Monthly Archives: "April, 2012"

Challenge to YECs? Part 8
Share this page!

Before I start answering questions in this section, I want to point out what was written at the end of this section where the person who wrote this was indirectly admitting that the age dating process is not accurate. And was making an excuse as to why and justifying why it’s used anyway. The reason this was done is because this person knows very well what is going to be pointed out by most creationists. But this creationist (Me) also approaches from a different angle not only pointing out what has already been established by us that the evolutionist cannot address but like to instead ignore. But that simple logic proves that one cannot trust the current age dating methods. Here is what was said at the bottom of this section of the questions.

Like all scientific methods of analysis, radiometric dating techniques are not perfect and are subject to interferences that can sometimes produce false results. Analysis of inappropriate and/or improperly prepared samples gives erroneous values. Nonetheless, how does the YEC model account for the high level of consistency observed from using a variety of methods of analysis that place the age of the Earth far in excess of the biblical limit of about 10,000 years.

If you have been reading this since part one you will remember an analogy I did where I proved that evolutionists can be right and wrong at the same time. I will do it again because what is said above is an illustration of a person justifying they can be right and wrong at the same time and it does not matter.

The analogy: Let’s say an evolutionist is using certain evidence today to claim I am lying about my belief being true. Tomorrow that same evidence gets proven wrong, who was really the liar? Yet the evolutionist will justify his being wrong by saying: That’s how science works. Never having to admit to being wrong but always being able to justify that even though he was wrong it does not matter so actually he was right regardless and on both counts. So in other words the logic is that the old evidence made him right and the new evidence made him right as well. So the evolutionist will always be right even when wrong because their logic allows it. This is how science has rewritten what truth and lies are because in science they are both on the same level. But yet they will use the standard of right and wrong when judging or comparing themselves to everyone else. Basically science through evolution has a double standard. Where they can say and claim evolution is true but never really have to prove it to the same criteria they will require of everyone else. They cannot even define truth scientifically so why should they be required to tell it?

If a teacher would take this same logic on grading tests, where the truth can change so one can be right and wrong at the same time. The whole class would ace the test regardless of what their answer was or if they answered at all. While the class next door applies the criteria of what truth really is so therefore people will be right and wrong so some will pass and some will fail. In real reality do we live in a world where truth does not matter and there is no right and wrong questions or answers? Or do we live in a world where the real reality is what we live, what we see, not what we want to be true? So with really no criteria of ever having to meet real truth on any level, how could evolution or any of its support mechanism ever look wrong, or be wrong? There is a reason only an evolutionist can point out something that is a fraud in evolution. It’s because on all matters of evolution a evolutionist is close minded to anyone whom does not agree. This is also why only evolutionists can be scientists because first you have to believe there can be no absolutes so that therefore truth can be whatever you want it to be.

The reason that science requires different rules from real reality is so their ideas can look like another reality or truth if you buy into the supposed fact that there is another reality that is made up. Why else go to all the trouble to sell such logic and philosophy if the evidence itself is supposed to be empirical? It’s done this way because the real truth of the matter is that less than 5% of evolution can actually meet the real criteria of being empirical. Being empirical means the evidence has to be testable in a lab. The results and conclusions repeatable under real world conditions. The supposed fossil record that is often implied to be empirical evidence cannot meet being empirical. Neither can more than 95% of the rest of evolution. Why is it this way? Because 98-99% of evolution has to be interpreted. Which means words are the only real thing that says evolution happened. Why do you think it takes soooo many words to explain it? And when someone disagrees after soooo many words are used they are referred to as being ignorant and uneducated.

How can one tell that something is a made up reality? It’s when in its defense one must go outside the realm of actually proving it to actually making you feel that if you don’t believe you are lower than pond scum. And that is what we observe in every aspect of anyone whom dares to not believe, or dares to challenge evolution. How often does this occur? 100% of the time anyone dares to do either. It also has several names that has nothing to do with science. Bullying, which is what evolutionist like to do with the new in Christ to convert them (conversion is not science). Peer pressure which is to appeal to one’s ego, pride, or self-confidence. And then there is just plain hatefulness. This is where person is hated solely for what they believe that does not conform to evolution and nothing else. Which is another form of peer pressure that basically states that to belong and be accepted you must believe evolution. What is also used to convince more than using evidence is that the idea that “majority view” of what is considered the smartest minds in the world makes it so regardless of what anyone else may or could prove. They exalt themselves as the elite in everything they do while looking down upon everyone else except their peers (Stereotyping to belittle) . When something makes a person feel superior to everyone else, this is the example of the attitude that evolution breeds from a superiority complex. This is also why they will never accept anything a creationist says because to do so would be lowering themselves to pond scum level (in their opinion). Which is bigotry at it’s finest Now to the questions:


  • Essentially all radioactive isotopes with half-lives shorter than half a billion years are no longer in existence. For the most part, the only radioactive isotopes present are those with half-lives close to a billion years or longer. The only radioactive isotopes present with shorter half-lives are those that are being constantly replenished by natural means. This distribution of isotopes is in good agreement with the other evidence that shows Earth is about 4.56 billion years old. How does the YEC model account for this current isotopic distribution?
  • Response: 1) If something is no longer in existence how does one tell it was ever there? 2) So one point the isotopes are accurate because they have half-lives close to a billions years, yet on the other hand they can also be replenished by natural means? Does anyone besides me see the problem here? 3) How does one tell by the isotopes that the earth is 4.56 billion years old when: a) they can be replenished. b) They don’t last 4,56 billion years. c) How can one tell how long one isotope has been replenished?

YECs can accept the age dating as accurate because we know the Creator had to create with age in order to make what was created work under the laws that existed before and after sin. You see time without sin is eternal or infinite. Which means creation was done under different laws of physics because the first 6 days where without sin and therefore infinite. This is the main reason when we use the laws that exist after sin they cannot explain it nor will it make any sense. But when one realizes what has to be different in the laws of physics to make an infinite time-line work, then the pieces and evidence for creation start to fit. So what has to be different to make an infinite time-line work?1) You first have to understand that time exists in the infinite time-line which is proven by this verse: rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour…. Time cannot be measured where time does not exist.
2) Time and aging are two separate processes. In other words time continues while age remains a constant (the age of all matter remains constant). In this way all that is created has to be created with age already added. This is because as long as the infinite laws exist, nothing get’s older. We are so used to time and age moving as one that it is hard to comprehend time moving forward yet nothing ages.
3) This is why all matter, both living and dead, were created with age already added. Ageless matter passing from the infinite time-line would not work under finite laws that we currently observe. Adam and Eve plus all the plants and animals were created with age. This is shown in the Bible because all were told to go forth and multiply right after being created. Offspring cannot do that.
4) Why create the whole universe with age already added? Because man had a choice to sin or remain sinless. God had to make a creation that would work under the laws that would exist in either time-line (infinite or finite). If not, man’s sin would have destroyed what was created which would have made for an imperfect creation.
5) Would not that make for a deceptive Creator? No. This is because in the infinite time-line, time does not have to pass for age to increase. So leaving the dating markers on how old God created everything was relaying just how creation was done. The attempt here to make the Creator sound deceptive is only justification to continue disbelieving because this method fits and explains everything so their only come back is to say this. These types of answers are only used when science cannot debunk what is claimed. Because if there were any science to use they would have used it.

  • There are in excess of forty different radiometric dating methods, and a number of other methods such as those involving thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, and tree-ring, varve, and ice-core measurements. These methods are in agreement the great majority of the time covering time spans encompassing millions of years.
  • Response: The only methods used and accepted are those who support evolution. 1)There are no trees that have tree rings that go beyond 10,000 years because trees don;t live that long. 2) Ice annual rings are not made by seasonal changes only like a tree because ice is not a biological life form. So because of this the rings are formed through temperature changes that go from above freezing to below freezing. And because this can happen from night to day and not years, a supposed annual ring can be made in a 24 hour period. Besides that was there ever any test done to confirm one ice core ring takes approximately one year to make? No. it was accepted as fact only because claiming it takes a year makes it fit in the evolution time-line. Because if there was a test done to confirm this the test results and how it was done would have been released. But there is zero confirmation on this. And if not any evolutionist can send me the test results and how it was done and I will post it right here. But because this was “never” done I don’t have to worry about this. But this does bring up an important question. How was it established that rings found in ice are annual? Being that there is not test to confirm this means it was based in opinion and not fact. And because it’s still accepted as fact, makes one wonder just how science can let this continue when it’s actually fraudulent? Of course like I said before they can be right and wrong at the same time so using fraudulent evidence makes not difference. It’s how science works.
  • Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly lend support to the old Earth model. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth scenario. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating are normally published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals in a year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
  • Response: You see here is the perfect example of majority view makes new truths and reality. Hundreds of laboratories agree so it’s true. Peer review by other evolutionists agree the evolution is true. Problem is with all of this is that age dating is flawed from the beginning. According to their origins of everything, all matter came from the same source 15 billion years ago. So should not there be a trace back to that age if all matter is related to the source? of course. But does it? Nope. In fact not one planet, not one star, or anything else date as old as 15 billion. This is because age dating markers are not left until the said matter cools down enough to leave them. So our planet that came from a source 15 billion years ago will only date 4.5 billion years old means there is 10 billion years to account for. Get the picture?

So to cover up the possibility that God created everything with age, which the evidence of age dating supports, they ignore this really big difference in age dating and treat it as if the problem does not exist. So what accounts for 10 billion years of missing age? So what this means is that the matter that made the earth is actually 15 billion years old because it’s source (the dot) is supposed to be that old even though it only dates 4.5 billion years.

  • When radiometric dating techniques are applied to meteorites, they consistently give values close to 4.6 billion years.
  • Response: But the actual age dating back to the supposed origins of matter is 15 billion, so the age dating is wrong again/
  • Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Radioisotopes commonly used in dating techniques have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and corrosive chemical treatment without causing any significant changes in rates of radioactive decay. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
  • Response: Still wrong since the source of all matter is supposed to be 15 billion years old.
  • Using the current, observed rate of motion of the Pacific Plate and the distances between the modern Hawaiian Islands, it is possible to calculate the relative age differences between the Islands. The ages determined by this method are in good agreement with those obtained by K-Ar radiometric dating.
  • Response: That is if one could prove that the plates moved at a constant rate throughout all time. That cannot be done.
  • Carbon-14 dates of about 38,000 years ago have been correlated with several other methods (ice layers, tree rings, uranium-thorium isotope ratios, etc.) to within about 5% agreement.
  • Response: So there are now trees that date 38,000 years old through tree rings? I’d like to see that. And again, ice is not a biological life form to seasonal changes from summer to winter don’t make the ring, changes in temperature does. And all matter comes from a 15 billion year old source so all matter is actually 15 billion years old.
Share this page!
Challenge to YECs? Part 7
Share this page!


  • According to the evolution model, geographic isolation should play a significant role in the distribution of species worldwide. In keeping with this model, species that first evolved in a certain geographic setting and were restricted in their movement to other areas should be found naturally only in the areas in which they first appeared – even though there are no compelling reasons that they could not have survived elsewhere. The facts show that this is indeed the case. For example, overall there are some 13 families and about 180 unique species of marsupials found naturally only in Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea. The only monotremes (egg laying mammals) are found in this geographical area and nowhere else. How does the YEC model explain, in scientific terms, the migration of these animals to the purported Ark prior to the Flood? (There is no evidence in the fossil record that any of these animals ever existed endemically in the Middle East.) Furthermore, how does the YEC model explain the subsequent migration (after the purported Flood) of these animals back to their original geographic locations? Particular emphasis should be placed on explaining how animals such as the flightless Kiwi and the blind marsupial mole (which lives only in sand) made the round trip and why faster moving placental animals are virtually absent from Australia.
  • Response: The expansion and contraction of the earth’s crust because of the water from under the earth’s crust coming up and then going back means that the motion of the tectonic plates had not completely stopped yet. How does one stop a moving continent? And because there were only certain number of animals that came off the Ark, if they happen to migrate to an area of land that was still in motion because the tectonic plates were still settling. Then they could one day find themselves separated from the rest of the animals that were on the original land mass the Ark had landed on. So being so few in number at that time this separation made the continents often species specific. Because how does the animal swim back, or those left behind swim to them?

Example: Let’s say the polar bear does not swim. Let’s say there are 5 species divided up by male and female of those who are compatible to reproduce. They live separate because they can tell who’s different and are not interesting in mingling. While on the ice one day the ice decides to separate. One species ends up living in one area of the ice while another drifts to a whole totally new area. But they are now totally separate and the two areas are now species specific.Also remember the continents were together at one time (super continent). Which means all land mass were together as well. So when the Ark landed these animals migrate and end up in different areas that later separate after the flood. So does the Bible support Pangaea theory? Yep. In the creation it is stated that the earth was covered totally with water.Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.The whole earth being covered with water during creation is confirmed when the water has to go underground before dry land can appear.Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
If water has to be removed somewhat so that land could “appear” means that the whole earth was covered during creation. Because you cannot make something appear if it’s already there. And because this was the first expansion of the earth’s crust, this is what left the evidence of the Pangaea super continent. The flood which was the “first contraction” of the tectonic plates pushed up the mountains that we now observe. This is because when the water came up from under the earth’s crust there was nothing there supporting the plates anymore so they come back together forming one solid earth while pushing up mountains. But the cracks from the first expansion were still there. And when the water seep back into what was now very hot, steamed formed making pressure which pushed the tectonics plates back apart allowing water to come back in to be underground again. Once the water pressure equalized between above ground and below ground the extreme pressure made the boiling point of the water go high enough that the boiling and steam stopped and so did the expansion of the tectonic plates. But while the water was flowing into the underground areas the pressures were not high enough so the steam continued to push the plates apart. What made the pressures less during this time was that the expansion acted like a syringe. The plunger being pulled back to suck the liquid inward has to create somewhat of a vacuum to do this. Just like the expanding plates opening faster than the water could flow into it would do the same thing. This is because water has a viscosity to it which means it also has a “flow rate”. This can be demonstrated by pouring water through a funnel. According to how big the smallest end is determines the flow rate because of the water viscosity (how thick it is as a liquid).
But because this brought up more molten rock to the surface to cover the area that has now expanded. There was not enough solid-cooled down molten rock in the earth’s crust yet to stop the tectonic plates from moving like they were floating. What this allowed for was continental drift. So when the animals from the flood got onto certain land masses while migrating that were still drifting, they became separated from the original group making that particular continent only have the species that happened to migrate to that land mass before it drifted away. Once that molten rock hardened enough, and in the amount needed. The continents drift slowed up to what we observe today and the continents basically drifted to their current positions. So the hardening molten rock acted as a type of braking system slowing up the continental drift over the years. What would also help in the slowing of the tectonic plates movements is the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits and the pull of the sun.This video, which has nothing to do with creation, pretty much sums up how the earth expands and contracts when water exists and then is removed.


Neal Adams, who made this video animation, did not realize his idea fits perfectly with the creation model. Because to make the earth smaller water has to be removed from under the crust and between the land masses. And as you watch the earth shrink in the animation notice how the water disappears. In the creation and flood model this is what the land masses would look like under the water. And this is something that most evolutionists forget is the earth will shrink when the water from underneath the crust is removed. But then you might say: There is not enough water under the crust to make the earth shrink that much. And if you assume that you would be wrong.Research done on the upper mantle of the earth has found that a mineral called “wadsleyite” holds about 3% of water by weight. This may not seem like much until you do the math on how much wadsleyite there is. The amount of water works out to be 30 oceans worth. More than enough to flood well beyond the highest mountain, and make the earth expand and contract as much as shown in the animation.

  • The now extinct flightless dodo bird existed only on an island in the Indian Ocean. The slow-moving three-toed sloth, armadillos, new world monkeys, jaguars, rattlesnakes, and indigenous cacti exist only in the Americas. The speed-challenged and clumsy giant spiny anteater exists only in New Guinea. The Gila monster exists only in the American Southwest, although it should be equally at home in the deserts of the Middle East (as should be cacti and rattlesnakes). The flightless cormorant lives only in the Galapagos and the penguins live in Antarctica. Fossas and lemurs are endemic to Madagascar, but no monkeys or cats naturally inhabit this area. Lungfishes, ostrich-like birds (ratite birds), and leptodactylid frogs occur naturally only in South America, Africa, and Australia. Alligators, some related species of giant salamander, and magnolias occur naturally only in Eastern North America and East Asia (these two continents were once in close proximity on the Laurasian contintent). As above, describe how the YEC model provides a scientific explanation for the migration of these types of species to and from their specific areas of habitation before and after the Flood. Explain also why species are not distributed evenly amongst the habitats for which they are equally well adapted. In particular, explain in terms of the YEC model why there are no elephants on any Pacific islands, no rattlesnakes or indigenous cacti in Australia or the Sahara desert, and no amphibians on remote islands.
  • Response: The last response answered this question. But I will take this a step further to prove my point. Because of the flood there should be a dispersion of all seeds all around the planet. This would not be like the last response where areas became species specific due to continent separation. The plant dispersion and survival would be based more on its ability to survive in the area its seeds ended up in. So we would expect to see plants growing according to its ability to survive in that climate so the mixture of species would not be as much continent specific as animal life. And that is what we see.

Also the flood would explain such huge movement in the tectonic plates that would allow plants to be found in areas today that they could have never survived in. Such as palm trees found buried in ice. Plants and animals found buried near the poles that only lived in warm climate and could have never survived the cold climate. Only movement of the plates due to a flood could displace things like that.

  • The earth consists of distinctive geographic regions, each characterized by the presence of various organisms which have evolved to fill those niches. If one studies a species across its geographic range, it is frequently observed that it varies from place to place. Sometimes the extreme representatives of this variable sequence even meet in close proximity. For example, the herring gulls and the black-backed gulls coexist in Britain. Although these species do not interbreed, they are connected in a series of interbreeding populations that extend around the North Pole. The populations immediately west of Britain look similar to herring gulls. Moving in a clock-wise direction around the North Pole, the populations gradually start looking more and more like black-backed gulls and less and less like herring gulls. Their black-backed traits become predominant near Siberia. The evolution of these two distinct species can be traced by simply observing sequential morphological changes in populations throughout their range. A similar relationship is observed with the Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast.
  • Response: Birds are actually a bad example for the specific reason that these birds can migrate thousands of miles over water and land. Their migration places them where they are, unlike land animals who would be restricted from moving across thousands of mile of water. So it does not mean one species of bird bread off another because they happen to live next to each other. Their migration drive is also fed by the need to breed. For if their migration habits were different and they did not live together then this conclusion could not be made. Or the interpretation would be different just to make the conclusion conform to how evolution works. Conformism is not science.
Share this page!
Challenge to YECs? Part 5
Share this page!

Dogs will always breed dogs just like cats will always breed cats. Neither can breed each other nor anything else. But yet all are related because of the common template for all life used by the Creator.

Share this page!
Challenge to YECs? Part 4
Share this page!

Gill slits? learn your anatomy

Tail bone has no function?

Let's see an atheist take this challenge. i'm sure someone will donate some depends when you do

Brain cells found inside the heart

I know that extra protrusion of one extra finger must mean we once walked on our hands. Here’s the video to prove it.


Share this page!
Challenge to YECs? Part 3
Share this page!


  • The human genome contains a great deal of what is referred to as non-functional DNA, i.e., DNA that is not translated into proteins. Because these elements are not functional in the usual sense, they are passed from generation to generation without experiencing the selective pressures brought about by natural selection. Humans do not have the ability to synthesize vitamin C because the gene involved in vitamin C synthesis is non-functional in humans. In other animals that can produce vitamin C, this same gene functions properly. In other words, humans have the same gene, but it is “broken” so to speak. Chimpanzees and gorillas also posses this same gene which is broken in the same manner as it is in humans. The odds of this pattern of shared mutations occurring by chance are extremely low. But this is exactly what we would expect to see if humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas were all descended from a common ancestor who first experienced this defective gene. Because this ancestor ate a diet that was adequate in vitamin C, the defect had no overt consequences and could be passed on without harm to succeeding generations.
  • Response: This is easy to answer. When the Creator uses the same template (RNA DNA) for all life. Then all life will be related in some form or fashion. It does not mean we evolved that way.

Side note: The human body has several interdependent organs and systems. What that means is that not one of the interdependent organs or systems can exist by itself. Evolutionists would have us believe that this does not matter. But the reality of this means that almost every system and organ had to evolve at precisely the same time for everything to work. Which means only instant creation works because all would be ready to work at the same time. Evolution cannot achieve this on any level. Evolution does not have perfect timing because that takes math which requires intelligence. So always referring to us and other animals having a common ancestor is at best an assumption.

  • Cytochrome c is a cellular protein involved in a process known as electron transport. Studies have shown that only about a third of the 100 amino acids that make up this protein are essential to its function. Most of the amino acids are “hypervariable” and can be replaced by a large number of functionally equivalent analogs. H.P. Yokey (“Information Theory and Molecular Biology”, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1992) has calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible sequences of amino acids that would provide functionality to cytochrome c. In spite of this incredible number of possible functional sequences, humans and chimpanzees have exactly the same cytochrome c sequence, whereas other organisms have different ones.
  • Response: Again this can be explained in the Creator using the same template (RNA DNA) for all life. The “similar created life” is going to have closely related biological makeup. Also through the evolutionists trying to prove evolution, it is known that less similar life is going to have less related biological makeup. So this works for creation as well. Because the further you get away from similarities in the model you are comparing the others to, the less similar they will be. What I often wonder is why another template for life besides RNA and DNA never evolved? Because as long as the template for life stays always the same it points to a Creator not random chance. Because there is no law or mechanism that would restrict supposed evolution from going away from the original template to evolve a better one. To imply or claim the first template was perfect so another one was not needed is to deny the very foundation of what evolution is all about. Evolution does not get it right the very first time or mutating and evolving would not be needed.
  • Because of the redundancy of the DNA coding system, there are over 10^49 different DNA sequences that could code for the exact same amino acid sequence in cytochrome c. In humans and chimps, the DNA sequence that codes for cytochrome c differs by only a single base unit.
  • Response: Again this is because all life uses the same template (RNA DNA) so any life that closely resembles another with the same template is going to have similarities in biological makeup as well. Which makes us only related through the same template not that we evolved from anything.
  • Transposons are virus-like genetic sequences that randomly insert themselves into host DNA. Except in rare instances, they are passed on from generation to generation by DNA duplication and inheritance. One important transposon is known as the “Alu” element. All mammals contain many of these elements, which constitute about 10% of the human genome. In the human a-globin cluster there are seven Alu elements, and all of them are also present in the chimp in exactly the same seven locations.
  • Response: Same answer as before.
  • Retroviruses are the molecular remains of past viral infections that occur in host DNA. They are produced when viruses insert their own DNA into the DNA of the host’s germ line cells. These randomly inserted sequences are then passed on by inheritance to the host’s descendants. There are at least seven different know instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans.
  • Response: Same answer as before.
  • If humans and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor, as evolutionary theory contends, then both species should have the same, or very similar, number of chromosomes. It turns out that humans have 23 chromosomes in their gamete cells and chimpanzees have 24. The evidence strongly indicates that a chromosomal fusion event has occurred in humans in the intervening time since humans and chimpanzees evolved from their common ancestor. G banding is process of analyzing DNA to obtain a detailed “fingerprint” that is characteristic of each chromosome. Chromosome 2 in humans has exactly the G banding pattern that one would expect if two of the chimpanzee chromosomes had fused end-to-end. Every chromosome has two teleomeres (one on each end) and a centromere in the middle. Human chromosome 2 has two extra teleomeres and one extra centromere in precisely the locations that one would expect had they resulted from the fusion of the two chimpanzee chromosomes.
  • Response: There are several things wrong with this conclusion and withholding of information to sell this idea is a deception.

1) The number 2 chromosome in humans is not exactly in the same place on the DNA stand as chimps.
2) It can never be proven that the human chromosome was “ever unfused” in the first place so that during the evolution process it became fused. This whole idea is based on something unprovable being accepted as an absolute truth. Can any evolutionist prove that the number 2 chromosome was ever unfused in humans? If you can with actual evidence and not assumptions I’m all ears.
3) Let’s be honest about what is observable by chromosome changes:
a) Turner’s syndrome is a genetic disorder that affects females. Usually, a female has two X chromosomes; in females with Turner’s syndrome, one of these chromosomes is missing or abnormal. Characteristics of this disorder include short stature and infertility. Other names for Turner’s syndrome include monosomy X, 45X and Ullrich-Turner syndrome.
b) Klinefelter syndrome (or XXY syndrome) is a chromosome disorder that affects males. The affected male has an additional X chromosome, which causes infertility and may cause the development of characteristics such as tall stature and breast development. Treatment may include hormone therapy, cosmetic surgery, speech therapy and counselling.
c) A genetic disorder is caused by an altered set of genes. The four broad groups of genetic disorders are single gene disorders, chromosome abnormalities, mitochondrial disorders and multifactorial disorders. The four main ways of inheriting an altered gene are autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, X-linked dominant and X-linked recessive. Around 6,000 known genetic disorders are caused by inheriting an altered gene.
d) Down Syndrome is the result of an extra copy of chromosome 21. People with Down syndrome are 47, 21+. Down syndrome affects 1:700 children and alters the child’s phenotype either moderately or severely.
e) Patau Syndrome is a serious eye, brain, circulatory defects as well as cleft palate. 1:5000 live births. Children rarely live more than a few months.
f) Edwards Syndrome almost every organ system affected 1:10,000 live births. Children with full Trisomy 18 generally do not live more than a few months. etc…
And this list can go on and on. So with all the evidence showing how negative and even deadly chromosome changes are evolutionists want us to believe that the fusion of number 2 Chromosome was a positive step. Zero “observable evidence” of positive chromosome changes means the idea is more or less an assumption that takes faith to believe. Withholding all the negative evidence of chromosome changes in the hopes no one will go looking to find what I just posted is a deception. Real truth needs no deceptions. Also if an evolutionist can name an “observable positive chromosome change” I will have no problem listing it here. But let’s be honest again. If there was it would have been listed with this question as positive support evidence. But that’s not what we observed. This is because positive observable chromosome changes don’t exist.

Also if you use the evolutionist logic about chromosomes and how we are related in evolution, then what would this chart tell us?

Share this page!
Challenge to YECs? Part 2
Share this page!

Here is an example of what happens with repelling poles in this video:


How do you get layers with repelling poles to stay together? You don’t. So it’s not polar flips that caused this. Besides, what is going to have more of an effect on the next layers poles? 1) A magnet pole that is 1,000 of miles away? 2) Or one that is butted right up against it that has a magnetic field of it’s own?

  • Astrophysical observations show that the rotation of the earth has been slowing (and the number of days per year has been decreasing) since it first formed.  Calculations based on these observations show that there is a very close agreement between the predicted number of days in a year, the measured number of days based on coral growth characteristics, and the measured age of fossil corals.  The results are consistent with fossil coral ages extending back some 400 million years ago.  How do YECs account for these correlations?
  • Response: This is basically the same question asked earlier about corals it’s just done in a different way. I will answer this the same way I answered the other question. Old earth believers are taking the average growth to calculate this. Which means corals grow at different rates. No one know the rate of coral growth from the past so basically this is an assumption based on something that cannot be proven. Today the conditions for corals is not favorable and many are dying. Do you think corals will grow normally in unfavorable conditions? No they want. So the past was more favorable for growth from which it is easy to conclude that corals grew much faster in the past.
  • Evidence gathered from core samples taken by the Glomar Challenger show that the Mediterranean Sea has been subjected to repeated cycles of drying and re-flooding over a period of millions of years.  Analysis of the core samples reveals a geologic history that involved multiple cycles of deposition of sediments, compression of the sediments into stone, erosion of the stone into canyons (some larger than the modern Grand Canyon), and reburial of these canyons under thousands of feet of new sediments.  Contained within these sediments are multiple layers of evaporites and weathered interfaces that take thousands of years to accumulate and that can only form under exposed conditions.  How does the YEC model explain this evidence?
  • Response: The problem here is this is based on figures that do not include the flood. So why would they support the flood? And some of what was asked here has already been answered in previous responses. It seems that the more I go into these questions the more they are the same just asked in a different fashion.
  • Over 160 impact structures that were formed by the collision of extra-terrestrial objects with the earth have been identified. The vast majority of the impacts that formed these massive structures, which occur at various depths in the geologic column above the so-called Flood basement rock, were not recorded by humans.  Considering that numerous other earth-altering events (earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, etc.) have been regularly recorded throughout human history, it seems odd that so few of these impacts were noted in historical documents if, as YECs contend, humans have been present on earth since shortly after its inception. Some YECs argue that most of these impacts occurred during the chaos of the Flood, and were, therefore, not recorded.  How could these collisions of nuclear bomb proportions have occurred during the Flood without causing massive waves that would have smashed the wooden Ark like a toy?
  • Response: How can one know that these meteors would have nuclear bomb proportions? This is actually an assumption based on making the YEC model not work. But let’s take a closer look. The meteors were only needed to bring down the canopy. And while the meteors entered our atmosphere where the barometric pressures were double because of the canopy, there would have been much more friction to slow down the speed of the meteor before it hit. Also taking into account that the canopy itself slowed these meteors down somewhat upon impact means the meteors back then would not had hit with the same forcible impact as they would today. So nuclear bomb proportions is over kill. Of course when one is looking to discredit something to the emf degree over kill is always in order.
  • Oil contains certain chemicals that derive from the organic materials from which it was formed.  The distribution of these chemicals in oil correlates with the sequence of these organic precursor materials as they appeared in the geologic column.  For example, there is no oleanane in oil deposits older than the last epoch of the Cretaceous because the angiosperms from which this chemical is derived did not exist prior to that time.  A similar time line exists for chemicals in oil such as 24-norcholestane (which is not present until the appearance of the diatoms) and vitrain (which is not present  until the appearance of land plants).  How is this relationship explained in terms of the Flood model?
  • Response: Oil does not take millions of years to form. In fact that claim is based upon assumptions made about the geologic column. There is a process that is done on turkey and chicken by products (stuff that’s usually thrown away), that when the near to same conditions of how crude oil is found in underground is applied twice, the by products break down to form a petroleum product known as bio-diesel (a form of oil that is used as fuel) in about 2 hours. And there are many things that can be broke down to make this. They are currently working on a process to turn tires into bio diesel or gas. They will do the same with common trash and one company is reportedly doing this with raw sewage. So it’s not what existed, its what broke down to make it. There is also what’s called hydrothermal oil. The video below shows oil being made by nature right before your eyes.


  • The Atacama desert in Chile contains river beds that have not had water running in them for 120,000 years.  Some areas of this desert have been in a hyper-arid condition for at least 20 million years.  How can these facts be accounted for in terms of the YEC model?
  • Response: It would first have to be ascertained how the ages of what history is claimed, was concluded. Asking a vague question with no real information won’t get a good answer. But since it is this way I will ask questions on what I see in the questions. 1) How does one know that the river beds have had no running water 120,000 years? Since there is no information on how I can only conclude that this was assumed. And the claim about 20 million years, same question.
Share this page!
A challenge to YECs? Part 1
Share this page!

Was surfing the internet and ran into this page:

It was put up by Jack DeBaun. Not sure who he is but I found his questions a challenge in themselves. They are different from the average YECH (young earth creation hater). So I’m addressing them because of that because I like challenges. Not that I am trying to meet his challenge. This is because from my experience debating evolutionists-atheists, that you can meet their challenges and it really never makes any difference. This is because they have such a stronghold on science they are not about to give that up. And I could go on and on how it really makes no difference but that would take away from me addressing what’s on that page. So I will start by listing his challenge questions.

Share this page!