise, “global warming” has become the same type of government subsidized policy. Only research
giving evidence for catastrophic global warming is funded, and all other data in dispute of this
conclusion is ignored. Again, this is not science as the father of “global warming” so sternly lectured in
the above article.
What is ultra-troubling about all this is the momentum both of these causes have is such that they will
be almost impossible to stop except by the intervention of our Heavenly Father. The field of biology is
based on the assumption of evolution. If evolution were disproved then whole institutions would be
destroyed. Millions of careers would be undone and the very path of our culture would be altered.
Both Satan and the simple pride and self centeredness of man will work overtime to see that the truth
never is recognized in both of these fields of study. Also infinitely troubling is Lovelock’s evaluation of
the “green religion” now displacing Christianity. This is all sobering “food for thought” and a serious
prayer concern.
Now here is an article from a person very antagonistic to creationism that I really enjoyed. We
often get down on how little people seem to pay attention to our work and wonder if our message is
getting out at all. This article shows how very effective the Lord’s work is in the area of creationism
and Gallup poll information in this article attest to that along with strong consternation from our
opponents who lament our successes.
What's the Matter With Creationism? By Katha Pollitt
June 14, 2012 | This article appeared in the July 2-9, 2012 edition of The Nation.
Do you know what the worst thing about the recent Gallup poll on evolution is? It isn’t
that 46 percent of respondents are creationists (“God created human beings pretty much
in their present form at one time within the last ten thousand years or so”). Or that 32 percent believe in
“theistic evolution” (“Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of
life, but God guided this process”). Or that only 15 percent said humans evolved and “God had no part in
this process.” It isn’t even that the percentage of Americans with creationist views has barely budged
since 1982, when it was 44 percent, with a small rise in the no-God vote (up from 9 percent) coming at
the expense of the divine-help position (down from 38 percent). Or that 58 percent of Republicans are
creationists, although that does explain a lot.
It’s that the proportion of college graduates who are creationists is exactly the same as for the general
public. That’s right: 46 percent of Americans with sixteen long years of education under their belt believe
the story of Adam and Eve is literally true. Even 25 percent of Americans with graduate degrees believe
dinosaurs and humans romped together before Noah’s flood. Needless to say, this remarkable
demonstration of educational failure attracts little attention from those who call for improving our
schools.
My brilliant husband, a sociologist and political theorist, refuses to get upset about the poll. It’s quite
annoying, actually. He thinks questions like these primarily elicit affirmations of identity, not literal
convictions; declaring your belief in creationism is another way of saying you’re a good Christian. That
does rather beg the question of what a good Christian is, and why so many think it means refusing to use
the brains God gave you. And yes, as you may have suspected, according to the Pew Research Center,
evangelicals are far more likely than those of other faiths to hold creationist views; just 24 percent of
them believe in evolution. Mormons come in even lower, at 22 percent, although official church doctrine
has no problem with evolution.
Why does it matter that almost half the country rejects the overwhelming evidence of evolution, with or
without the hand of God? After all, Americans are famously ignorant of many things—like where Iran is
or when World War II took place—and we are still here. One reason is that rejecting evolution expresses
more than an inability to think critically; it relies on a fundamentally paranoid worldview. Think what the
world would have to be like for evolution to be false. Almost every scientist on earth would have to be
engaged in a fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology,
geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics. And yet this massive concatenation of lies and
delusion is so full of obvious holes that a pastor with a Bible-college degree or a homeschooling parent
with no degree at all can see right through it. A flute discovered in southern Germany is 43,000 years old?
Not bloody likely. It’s probably some old bone left over from an ancient barbecue. To celebrate its fifth
anniversary, the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, has installed a holographic exhibit of Lucy,
the famous proto-human fossil, showing how she was really just a few-thousand-year-old ape after all.
Patricia Princehouse, director of the evolutionary biology program at Case Western Reserve University,
laughed when I suggested to her that the Gallup survey shows that education doesn’t work. “There isn’t
much evolution education in the schools,” she told me. “Most have no more than a lesson or two, and it
isn’t presented as connected with the rest of biology.” In fact, students may not even get that much
exposure. Nationally, Princehouse said, at least 13 percent of biology teachers teach “young earth”
creationism (not just humans but the earth itself is only 10,000 years old or thereabouts), despite laws
forbidding it, and some 60 percent teach a watered-down version of evolution. They have to get along
with their neighbors, after all. In Tennessee, home of the Scopes trial, a new law actually makes teaching
creationism legal. “No one takes them to court,” Princehouse told me, “because creationism is so popular.
Those who object are isolated and afraid of reprisals.” People tend to forget that Clarence Darrow lost the
Scopes trial; until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in 1968, it was illegal to teach evolution in public
schools in about half a dozen states.
Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and practicing Catholic who is a leading voice
against creationism, agrees with Princehouse. “Science education has been remarkably ineffective,” he
told me. “Those of us in the scientific community who are religious have a tremendous amount of work to
do in the faith community.” Why bother? “There’s a potential for great harm when nearly half the
population rejects the central organizing principle of the biological sciences. It’s useful for us as a species
to understand that we are a recent appearance on this planet and that 99.9 percent of all species that have
ever existed have gone extinct.” Evangelical parents may care less that their children learn science than
that they avoid going to hell, but Miller points out that many of the major challenges facing the nation—
and the world—are scientific in nature: climate change and energy policy, for instance. “To have a near
majority essentially rejecting the scientific method is very troubling,” he says. And to have solidly
grounded science waved away as political and theological propaganda could not come at a worse time.
“Sea-level rise” is a “left-wing term,” said Virginia state legislator Chris Stolle, a Republican,
successfully urging its replacement in a state-commissioned study by the expression “recurrent flooding.”
The group Answers in Genesis, which runs the Creation Museum, has plans to build a full-size replica of
Noah’s Ark as part of its Ark Encounter theme park. If that “recurrent flooding” really gets going, you
may wish you’d booked a cabin.
Editor’s Note: the next time you wonder whether what we do is bearing any fruit, just remember
these Gallup results and the angst of our opponents on how they are losing the battle for our
public’s worldview in spite of having total control of our public education systems.
Mermaids on Animal Planet!
The Animal Planet cable channel showed a documentary recently
that speculated that some apes in the distant past became
mermaids, and that we evolved from them! (The Aquatic Ape
theory) One article says, “The film contained never before seen
footage of what was purported to be a mermaid washed up on a
beach in Washington State. Not only was the creature alive, it was
far removed from the hair-combing fairytale mermaids of yore…” In
an interview the film maker Charlie Foley (who is Animal Planet's
senior vice president of development) said he made the
documentary for only entertainment purposes, but it sure doesn’t seem that way since they use skeletal
evidence, DNA evidence etc. I wish I had a list of all the goofy documentaries like this they show on
these channels so that when someone make makes fun of young earth creationism I could give them a
list of what seems to be acceptable to speculate about origins science; anything BUT the Biblical model!
The entire documentary can be viewed here
http://topdocumentarystream.com/mermaids-the-body-found/
Editor’s Note: This is reminiscent of the “War of the Worlds” broadcast with Orson Welles in the
early 1900’s. When a supposed science based channel like “Animal Planet” shows a “fake
documentary” there are those who miss that it’s a fake. Specifically the children watching! The
harm is done not only in the skewing of the truth, but in the limitless way evolution is now
perceived by the next generation to be able to affect our future with such imaginings as “X-Men”
and “Heroes” being “realistic possibilities.” All of this stuff is leading people astray and making all
the more difficult to see what the truth of God’s creation really reveals!
Below is an announcement from a group starting up a “Creation Science Hall of Fame.” I
have also included a response to this new entity by Paul Abramson with creationism.org.
What do you think?
Dear Creationists & Friends,
Nick Lally here, Chairman, Board of Directors, Creation Science Hall of Fame
Announcement 1:
The Creation Science Hall of Fame has now dedicated a full page to Dr Jerry Bergman author of
Slaughter of the Dissidents by listing (with permission) his "Select list of Science Academics, Scientists,
and Scholars who are Skeptical of Darwinism". Click on Home page tool bar, "Darwin Skeptics"
Announcement: 2:
If you know of anyone, including yourself, in the Creation Science Arena, worthy of being listed in the
Creation Science Hall of Fame, as "HONORABLE MENTION", please submit their name/s to us at
creationfacts@aol.com , attention, Nick Lally.
Criteria may include those who have worked in the creation science movement by starting creation clubs,
writing articles and books, giving creation presentations, etc. Your directors may also pick Inductees for
the CSHF from the Honorable Mention lists as well.
Please visit your Creation Science Hall of Fame, www.creationsciencehalloffame.org and read about the
INDUCTEES being honored with their photos and bios. (Living & Deceased) Read the "Creation News",
visit the "directory", and feel free to contact us with your questions at info@creationsciencehalloffame.org
In Christ,
Nick Lally, Chairman, Board of Directors, Creation Science Hall of Fame
Now here is the opinion of one Creationist about this new “Hall of Fame”
92 Email addresses - spammed by this? Don't have time. We’re fighting a fight. We don't need the extra
Emails nor "Nick Lally's" flattery, et cetera. UNSUBSCRIBE, please. Did anyone ask for this....? We hit tens
of thousands each day. The evolutionists hit tens of millions. No, there should be no "hall of fame" from
where we are at. Am I wrong? By Paul Abramson www.creationism.org
Humor Corner
Around Texas
Houston:
The Greater Houston Creation Association (GHCA) usually meets around the last Thursday
of each month (although they are planning next year to move their meetings to the first Thursday
of each month to coordinate with SABBSA and the Dallas group for national speakers). They
meet at Houston's First Baptist Church at 7 pm, in Room 258. After the presentation, there will
be refreshments, fellowship and creation science materials for all to enjoy. For more information
go to www.ghcaonline.com.
Glen Rose:
Dr. Carl Baugh gives a “Director’s Lecture Series” on the first Saturday of each month at the
Creation Evidences Museum just outside Glen Rose, TX. The new and improved museum is also
a great and beneficial way to spend any day. Presentations are at 11 am and 2 pm. For more
information go to www.creationevidence.org
Dallas-Ft Worth:
The Metroplex Institute of Origin Science (MIOS) meets at the Dr. Pepper Starcenter, 12700 N.
Stemmons Fwy, Farmers Branch, TX, usually at 7:30 pm of the first Tuesday of each month.
Lubbock Area (Crosbyton):
All year: Consider a visit to the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, directed by Joe Taylor. The Museum
is definitely worth the visit if you live near or are traveling through the Panhandle near Lubbock.
If you call ahead and time permitting, Joe has been known to give personal tours, especially to
groups. For more information, visit http://www.mtblanco.com/.
Greater San Antonio area:
Watch Creation in the 21st Century, hosted by Dr. Carl Baugh at 3:00 AM on Friday. You can
watch online at http://www.tbn.org/watch-us/
Listen to Answers with Ken Ham online at the address below. (No nearby station for this
broadcast). http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/audio/answers-daily
To hear program from the Institute for Creation Research, listen online at this address.
http://www.icr.org/radio/
Also, tune in KHCB FM 88.5 (San Marcos) or KKER FM 88.7 (Kerrville) for Back to Genesis
at 8:57 AM Mon-Fri, then Science, Scripture and Salvation at 1:30 AM, 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM
on Saturdays.
Last Month at SABBSA
The Truth About History - Part I
Last year SABBSA board member, Dr. Daniel Harris made a considerable contribution to the creation
effort with his groundbreaking presentation of "The Truth About History - Part I" to an enthusiastic and
standing room only crowd at our April, 2011 meeting. In this power point talk, Dr. Harris gave us a new
detailed timeline for Earth history and events which agrees not only with current scientific evidence, but
also with the Bible as well as historical records. It places the creation at 10,003 BC, with the flood at
5999 BC.
The most startling development of his research is the verification of a previously tossed about idea of
the ice age not being a direct result of the flood, but of rapid movement of the continents and tectonic
plates after the flood. This event included considerable volcanic activity in the deep ocean ridges to
spread the sea floor and move the continents, but also contributed to mountain building (as the bible
says, "fixing a divide between the waters and the land"). This allowed the continents to be moved over a
1,000 year period after the flood and the resultant volcanic activity both heated the oceans causing
large amounts of evaporation, as well as seeded the upper atmosphere with debris which clouded the
skies, cutting off enough sunlight to create cooler continents. This is a recipe for the formation of an ice
age, and scientific discoveries, historical records and those of the Bible have a good amount of
agreement that this all occurred about the time of the life of Peleg in the Bible, which references to
these events occurring.
There was much more in this updated presentation, including evidence for the complete drying of the
Mediterranean in historical times. Thanks to Dr. Harris for putting to together this massive research and
presenting it to us.
Next SABBSA Meeting: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 at 7 pm
Coming to SABBSA in July –
Creation Evangelist John Pendleton
We have asked John Pendleton to give us an update on his pterodactyl hunt. We
also are interested in how his evangelical trip to Cuba came off. Finally we have
asked him to talk on his experience of debates with evolutionists, and to tell us
what works, and what doesn’t.
Join us in July for this special presentation. As always, we will meet at the Jim’s Restaurant party room at
the corner of San Pedro and Ramsey.