Category: Evidence for Creation
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/40189/40189df3d9e9c3d308b5a5ab274538e18cfc3f9e" alt="time-management"
For age dating to be correct, time has to be a “constant”. In other words it has to pass at the same rate from the time that time began. If time can be altered along with the Laws of Physics that mostly require constants, then aging is not a constant either.
Watch the video below given by AreoSpace Engineer to get a better idea of how time and age can be altered then you will understand the rest of what I am about to discuss below.
Now, if you listened to the video above then you heard him talk about the Atomic Clocks and how they differ in time keeping because they are at different elevations. Time is different at different elevations for 2 reasons.
1) Gravity is different because the further away you move from the center of the earth, the less stronger gravity becomes. And the lesser the strength the more time becomes altered compared to how it works from our stand point.
How does gravity work? Watch the video below, it’s not how you think because it’s not an attraction.
2) Motion also alters time. The faster you go the slower time passes. And because the earth is rotating the further out from the center you are the faster you are moving
How does this work? In the video below they use a bicycle wheel as a demonstration model to show that the further out you are on a spinning object, the faster you must move in order to make the same rotation as objects closer to the center.
In the Atomic Clocks, what made time pass differently? Because the altering of time through Time Dilation is not out perception of time (an illusion), the reality is that the radiation cycles of how a Atomic Clock works is altered aka the Laws of Physics gets altered (not an illusion). Time Dilation can be observed and repeated which makes it empirical evidence. There is even a math equation to working this out so that time displacement can be measured.
The way the earth orbits the sun, along with the moon is not what you think when put into actual reality that one thing is orbiting another thing that is orbiting something else. Even the speeds of orbital motion and rotation are not totally constant as the video below shows.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cfe7a/cfe7a4de9c6d36a007f984e23bc19f3920f61242" alt="2155"
If we take and add the Fossil Record to the bicycle wheel, it becomes more apparent the point I am making. The fossil record as one piece, is 24 miles deep. At 24 miles down the gravity would be stronger, and the motion would be slower. Which means the record is time dilated.
But this does not just apply to the fossils. The sediments that make up the geologic column would be time dilated also. And all the magma that is in the earth’s core that comes up through volcanic activity, would be time dilated as well.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c2068/c206842cfe0c370cfb927338fca6c4b67cb50c72" alt="fossilrecordwheel"
Why is all this important? If we apply what we observe on earth concerning how time passes without taking into factor that everything is in motion and they do not all move at the same speed. Most every object has gravity, and that gravity is not the same. Then we really do not understand how the universe works, or we choose to be ignorant, or because of our arrogance. We have chosen not to admit we were wrong about everything which includes: Time, age dating, and evolution.
Here are just a few examples (going into more detail).
Motion:
1) The orbital speed of the earth going around the sun is:108,000 km/h, ~70,000 mph.
2) The sun and the whole solar system that contains all of the planets moves with the spiral arm of the Galaxy we exist in at:720,000 km/h, 450,000 mph.
3) The Milky Way Galaxy in which we live in one of it’s spiral arms, the whole moves through the universe at:1.3 million miles per hour (2.1 million km/hr)!
4) The rotation speed of our planet is around 1,000 mph.
Gravity:
1) Gravity of out planet itself.
2) Gravity of our moon.
3) Gravity of our sun.
4) Gravity of our galaxy.
The bottom line is, you take away the ability for Evolutionist to use the excuse of millions and billions of years and the whole theory falls apart.
Click on images to see text fully, and for the link to the articles that go with them that you can use. You can also get an idea of what kind of responses you will get from such an article and how to respond to them. If you use the articles make sure you put them in your own words. Unless you are sharing copy and pasting an exact copy is considered parroting from another source which is frowned upon on the internet. It’s one thing if you are quoting or sharing to copy directly. But another when you are not. Not that I have a problem with this but if you are debating and someone actually look up the original source. They will point out that you are using someone Else’s argument because you can’t think for yourself (an atheist tactic). So just change the wording a little (put it how you would say it). ~ Issac
Darwin was not the first to think up man evolving from animals.And his theory was based in racism. There were others who had the same idea, Darwin only published before they did to accept the credit.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2f913/2f913a54294f2300822cae78b93fe17b05c39652" alt="Plagerism"
But the idea of man coming from animals was a pagan idea originally. That can be traced back to Egyptian times.
And what proves this even more, is their recent return to their roots by opening churches in the name of Evolution.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc348/fc3484aa4634e6b3f6d5d378c61afb9f8b111344" alt="A_darwinreligion-min"
Ignoring that evolution always misses steps to actually proving itself does not make it true. There is a reason that a person must first understand that there are no absolutes before they can understand evolution. The reality of believing there are no absolutes means truth becomes a huge grey area. And anyone can take an idea like evolution and make it look true without it actually being true.
The other problem associated with this, is that atheists like to make micro and macro evolution sound like the same thing. Or that micro to infinity proves macro. The problem with this logic is 2 fold.
- If they are one in the same, why give them different names?
- Claiming micro to infinity makes macro evolution leaves out one very important step. And that is to know if there are limitations to micro evolution that would keep it from equaling macro evolution. Because unless this can be tested and observed a huge assumption is being made that micro will = macro with no problems. That’s not science.
Assuming with no observation leaves a huge door open to be proven wrong.
Example: Light speed for years has been claimed to be a constant. The problem is that we live in a gravity environment, and light does not always travel under the influence of gravity as travels in space. So we don;t know if light changes speed when there is no gravity around. But recently science has been able to:
- Stop light:
- Slow down light: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
- And make the speed of light infinite: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23050-light-hits-near-infinite-speed-in-silvercoated-glass.html#.U1osB6IVCzw
So all this means is that the speed of light is no longer constant. This puts into question every book, paper, theory etc…. That is based on the speed of light being constant. All of this is because some people wanted to make an assumption about light when they did not have all the facts. And because that assumption fits nicely with the theory of evolution and brings into question the Biblical creation. But now since all that’s in question the tide has turned and everything science has assumed on the speed of light being constant is now in question.
Some of what this puts into question are:
- How far stars and planets are away from us.
- How old stars or planets are because a light year no longer applies when the speed of light is no longer constant.
- Theories based on this no longer valid.
- All papers and books based on this no longer valid.
All because someone decided to assume. Now the question is: How long until science decides to admit to being wrong and correcting all this? From what has been witnessed with evolution and correcting mistakes there, I suspect it won;t be in our lifetime. 50 plus years is the norm for evolution.
Here we have a couple of videos on this experiment where the atheists tried to make it sound like this was the greatest achievement of proving evolution. Well E-coli remaining E-coli actually proves what we creationists have been claiming for a long time.
1) Changes have limitations.
2) Evolution to the point claimed (single cell to all that we see) is not observable and is a lie aka fallacy.
So watch the videos if you can stand their long winded attempt to make the failure sound like a success. So much effort in lying to only say: There is not God.
The date has been set, and the atheists whine. They say that Bill Nye should cancel. To debate creation is to give it legitimacy. More like creation evidence has become so good that a debate like this would show up evolution for what it really is. Nothing more than a hypothesis..
Remember atheists, evolution has to remain falsifiable in order to even be a theory. Refusing to debate proves it is not. And can no longer be challenged. So what is a theory that can no longer be challenged in a debate? A protected unfalsifiable idea that is no longer scientific. So let’s see if atheists will prove me on this and get Bill Nye to cancel the debate so they can all go hide under a rock.
To show even more that atheists can no longer defend evolution scientifically because it’s no longer scientific. They will break out the ridicule and personal attack machine, It’s all they have anymore. Which proves my point even further. So post on those blog, forums, and websites all the ridicule you can muster. It proves what we already know about evolution. It’s dying and hiding behind ridicule because that’s all you guys have. So how many names will you call us today atheists? LOL. What a joke evolution is.
****Update as quoted from Ken Ham: Watching the Nye/Ham Debate Live An Update
Because of the huge media interest in the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate at the Creation Museum on February 4 (seats sold out in two minutes online), as well as the general buzz that has been generated nationwide about the event, the live streaming option is being put on hold as we are looking into other exciting opportunities for people to watch the debate live. Ultimately, these other possible options would allow even more people to view this historic debate.
More information will come later on how to watch the debate. Meanwhile, if you signed up for the live streaming, we thank you for your interest and please know that you will be contacted once the final arrangements have been made. (Of course, if we opt out of a streaming version, you will get a refund.)
With the debate selling out, we are committed to the very best ways by which as many people as possible can also watch the debate live.
Here is CNN interviewing Bill Nye:
In my research of the fossil record, it brings up more questions than it answers. As to the reason I believe Dawkins has decided to give it up as evidence for evolution.
- Living fossils: There are nearly 200 known living fossils of plants and animals, yet each one has the same problem. They are found in one layer of the supposed record, and alive. For some fossils that is a gap as big as 10 layers. These gaps exist for “every living fossil”. So 30 times there are 30 gaps of the record not recording the fossils surviving until present time.
- The layering of the Geologic Column: There is no observable or explainable mechanism to show how the layers the fossil are found in got laid over millions of years. Yet water will sort the layered sediments like this and is observable and repeatable (empirical evidence).
- Polystrate Fossils: Trees that run through several layers that are supposed to take millions of years to form. How does a tree not rot away while waiting to be buried in the millions of years it took to do this? It could be explained away if only a few were found but these Polystrate Fossils are found all over the world.
- Cross contamination of dating markers: Fossils can be cross contaminated by the layers they are buried in. Example: If you bury a bone that dates 1000 years bury it in a layer that dates 300 million years. Over a period of time the markers from the layer will cross contaminate the fossil and make it date the same as the layer even though it never was the same age. This raises several questions and answers why all fossils will “always” date the same age as the layer. There is no other option after so many years.
- The Geologic Column or the fossil record does not exist in one piece anywhere in the world. It is estimated that if it did it would be just under 15 miles deep. So the record is only connected together by the age each layer dates and the fossils found in that layer. So an assumption has to be made here.
If Evolution theory is true why does every documentary on how it happened contain 80-100% animation?
If Evolution theory were true and had tons of evidence why does that evidence require so much interpretation? Because if you take away the interpretation of all supposed evolution evidence what would you have left? But because the evidence requires interpretation without actual observation of what really happened, the interpretation is actually an assumption. And this assumption is based on evolution being a true proven fact which bars any other idea from ever being considered or even pondered. It also means that assuming evolution is a true proven fact as so many evolutionists will claim means that the supposed science that it’s based on is more about conformism than anything else. Conformism is not science.
Example: Let’s say this is like a horse race. Evolution and all the other ideas are set to race. The horn sounds for the race to begin but the only door that opens is the one that allows the evolution horse to run the race. The other horses (ideas) are not even allowed on the track. So evolution horse not only gets to run the race but is the only idea that is allowed to win every race. In an actual horse race that would be known as cheating (conformism).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4b8b6/4b8b63e8dc902e1e4314697089fe492462932adb" alt="BiasvsNonbias"
If Evolution theory were true, why do evolutionists make complexity sound easy? If you think about it, that is an oxymoron statement. Complexity means exactly what is says and there is nothing easy about it. Here are the problems to making complexity sound easy for evolution to achieve concerning evolution of the eye.
- The more complex something is the more mutations required to achieve the final goal.
- With mutations, each mutation has to mutate in the correct order to eventually evolve the final product. What is it in evolution that guides each individual mutation to be just right? Because if even one mutation if off it will affect all the mutations that come after it which in turn affects what it is that evolves. Example: Let’s look at the evolution of the eye as a scientific flow chart in an experiment. To get to the last stage of this flow chart and get the desired result, you have to follow the flow chart exactly. Which means you cannot have one deviation or even one mess up or the experiment is ruined. So what is it in evolution that makes every mutation perfect, regardless of how many it takes, to achieve the finished product? The reason this question is avoided is because to venture here would make one realize that only intelligence can have a guiding hand in what happens. Random chance and mistakes don;t do that.
- Which evolved first? The eye or the vision center of the brain? The reason this question is so important is because one cannot work without the other. So an eye without the vision center of the brain would be useless. The most common answer is that they evolved at the same time. For evolution to be able to know when to evolve 2 things at the precise moments they are needed is to say evolution can tell time. Which again means there was intelligence involved. So this answer does not go along with random chance and accident mechanism of evolution.
- What programmed the vision center of the brain to be able to process what is seen by the eye so that we could process it and react to our surroundings? The vision center of the brain with no programming to process the information sent to it by the eye is like having a computer that has no operating system on it. It won’t work. Programing by random chance and accident is like claiming windows 95 evolved into windows 8 by accident while the computer sat in Bill Gates office for 20 years and no one touched it. Not going to happen.
- Claiming that the eye is not a design when it’s made just the right size, and the lens is curved at the right angles for us to focus and see, is like saying the Hubble Telescope is not a design either.Design: A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
The math that can be used to show how the eye is the right size, and the lens is curved at the right angles so things are in focus shows by math itself that the eye was designed. And if not then evolutionists need to show how math that includes size and angles is done with no intelligence.
Because evolutionists have found that claiming we came from primates turns people off. They have adopted a replacement for that which is called “Common Ancestor”. So if you happen to bring up that we came from chimps etc…, they will quickly correct you and say: No we share a common ancestor. Yet while trying to cover up what they really mean, which is that we supposedly did come from primates. They will also often use the:
- The percentage difference in DNA between us and chimps. apes etc…
- That the #2 chromosome is fused between us and chimps supposedly proving we evolved from chimps.
- They will compare features between us and chimps etc…
Yet it is wrong to say we evolved from Chimps?
Common ancestor is also said to prove the evolution tree. Which supposedly also supports the fossil record etc… But there is one major problem that they hope you won’t see. One that they hide so well that even most evolutionists don’t know this problem exist. And that is what is said in the pic below.
Hide this as they may try, it is a huge problem they cannot solve. Feel free to use the pic above to post on blogs, forums. and websites. Watch how short the debate will be because they cannot deny this. In fact more than likely you will have a bunch of hate spewed at you for bringing this up. It’s what they do best when they cannot counter what is said or shown. So expect the worst when you use this pic.
Now there are websites and the Wikipedia will try to say that there are common ancestors to dinosaurs. But if you look at how it’s worded, they don’t really commit to it and they are basically taking a guess to try to fill a huge gap in hopes no one notices. How they claim it between human and chimps is not only DNA percentage of closeness. but the fused #2 chromosome. They don’t have anything like that to test for the common ancestor for dinosaurs is it’s all a guess at best. Yet they will try to pass it off as fact.
And if they try to derail the debate by bringing up the problems with YEC (Young Earth Creation). Post this pic:
How does on debate something that supposedly has no evidence?