Author: ikester7579

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

Reference: 3. OBSERVATIONS FROM MOLECULAR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES

• 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?

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.

Scientists have recently found out that the sun rings like a bell.

“The Sun is playing a secret melody, hidden inside itself, that produces a widespread throbbing motion of its surface. The sounds are coursing through the Sun’s interior, causing the entire globe, or parts of it, to move in and out, slowly and rhythmically like the regular rise and fall of tides in a bay or of a beating heart.” (Kenneth R. Lang).

In fact since these findings the sun is referred to as the singing sun.

The earth rings like a bell: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/21/earth_bell/

The moon rings like a bell: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/15mar_moonquakes/

Even the planets themselves produce a musical scale.

Picture reference: http://www.keplerstern.com/Music_of_spheres/music_of_spheres.html

An audio from Creation Moments on this:

The Sun Praises Its Creator – Creation Moments

Psalm 148:3 “Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.” Click link to hear the radio broadcast,

Read More

creationmoments.com

Probably one of the most confusing verses in the Bible is 2 Peter 3:8 which says:

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

This is a comparison between the difference in time passage between where we are and where Heaven is. Being with the Lord is being in Heaven. Many Christians believe that God is outside of time so therefore Heaven is also outside of time. This idea is usually used when a Christian does not understand how eternity works, or how God created things. But does the Bible support that God and Heaven are outside of actual time?

Revelation 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

You cannot measure time where time does not exist. So 2 Peter 3:8 is a comparison of the time difference between Heaven and where we are at. So to make it more understandable we need to change the equation from comparing days to years to comparing years to years. And since a year contains 365 days we will times both numbers by 365. So what we get is 1 year compared to 365,000 years. What this means is that when 1 year passes on earth 365,000 years passes in Heaven. What that also means is that Heaven is 365,000 times faster than we are.

What questions does this answer?

1. How God can be everywhere at once.
2. How angels can be there so quickly to protect us from harm.
3. How God can create in 6-24 hour days. It’s because God can do 1000 years of work in one 24 hour day because of the time difference between Heaven and earth.
4. Explains how when we have a near death experience (NDE) that everything seems to go in slow motion. Our bodies prepare for possible death and separation of the soul. This gives us a glimpse into the eternal dimension where time is faster. And as we look into this dimension of faster time, the time where we were in becomes slower in our perception of it. This is why everything looks like it’s going in slow motion.

The Bible is called the living word because no matter how many times you read it you find something new to understand. And the more we understand opens our minds and hearts to know that there is a God and there is none like Him.

To the right (on desk computers) there are 3 videos to watch if you want to understand this better from a scientific viewpoint.

1) Time is not constant. Shows how time is fluid aka in flux not constant.
2) Time Dilation in laymen terms. Explains the 1st video in laymen terms by a retired aerospace engineer.
3) Math of the universe. Shows how the whole universe is like one big math equation.

Because other devices like phones and tablets load the page differently. You may have to scroll down a bit to find these videos.

Laws list:

Etc…

The questions are:

1. What is their origin?
2. Can laws come about naturally?
3. How did they come about fully balanced to create order instead of chaos?

If we take what we already know about how laws came about in our justice system, then we know that only intelligence can bring a law into being, establish it, and some how enforce it. If you look at the laws as a formula of sorts because each law is balanced to work together. Then you also know that formulas can only be worked out by intelligence. If you look at the laws as something that cannot be broken by man, then you would also have to realize that the laws were set by something more powerful and more intelligent than man. More powerful because man can do nothing to change or bend them.

And the conclusion is that naturalism in no way can fit into achieving making any law that exists come into being. The laws themselves defy a natural existence and science itself has not even one clue on how to explain them coming into being naturally. So when you use deductive reasoning, cancelling out all that does not fit or will not work, there is only one conclusion left that fits the bill of why the laws exist, and why they work together to make order instead of chaos.

Deny it as naturalist may, their way if thinking cannot explain away a Creator creating the laws that exist and the fact that they create order instead of chaos. That they are put together and tweaked to be in balance like a formula making everything work together to create all that we see. Always ignoring that even one notch off in how one law works with another that total and complete chaos would be the result. And that they cannot even contemplate the first step in an explanation that would fit their world views.

• Applying the scientific method:

When all conclusions fit and point into one direction only, what is science supposed to do? According to the scientific method you are supposed to follow the evidence regardless of where it leads, not ignore it because it leads to where you don;t want to go. But science refusal to follow the conclusions of the only things that make sense here is proof that science is not really about finding truth where ever it may lead, but making everything that exists or is discovered conform to what they have already accepted as truth.

Proof? Evolutionists have already exalted their idea of their theory as being a true proven facts with mountains of empirical evidence. They even went as far as to exalt this theory of theirs to being a Scientific theory. The problem here is that there is really no criteria that the theory had to meet to graduate to this level. Nothing. They cannot give us a 1 ,2 ,3 criteria on what the theory had to do to reach this status or the supposed evidence that took it over the top, and how it would maintain this status. How does one know that evolution still meets the criteria of being a scientific theory when evidence for and against are found all the time? And evidence gets proven wrong or found to be fraud but some how the theory of evolution holds to a criteria that is not even clear or written?

• Is evolution the hero of the atheist movement?

This is what happens when a person becomes a hero unto the people. They exalt him to a status that he may not be worthy of, and make positive claims about him that are not even true just so they can look up to him as their hero. And they will protect their hero and anyone whom disagrees becomes their enemy. This is what has happened to the theory of evolution. It has become the atheist hero in the plot to justify their disbelief in God. And because the idea is their hero it will be treated as such and becomes something the atheist can look up to whether it meets the criteria or not. And it is protected against all whom would dare to disagree, and those whom disagree become the enemy for that very reason. Why do you think atheists who believe in evolution hate all creationists when they have never met them? The hero complex of evolution requires them to do just that.