By Josh Barker
Sadly, around 60% of people believe in evolution. I believe they are all wrong, because as far as I can see, the universe proves that there is a God, and the credibility of the scriptures. The first thing that proves there is a God is the planets. We live on what scientists call the perfect planet. There is no life on any of the other planets. You look, and it’s not just that there isn’t life, but it is impossible to have life on the other planets. Let’s take Mercury and Venus for example. They would be too hot, and we would burn up.
Take Mars, and it is too cold. No life could possibly exist on Mars. But don’t just take my word for it, take the word of one of the scientists who worked on the Viking probes, which landed on Mars. Here’s what he said.
“To get a feeling for what Mars is like, you might think of yourself being there on a camping trip, and your job is to try to make a fire and boil an egg.
The first thing you discover is there is no fuel on Mars; there’s is nothing on the surface of the planet that will burn, because there’s only a tiny trace of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere. Finally if you chip some ice from a polar cap, and put it in a little pan that is fueled by an electric heating device, you’d discover it wouldn’t melt into water. It would simply begin to disappear into gas, because water can’t exist in liquid form on Mars. There isn’t enough atmospheric pressure to allow it to remain liquid…”
You must have water for life, and water can’t exist as a liquid on Mars. These same types of problems are found on all the other planets in all the other galaxies and throughout the universe.
Now evolutionists say Christians have blind faith, and they don’t have faith, but evidence. “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence,” says Richard Dawkins. In the book, A Reason for God, the author Tim Keller shows us what evolutionists have to say about this subject, and what creationists say to refute it.
“In Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion, he says there may be trillions of universes. Given the enormous number of universes existing over enormous amounts of time and space, it is inevitable that some of them are fine-tuned to sustain our kind of life. The one we are in is one, so here we are… However, Alvin Plantinga gives this illustration. Imagine a man dealing himself twenty straight hands of four aces in the same game of poker. As his companions reach for their six-shooters the poker player says, ‘I know it looks suspicious! But what if there is an infinite succession of universes, so that for any possible distribution of poker hands there is one universe in which this possibility is realized? We just happen to find ourselves in the one where I always deal myself four aces without cheating!’ This argument will have no effect on the other poker players. It is technically possible that the man just happened to deal himself twenty straight hands of four aces. Though you could not prove he had cheated, it would be unreasonable to conclude that he hadn’t.”
Tim Keller also mentions an example given by philosopher John Leslie. “Image a man who is sentenced to be executed by a firing squad consisting of fifty expert marksmen. They all fire from six feet away and not one bullet hits him. Since it is possible that even expert marksmen could miss from close range it is technically possible that all fifty just happened to miss at the same moment. Though you could not prove they had conspired to miss, it would be unreasonable to draw the conclusion that they hadn’t.”
How Life Began
More evidence that proves there is a creator God is how life began. Evolutionists, who cannot even make one microscopic cell, would have me believe that there was a chance combination of non-living chemicals that somehow formed into life. That is impossible, but not only impossible, but also insane. Nobody has ever in any time observed non-living things turned into living things. The law of entropy also called the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that things orderly tend to become disorderly over time. Non-living cells tend to become disorderly over time, not form into all forms of life as we know it.
Now we can ask, “Where did the chemicals come from?” “Answer me this first,” the evolutionist will reply, “Where did God come from?” Well we must deal with their question first. God is an eternal being who has always existed. It is hard for us, his handiwork, to fathom something eternal. Why? Because we are not. We look around us, and people die. People get sick and are on machines keeping them alive, but even then, they have a beginning. That is the “cycle of life”. We are born, we live, and we die. It is not complicated. We never see someone who was not born or someone who will never die. Each year we celebrate our birth and the births of others on birthdays, but we are unable to grasp the idea of God, who has no birth and no death; who has no beginning and no end. Therefore our finite minds can’t comprehend an infinite God. Now that we know where God came from, let’s see where evolutionists think chemicals came from. Evolutionists have no clear ideas on where the chemicals came from. Bill Nye when asked during his debate against Ken Ham said, “Don’t know! This is a great mystery… But don’t you think that whatever is up there causing the universe to expand is down here, but we just haven’t been able to detect it?” Mr. Nye, I agree with you, except for where you said that we haven’t been able to detect it. I think that about 33% of people, the percentage of people, who believe in creation, have been able to pick up or detect God in some way or another. Ken Ham when giving his response to Mr. Nye’s answer on where man came from said, “Hey Bill, I just want to let you know that there’s actually a book out there that actually tells us where man came from.” “We have one ancestor for as far as we can figure,” Mr. Nye said when asked this question about how consciousness came from matter. Ken Ham responded by saying, “Bill, I do want to say that there is a book out there that does document where consciousness came from. And in that book, the one who created it said he made man in his image, and he breathed into man and he became a living being. The Bible does document that.” If scientists looked at the Bible that was inspired by God in the same way that they look at On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, then they would have all their questions answered. If you think about it from an atheistic standpoint, the Bible is written by a bunch of ancient men over a period of several thousand years, and just so happens to match up perfectly with the evidence of history, never contradicts itself and has no errors or flaws, except for creation, according to them. Well On the Origin of Species was written by one man based on one experience on the Galapagos Islands. No fossil record has or ever will match up to the claims of this book, yet evolutionists still believe it, but disregard the Bible.
(above: Which is more important? On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin or the Bible written by men inspired by God)
For even mentioning intelligent design in a school or college classroom as a professor or in a book as a scientist, you could easily get fired. If you don’t believe me, watch the movie Expelled, which is about all these people who got fired because they mentioned intelligent design as a possibility, or just talked about it for a minute.
This is not just one person, but many. What’s so bad about intelligent design? Well, if someone listens to their argument then uses their five senses to experience to world, it seems obvious that there was a designer. Evolutionists want people to have faith (in evolution) and use faith as a “cop-out” in the words of Richard Dawkins. They use their faith to “evade the need to think and examine evidence.” This is what they do. Mr. Dawkins, I whole heartedly agree. Later we will talk about morality. One of the biggest reasons Christian morality is so bad to evolutionists is they want no moral accountability. They don’t want a God to exist, because they don’t want to serve him or follow his laws. Well, just because the thief, a murderer, a liar, a criminal doesn’t want the judge to exist, they don’t want the police to exist, doesn’t mean they don’t.
It may sound silly to say everything was made from nothing, but it’s true. Whether you believe in evolution or creation, there was a time when there was no earth and no chemicals. “You can’t make something from nothing. It’s just basic science,” says a college student, who believes in evolution. Then according to you, evolution must be wrong! We are more complex than nothing, and supposedly nothing made this world. Can you make a simple rose… or even smaller, an ant… or smaller, a microscopic cell? No! You cannot, but yet there is no intelligent designer and nothing (which you are 1,000 times more complex than nothing) made everything. Yet you cannot create anything. By definition, to create is to make something out of nothing, which, without a magic trick, is impossible. You can’t make a cell, even using materials, much less out of nothing.
The Missing Link
Probably the most popular controversy in evolution is the missing link. Did monkeys become humans? Did fish become land animals? Well, in the fossil record there is a “missing link”. In other words, there is no fossil of an in-between monkey-human or in-between fish-land animal. Even with this “missing link”, evolutionists still say that we were monkeys, and land animals were fish.
To find a relation (to see if we are related to monkeys as their descendant) would be like trying to figure out what the link is from record players to handheld radios. We would then need to find a record player that played the radio, a gradual evolution. It is in-between a record player and a radio. It has both. If there were such a device, we could then conclude that record players and radios are connected and eventually record players evolved into radio players. If there was not such a device, then we could conclude that the record player just wasn’t fit enough for new technology and that they did not evolve into the radio, but were just replaced by the radio. The same is true for the fossil’s missing link. There is no fossil anywhere that is an in between fish and land creatures or monkeys and humans.
Therefore scientists must logically conclude the answer to our question is no, there is no relation. If they do eventually find an in-between animal, that is not a fake, then scientists could logically conclude that there is a relation.
Richard Dawkins argues that, “We are condemned to live for only a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on.” Then Mr. Dawkins, I assume you have fossil record evidence over millions of years. Well, he doesn’t. What about the scientific record, is there any evidence written down in the past 400 years? There is not. Are there paintings of animals that are in-between species, Paintings made by cave men or even just ancient or medieval men? No! Yet, Charles Darwin will still conclude, “We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the laps of ages.” Mr. Darwin, you base everything on the “slow changes in progress” that you saw with the Galapagos birds, which just adapted, not evolved, from one kind to another, and you say that still we can see after “times has marked the laps of ages?”
(above: Richard Dawkins)
Think about the difference between humans and animals. Humans are different from animals. They are able to talk and reason. You see the law of entropy, things orderly tend to become disorderly over time. Yet apes who can’t talk, can’t reason, and only live by instinct magically turn into human beings, who can build engineering marvels. Then we come to the problem of a single cell becoming the world. Even if there were changes in kind like a cat to a dog, a fish to a lion, or anything like that, there would never have been a change in intelligence.
Do you think our brains evolved to be better than the brains of those of the Middle Ages and of the ancient world and that our brains will evolve so much more that we will look stupid to the future generations? Surely not!
If you do believe our brains evolved, consider the time from 1 AD/ CE to 1300. This is one thousand, three hundred years. What has changed in science? Not much. What has changed in technology? Barely anything! Now consider the change from 1300 to 2000. This is 700 years almost half the time as from 1 AD to 1300.
What has changed in science? Everything! It is not believed that the earth is the center of the universe. We now know universe is expanding, we have figured out how to harness electricity as well as water and wind to make electricity, and millions of other things. What has changed in technology? Everything! Even from 1900-2010, only 110 years everything has changed. Cars are unrecognizable compared to the early 1900s automobile. Does this mean that our brains evolve at different rates, according to evolutionists? So we were evolving at miniscule incremental steps for 1300 years and then evolved more and more to finally evolving full speed ahead almost 500 years after
The Common Ancestor
Creation says that there is a common ancestor. Creation says that there is a common ancestor to certain animals. This means that the common ancestor of a dog kind is not the same ancestor of the cat/ lion kind, which is not the same ancestor as the fish kind, and so on. In creation God creates animals according to their kinds without any natural selection. In Noah’s ark, Noah took animals according to their kinds, but what do we mean by kind? According to CMI, “… the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds.” We see a common ancestor.
There is a relation and proof of a common ancestor to animals. The common ancestor though, would be for only certain animal groups. For example, no animal can breed with all other animals, not even cats and rabbits, which are quite similar. A common ancestor would be an ancestor of a certain kind that is able to breed with each other. There are cross-breads of all kinds of different animals. There is such thing as a Zorse, half Zebra, and half horse. There is a Tigon, half tiger, half lion. There is a wholphin, half whale, half dolphin. These animals that breed are all similar. A zebra, horse, and donkey are all similar. It would make sense that they have a common ancestor, but not a horse and a dolphin. It would make sense that there was a horse common ancestor for the horse kind, a sea creature ancestor for the whale, dolphin, and shark kind. This is just like in the Bible and in the creation story. Noah took on his ark not two of each of the species, but two of each of the kinds. If God created kinds, this would make sense that these animals can breed to form Tigons, Zorses, Donkeys, Wholphins, and tons of others.
(above: Wholphin, photo credit Creation.com)
Are Christians Really Oppressive Compared to other Religions?
Evolutionists say that even if God is true, Christians are dangerous and oppressive. Are they trying to say no evolutionists or atheists have ever been oppressive, or that no Islamic, Catholic, Buddhist, or leader of any faith has ever been oppressive?
We are humans! Everybody makes mistakes, and Christians are no different. Considering that Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong, and others, who killed millions of people were atheists, let’s just say, Christians aren’t the worst oppressors in history. Christians have had the inquisition and witch trials. Atheists had Hitler who killed millions of Jews, blacks, and those with handicaps and disabilities. Islam has their terrorists. Both are widespread and accepted faiths, even with their flaws or problems with murdering people.
The big problem with evolution and the survival of the fittest is that the survival of the fittest to some people is something that needs to be enforced. Nazi Germany and Hitler based their ideas off Darwin. Blind, deaf, old, and other kinds of people with disabilities were not the fittest and weighed down our culture.
To have a paradise utopia, we need to get rid of the “defective” people in our culture. The truth is we are all defective. None of us are “fit”. We shouldn’t compare ourselves to others because, yes, you are better than the Joneses in one way ,and they are better than you in another. The thing is we make up for each other. “Better to get the best person in a discipline and support them with others who can compensate for their weak spots,” says Eric Barker in his article “10 things the Greatest Leaders All have in Common”. He says that judging people on what they are good at is one of the keys of being a great leader. We are all good at different things. If I am judging people by if they are good at sports, and I say those who are not good at sports are defective, is that survival of the fittest? Or take Hitler, he judged people on their health, if you are too old, if you can’t hear, if you can’t see, etc. and how you look ,and your race, if you are African or Jewish.
Currently Christians are the most oppressed religious group around according to CNS News and the Pew Research Center. Both atheism and Islam are widespread and accepted faiths even with their flaws. Christians are idiots according to atheists, and as Bill Nye said, a hindrance to science. Islamic people think non-Muslims, like Christians, should be killed
With evolution, if there is no God, there are no moral absolutes, or are there? Where does morality come from? It comes from the Bible: do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, and others are the ten commandments. If you say man determines it, what about our conscience? When we murder, steal, lie, or sin in any way, then we feel it is wrong. We feel horrible and sick inside. We know it is wrong, but how? Even for a small child it is like this. Why? Because God gave it to us. Evolutions answer, “I don’t know!”
Atheists say there are no moral absolutes. People like P.Z. Myers, a PHD and Associate Biology professor at the University of Minnesota Morris said that the big guys make the rules. And that if we lived in a time where Hitler made the rules on morality and had a majority, “We would be living,” he says, “in a society that Hitler would consider moral, but in which I would not consider moral.” This means that murder would be righteous and fine in some cultures, if murderers or survival of the fittest extremists ruled the culture.
Evidence for Evolution
The biggest question of all is what is the evidence for evolution? We already said that the missing link would prove it, yet it does not exist. Let’s start with radiometric dating. With radiometric dating, evolutionary scientists claim that different rocks and trees and things are millions and billions of years old. Is radiometric dating accurate? Well, I could give many examples of it being inaccurate, but I will only give one. In 1986, a new lava dome was formed at Mount Saint Helens. “In 1997,” writes David A. Plaisted, “five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock. We know when this dome formed. When we date rock of known age we test the claims and we see obvious failures. But, when we date rock of unknown age, we are assured that the results are accurate.”
But why is it wrong? The problem with radiometric dating is that scientists assume they know specifics about the original material. How radiometric dating works is like an hourglass Ken Ham explains in his article, Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old. “If we walk into a room” he says, “and observe an hourglass with sand at the top and sand at the bottom, we could calculate how long the hourglass has been running. By estimating how fast the sand is falling and measuring the amount of sand at the bottom, we could calculate how much time has elapsed since the hourglass was turned over. All our calculations could be correct (observational science), but the result could be wrong. This is because we failed to take into account some critical assumptions.
1. Was there any sand at the bottom when the hourglass was first turned over?
2. Has any sand been added or taken out of the hourglass? (Unlike the open-system
nature of a rock, this is not possible for a sealed hourglass.)
3. Has the sand always been falling at a constant rate?
Since we did not observe the initial conditions when the hourglass time started, we must make assumptions. All three of these assumptions can affect our time calculations.” Because radiometric dating fails to take into account these three things, it is inaccurate.
(Above: Darwin’s Finches)
The next proof, probably the most famous of them all, the adaptability of animals. Let me start out by saying that nobody is trying to say Darwin was lying, or he didn’t see the finches right, or that animals don’t adapt. I am saying there is a huge difference between the adaptability of animals and the evolution of animals. Darwin discovered how the finches beaks changed and adapted into a different looking beaks. Based on this Darwin decided that all animals must have evolved from a single cell.
These finches never evolved. These finches stayed finches. They did not change to a different kind of bird, and they definitely did not change kinds to another kind of animal. Plus when animals adapt, they normally lose the ability to do something. For example, some cormorant birds on the Galapagos Islands adapted or evolved to fit their environment so that now they cannot fly. This adaptation happened because many birds who were flying were blown out to sea by the wind and had a hard time coming back home. This new adaptation helped the birds to not get blown out to sea.
The common consensus among evolutionists that birds evolved from dinosaurs is wrong. It is true that birds are found deeper in the fossil record that their supposed ancestors. It would be like finding out that you are really older than your parents. You were born in 1965 and they were born in 1966. It would be furthermore, impossible.
(above: The Chicken-o-saurus. There are NO FOSSILS for it.)
The big question is: Where’s the observable evidence for evolution? “I’m gonna have to think about that” said a geology major at UCLA. A long pause and “I don’t know.” from a physicist. “That’s a good question,” answers a biology major. “I’ll have to think about it.” Another biology major said, “It is scientific. You can prove it. It could be proven.” When asked to do it he said, “That’s hard! That’s just too broad of a thing.” A chemistry major said that he was trusting in the biology majors and the biology professors, but then when told that all these biology majors and professors can’t give any evidence he said, “Well then there isn’t one. If they don’t give it, then I wouldn’t say there was.” To sum it up, there is no observable evidence for evolution. The evidence that is given by most evolutionists is bacteria changing to another kind of bacteria. This is not a change of a kind, a cat to a dog, ape to a human, or anything like that. It is just the bacteria as PZ Myers said, “Acquiring new metabolic capabilities.” Even the fossil record shows no evidence for Darwinian Evolution, which is not observable with the eye, but it is remains of things that used to live. The universe proves there is a God. There is no proof for evolution, and that the complexity of organisms point to an intelligent designer. On top of that, God Himself explains where everything came from.
Evidence for Christianity/Predictions
The evidence supporting Christianity is overwhelming. The most important parts of Christianity are creation, the deity of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the reliability of the Scriptures. Let’s talk about each of these important parts. We’ve already gone over creation. Why not believe one of the theories, the day-age theory that each day was actually just a long period of time, possibly millions of years, or others like it? Creation is essential to Christianity. Without creation, there is no original man and woman (Adam and Eve) meaning Adam did not fall. Then there is no need for a savior, meaning Jesus, the essence of Christianity, is unnecessary. Plus with creation and the Bible we can make predictions.
For example, a prediction made is that there is one race. In all of our skin there are pigments. A different amount of pigments changed the color of our skin. This means that just having more or less pigments makes you a certain “race”.
Disposing the myths about the resurrection
One of the most important parts of Christianity is that Jesus did die and that he rose again. It’s so funny how we used to never have much of a doubt about Jesus’ resurrection. Now people come up with all these myths about him. I’ll go through 3 of them. Jesus did not just faint from exhaustion and then wake up 3 days later. Jesus went through beating with a flagrum. This ripped open the victim. After this he couldn’t even carry his own cross. After this, a Roman Centurion had to certify and did, that Jesus was dead. Plus you still must consider how he got out of the tomb. By moving a 2,000 pound stone that took several strong Roman soldiers to move. I’m not saying Jesus was weak, because actually in reality he was quite strong. Jesus had been a carpenter for many years before his ministry. It gave his family enough money to have food and shelter. Jesus was not strong enough to move a 2,000 pound stone by himself.
Then we come to the wrong tomb myth, which is totally wrong. The first thing is could you really have Mary, Peter, Joseph of Arimathea, angels, and plenty of others go to the wrong tomb? It was in fact Joseph’s own tomb that he gave to Jesus.
You would think at least Joseph would know where it was. Second, we know Jesus has enemies. That is why he was crucified in the first place. If everyone else had gone to the wrong tomb, surely his enemies would say, “Look! You went to the wrong tomb! See, here he is!” and dispose of the resurrection “myth” immediately. However, that is not the case, and now with atheists ruling the era, we are inventing these insane myths.
The stolen body myth is not only silly, but insane. If you think it takes too much faith to believe Jesus rose from the dead, and then you definitely do not have enough faith to believe in this myth! This is the oldest myth of them all. The chief priests and Jesus’ enemies came up with this one. Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler in their book: Don’t Check Your Brains in at the Door show how when you think about it, this myth doesn’t even make sense. “Those who entertain the Stolen Body Myth suppose that a group of disciples, who days before had run like scared bunny rabbits, confronted a guard of heavily armed, battle-trained Roman soldiers. They either overpowered them or snuck past them to move a two-ton stone up an incline without waking a single man. Then… the disciples carted off Jesus’ body, hid it somewhere, and, over the course of the next several decades, endured ridicule, torture, and martyrdom to spread a lie —- what they knew to be a lie —– throughout the known world.” That last part is the most insane part of the myth. See people normally just think of the resurrection and say, “Oh! That’s it! There is no more to the story.” No, after this the disciples spread the gospel and then were killed for a lie that they started and refused to deny.
Now some people think that Jesus never rose from the dead, and that nobody in that time thought he rose from the dead until years later when the stories had been embellished so much as to have Jesus as God. Then the people, who believed Jesus was God won over the people who thought he wasn’t God. Then those who believed in Jesus’ deity took out of the Bible quotes and verses that showed a different kind of Jesus. The people who won wanted power and decided that religion was the best option. This myth is found in books like “How Jesus became God” by Bart Ehrman.
Is the Flood fairy tale or fact?
When most people think of the Bible, they think of fairy tales. The flood and Noah is historic fiction. But is the flood the reason we have fossils? There are no kangaroo fossils in Australia or Lion fossils in Israel. There are animals “native” to a certain area that don’t have fossils in that area. “We find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers that cover all the continents,” says Ken Ham. “For example, most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils.
Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas.” When you think of the Himalayas, do you think of Mount Everest? Believe it or not there are fish fossils on the Summit of Mount Everest. Could this be from the biblical flood? The flood would be what makes all the fossils as well as why some animals look like they are in pain or in a contorted position instead of the supposed idea of a meteor. Also you see that the world is an extensive graveyard.
In 1982 Mount Saint Helens erupted. A canyon was formed in 24 hours. “According to many geologists,” says Answers in Genesis, “most canyons on earth were formed as a result of slow erosion by rivers and other natural sources over time—great amounts of time. Contrary to this view, Mount St. Helens tells a different story. A small eruption in 1982 carved a canyon over 150 feet (46 m) deep in a single day!” The flood could easily be how the Grand Canyon and other canyons were formed. Mount Saint Helen’s canyon formed in 24 hours from an eruption, so couldn’t a huge flood for 960 hours form the Grand Canyon?
The Science Daily, which let me add is not a creationist site, said, “Our traditional view of deep river canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, is that they are carved slowly, as the regular flow and occasionally moderate rushing of rivers erodes rock over periods of millions of years. Such is not always the case, however. ‘We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events during Earth’s history,’ Lamb says.” Let me repeat, Michael Lamb, assistant professor of geology at the California Institute of Technology, said, “We know that some big canyons have been cut by large catastrophic flood events…” really? I wonder if anyone has ever heard of a possible catastrophic flood event in ancient history. The Science Daily still denies that this could possibly be the biblical flood. I think ALL canyons have been cut by a large catastrophic world flood event during ancient history, but one man and his family survived along with 2 of each kind of animal.
I will go ahead and say that I can’t prove how old the earth is, but neither can evolutionists. What we must do is take each piece of evidence. We will put it in the creation model and see how it fits, and then put it in the evolution model and see how it fits. Does the evolution model make sense? Also some pieces are missing from the evolution model. When we see how things fit in the creation model and biblical model, we also need to see the predictions that are made by each model. I will show you several predictions that were made based on creation and the Bible, and how they were proven right.
First, with the creation model there would be one race of humans. Considering Adam and Eve were a race and then the rest of the world were their children. Scientists have concluded that there is only one race of humans, just like the Bible said there was. Creationists say that there earth is young, probably around 6,000 years old.
“If the earth were even 20,000 years old,” writes Ken Ham “its magnetic field would have been so strong as to make life impossible, based on the present rate of decay. The theories of Humphreys and Lamb can be used to determine how much the magnetic field of an astronomical object should decay after 6,000 years at the present decay rate. The numbers that resulted from Humphreys’s theory not only matched the strengths of the known magnetic fields at the time but also successfully anticipated Voyager 2’s measurements of the magnetic field of Uranus (in 1986) and Neptune (in 1990). These results not only confirmed a creationist theory but also helped confirm that the solar system really is as young as the Bible claims.” Ken Ham also writes about another prediction made with the creation model. “When radioactive elements, such as uranium, decay, particles are released. These particles include helium atoms, which are “slippery” and make their way out of the crystals where they are formed. If uranium has been decaying at the present slow rate over millions and billions of years, most of the helium should have slipped out of rock crystals. If, in contrast, the earth is young and radioactive decay was much more rapid in the past, then we would expect to find lots of helium in the earth’s rocks. Rock was tested from a drill site in Fenton Hill, New Mexico. Large amounts of helium in crystals was found. This suggests not only that those crystals are only thousands of years old, but also that tons of radioisotope decay (which would require more than a billions of years at today’s rates) had to occur in only thousands of years. This in turn suggests that nothing on the earth can be dated any older than the Bible indicates.”
The Universe proves that there is a God, and the credibility of the scriptures. There are many flaws in radio metric dating. Evolutionists have blind faith and are still looking for their “missing link”. Could the Earth and the Universe in all its glory, splendor, and majesty been made by chance? Your soul and eternal life are at stake unless you place your faith, not blind faith, in Jesus Christ, who came to earth to die for us and to forgive us of our sins. He credits us with his righteousness so that God, a righteous judge, can justly declare us righteous. All you have to do is to accept this generous act. I hope and pray that you do.
Remember that Jesus died for you…
…but he didn’t just stay dead, but rose again as the stamp of approval from God.
If you want to contribute to the debate of creation vs evolution send in letters to P.O. Box 304 Bolingbroke, GA 31004