Category: Evidence for Creation

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.

Updated 8-4-2022 There is new evidence listed at bottom of page.
The video below explains the find:

Now notice the discoverer of this evidence said she was attacked for her findings. What this proves is that regardless of who you are or what you believe (she believes in evolution), if you find evidence that has the ability to put evolution into question “you” not your evidence will be attacked. Why? When an idea like the theory of evolution needs to be protected from all challengers, even if the evidence happens to be a good find against the idea. The only way to discredit the evidence is to discredit the discoverer of it first. Once done the evidence is basically debunked by default. That is conformism, which by the way, is not science. Protecting an idea from all challengers in this manner shows that the idea (evolution) is not what it is claimed to be. Here is another video that makes it more clear that if you find something that does not conform to evolution you will be attacked.

Soft Tissue Dinosaur: T. rex, Etc. from Real Science Friday on Vimeo.

Truth can stand on it’s on merit and its evidence is able to stand up against all challengers without the need to use tactics of the destruction of a person’s reputation. Control through fear is not science, it’s a dictatorship. Which says: Conform or be destroyed. Evolutionist has this power because they “control” science. Absolute control equals absolute corruption. This makes one wonder just how much creation evidence has been found by evolutionists but they were reluctant to come forward for fear of being attacked and reputations destroyed. The pictures below are from the first find of T-Rex blood and soft tissue.

Some like to claim iron preserved the blood and soft tissie.

This evidence (the pictures above) is what the evolutionists were saying was a fluke but were unwilling to confirm this either way because they know that this supports a “young earth” and not an old one. How? They could maybe explain away one find or maybe two that certain conditions may have allowed this evidence to survive 80 million years. But since the discoverer is finding this same evidence in every fossil she finds there are no loop-hole explanation, no cop-out answers, and no special conditions excuse. This is because all the fossils seem to have this because there has not been one tested that does not have this evidence.

• Fluke becomes empirical evidence:

And because these results are repeatable under the same conditions, what was considered a fluke now becomes “empirical evidence”. Empirical evidence that goes against the evolution time-line that evolutionist can no longer dodge. So what’s the best alternative for them concerning this evidence? Ignore that it even exists. Ignorance on purpose is not good scientific practice. But what else can one do when one considers God and truth to be a worse alternative? They continue to believe in what now has been put into question.

What happens when science is actually asked to prove something:

But now let’s look at what happens when people in science are actually challenged to prove a find to support their current claims. Here is a video where the Jack Horner was asked to do a test that would prove whether the whole fossil, tissue and all, was millions of years old. Listen to how he squirms out of it.

Update: And because evidence like this and others against evolution are mounting. There is even a country that has now banned evolution from being taught. South Korea has decided to remove evolution from its schools in favor of the teachings of creation.

On the pages where comments can be left on this subject. Notice how the evolutionists counter this decision. It’s basically anyone whom dares do disagree with evolution is not worth the scum found at the bottom of a pound. What’s ironic about this tactic is that it’s not even scientific. Yet 99% of all evolutionists responding to this issue will use it.

• New: Blood from a 10,000 year old Woolly Mammoth found,

Scientists in Siberia find a female Woolly Mammoth buried in the ice and were able to obtain a blood sample.

Scientists get blood from mammoth fossil Click to watch video.

Scientists drew blood from a 10,000-year-old preserved wooly mammoth carcass found buried underneath ice in Siberia. For more CNN videos, visit our site at ...

Read More

www.youtube.com

So blood found from two sets of dinosaur bones one dating as old as 86 million years. Blood found from a 10,000 year old Woolly Mammoth. That’s times now. So when you going to give it up evolutionists? Blood and tissue don;t last 86 million years.

Possibility to this problem?

That God created with age already added to everything. Why? According to what the Bible says, death did not happen until the first sin was committed. And the first sin was not committed until late in the day of the 6th day. And time minus death = eternity. So for 6 days creation was done under eternal laws instead of the laws we now observe. And for everything to be eternal nothing can age because aging results in death for all life. So if things don’t age, then age has to be added upon creation.

How different is eternity to our own time and laws?

Because eternity does not allow aging because aging results in death, life being born cannot happen either. This is because development requires aging and aging does not exist. Hence the need for creation of life because life cannot be born.

Does time exist in heaven, and if so how does time exist without the aging process?

Where we are time and aging exist as one process. Both moving forward together, one effecting the results of the other. In eternity they are separate. Time moves forward but age stays a constant. Which is the very reason all things have to be created with age because the age they are created with is the age that will remain. That is until our case which was until sin and everything changed.

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.

Natural selection is one of the supporting mechanisms for the Theory of Evolution. The basic way that it is supposed to work is that as the environment changes, the life form has to adapt with mutations that help it survive, or it dies off. Example: If you take a animal that is used to living in the hot climate of Africa, and put it in the cold weather of Greenland. Unless it grows more hair, and it’s body speeds up the metabolism to make more body heat, it will likely die. And the next generation won’t even be born with the adaptations. So the ongoing process of evolution cannot happen. But if the animal adapts then the next generation will more than likely get those traits.

Intelligent creation is where a animal was created already with the information, or not, in it’s DNA to adapt to such a situation as explained above. If it does have the information in it’s DNA, then it will survive. If it does not, it will die.

If Natural selection is true, then every situation concerning it can be explained. But Natural selection has many problems that only intelligent creation can explain. I will make a short list below:

1. Symbiotic Relationships is just one problem. In the supposed evolution process, plants came before animal or insect life. And there has to be enough plants to make oxygen for the developing atmosphere. The problem is 75% of the existing plants on the planet require pollination. Pollination is done by insects. Insects were not around yet so any plant that required pollination died with no offspring. A perfect example of this problem is the problem of disappearing bees (bees dying due to pesticides etc…). Bees pollinate 70% of the food baring plants that humans and animals depend on for food. If the bees become extinct, so will most all life on earth. Natural selection cannot explain how this relationship between plants and certain insects came about. Nor how plants made it until certain insects arrived to pollinate them.
2. Complexity in design of biological organs and complex systems. To say that a animal taken from Africa could survive the weather in Greenland through the process of natural selection is to say that biological cells have an intelligence to know exactly what is needed. How would biological systems or cells know that the body needs to grow more hair, or speed up the metabolism in order to stay warm enough to not die? Where is this information coming from? Another example is the eye. without going into detail about how real complex it is, I will touch on some things that most people don’t even think about.

• How do the biological cells and existing system know where the eye should go?
• How do the biological cells and existing system know what size and shape to make it?
• How do the biological cells and existing system know that a special part of the brain is needed to process the information the eye will send it?
• How do the biological cells and existing system know how that part of the brain will be able to process the information so we can see?
• How do the biological cells and existing system know that clear fluid is needed to fill the eye so that light can pass through it?
• How do the biological cells and existing system know that the fluid needs to be a certain pressure to keep the inflated but not damage it?
• How do the biological cells and existing system knowthat according to size the lens needs to be a certain angle in order to focus?
• I could go on and on for every system, and every organ. Example: Every system in the human body is interdependent upon another in order to work. There are 9 major systems in our bodies and not one of them can work without the other systems working at the very same time. So in other words. In the evolution process they would all have to evolve and be working at “exactly” the same time. This is impossible for 2 reasons. 1) Evolution Process does not have perfect timing to accomplish such a feat. 2) Every system has a different complexity which means no 2 system would require the same amount of mutations to evolve. The more mutations the more time. The more complexity in each mutation the more time. And this problem is not just for humans, but every living creature. Evolution would have to have perfect timing times how many creatures live on this planet.

So are biological cells and systems this smart to know exactly how to evolve, where to evolve, and when to evolve? Evolutionists think so with zero evidence to prove any of it. They believe that natural selection replaces all problems. This is also why they don’t like the word complexity. To test how natural selection cannot explain these things just ask some simple questions

1. How did natural selection determine where the eye should go for each living creature? You see there is no randomness evidence that eyes were anywhere else as trial and error during the evolution process. Natural selection sopposedly got it right the first time.
2. Which systems in the human body evolved first and how did it function until the other 8 major systems evolved? The common cop out answer is that they evolved all exactly at the same time. What you say to that is ask: So what you are saying is that evolution has perfect timing? You see perfect timing is admitting to intelligence because you have to be able to know when.
3. etc…

Basically all you have to do as a creationist is study the human body and all the parts that make each system work and you will have endless debates that will reaffirm you faith in a Creator. And once you get that going then study the problems associated with systems and problems when man tries to fix things.

Example #1: Heart valves can leak , and become clogged with calcium buildup. When the heart valve is replaced with animal tissue or mechanical one. The person has to take blood thinners for the rest of their lives. The reason for this is because man cannot make heart valves as perfect as the Creator so that they don’t cause blood clots by damaging blood cells during the opening and closing process. How did the evolution process know to evolve heart valves so precisely as to not damage blood cells? You see in this it has to be perfect the first time. There were no blood thinners during the stages of evolving heart valves. So if it was not right when heart valves were needed, offspring dies and species becomes extinct.

There are several areas in human and animal bodies that if not right the very first time, species dies. And when it has to be right the very first time, natural selection does not even apply.

Example #2: The heart muscle is a special muscle. It never gets tired. If the supposed evolution process did not evolve this special muscle, the first lifeform to have a heart would die when born. This muscle also requires a special balance in our bodies of several chemicals in order to function like it does and not get tired. How did the biological cells that evolved know to have this chemicals already balanced in our bodies ready for this special muscle? Then the heat valves have to be perfect. Then the electrical part of the heart has to know what rhythm the heart needs to beat, and at what beats per minute. The heart has to be the right size in order to pump enough volume for a particular body size. etc…

Studying the human body and how everything works. And the problems that happen when they don’t will give the creationist easy arguments against evolution.

An observable process I can show here is where sand pictures sort sand into layers making art as show below in the videos.

And there is also a repeatable mechanism for horizontal layering. This is also testable and repeatable with the same results which makes it empirical. Here is a video demonstrating this.

So we have repeatable (empirical) mechanisms for both horizontal and vertical layering. Mechanism which support the flood causing the layering, not millions of years.

Evolution is about conditions that pressure changes, or what can be referred to as life adapting to it’s surroundings. This poses a problem for the first life that forms. The first life that forms is not inheriting any traits from a previous life. Therefore there is not anything to inherit from adapting. Which brings up the question of how the first life was able to form to live, and survive in it’s environment? It’s like saying that it just poofed itself into being ready to take on whatever came it’s way.

1) First life has has to be able to survive in it’s surroundings.
2) It has to be able to ingest food.
3) It has to be able to process the food it ingests.

Saying that the first life just adapts is like saying you could give your pets sulfuric acid for water and they will just adapt. Unless a process mechanism can be identified as to how the first life formed suited to survive, then the only alternative is creation.