The Bible and what it is

What is the Bible?

The Bible is loved by Christians as the word of God, but it is also hated by those to whom it brings conviction of their sin. The importance of what the Bible is can not be understated. It is the most well preserved piece of  ancient literature there is, but since the Bible is the word of God it it the most important piece of  literature in existence, and it is ignored at the peril of your soul.

The Bible tells the fall of mankind in the Garden of Eden and about God's plan to bring about the redemption for mankind by the death, burial and resurrection Jesus Christ. Romans 3:23 says that all men have sinned and deserve the penalty for their sin of  spiritual death in hell. As a result every one of us needs redemption and Jesus has payment of the penalty for all our sins by of His death on cross means that God can offer us eternal life with Him as a the free gift. (Romans 6:23) Accepting God's free gift of salvation is by believing on Jesus and His redemptive work of dying on the cross and raising from the dead (Romans 10:9,10) and repenting of your sins. (Acts 20:21)  After this, it is simply a matter of asking the Lord to come into your heart and save you. (Romans 10:13)  Accept God's gift of salvation by believing the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour.

Radiometric dating - Erroneous Radiometric dates.

As stated before rocks are not dated by plugging them in to an ACME dating machine. Dating labs do not measure time but measure isotopes ratios. Are these ratios the result of radioactive decay over time or other processes that have taken place in the rock? 

Uinkaret Plateau
Ages of Rocks in Millions of Years

K-Ar	Rb-Sr	Rb-Sr Isochron	Pb-Pb Isochron
0.01	1230 - 1310	1300 - 1380	2390 - 2810
1.0 - 1.4	1260 - 1380
2.63	1310 - 1370
3.6	1320 - 1440
3.67	1360 - 1420

Some times different methods used on the same rock, produce different ages. Further more the same method can produce different ages on different parts of the same rock. Some times these are close but other times they are vary different.

---

Anomalous dates

 Some times radiometric dating produces impossible results.

Uranium-Thorium-Lead Method
Ages in Billions of Years

Apollo Sample #	Low	High	Age Inconsistencies  extremes in billions  of Years
14310	5.3	11.2	5.9
14053	5.4	28.1	22.7
15426	4.6	16.2	11.6
66095	5.6	14.1	8.5

Some soil from the Moon has been dated as more than a billion older than the uniformitarian age for the Moon. It was explained by processes of heating and cooling soil had been through.

Some rocks dated older than the
4.5 billion year evolutionary age for Earth.

Description	Method	"Date" in  billion years.
Diamonds from magma	K-Ar Isochron	6.0 +- 0.3
Rock	Rb-Sr Isochron	8.75
Rock	Rb-Sr	8.3
Rock	Re-Os	11

---

Recent or young  volcanic rocks producing excessively old K-Ar "ages":

Name	Location	Real Date	K-Ar date
Kilauea Iki basalt	Hawaii	AD 1959	8.5±6.8 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt	Sicily	May 1964	0.7±0.01 Ma
Medicine Lake  Highlands obsidian	Glass Mountains,  California	<500 years	12.6±4.5 Ma
Hualalai basalt	Hawaii	AD 1800-1801	22.8±16.5 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt	Pacific Ocean	<1 Ma	690±7 Ma
Olivine basalt	Nathan Hills,Victoria  Land, Antarctica	<0.3 Ma	18.0±0.7 Ma
Anorthoclase in  volcanic bomb	Mt Erebus,  Antarctica	1984	0.64±0.03 Ma
Kilauea basalt	Hawaii	<200 years	21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt,	Hawaii	<1,000 years	42.9±4.2 Ma;  30.3±3.3 Ma
Sea mount basalt	Near East Pacific Rise	<2.5 Ma	580±10 Ma;  700±150 Ma
East Pacific Rise basalt	Pacific Ocean	<0.6 Ma	24.2±1.0 Ma

---

  Examples of  negative ages

Name	Date	Ar-Ar age
Glass Mountain	AD 1579 - 1839	-130,000  -30,000 years
Mt. Mihara	AD 1961	- 70,000  years
Sakurajima	AD 1946	-200,000 years

G.B. Dalrymple, "⁴⁰Ar/³⁶Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows," Earth and Planetary Science Letters,6 (1969): pp. 47-55.

Some rocks have been measured with negative radiometric ages, in some case in terms of millions of years. Isochron dating can also produce negative ages, by producing a negative slope. K-Ar and Ar-Ar can result in negative ages when atmospheric argon is considered. So if these are real dates then you can hold a rock in your hand that wont form for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years yet.

Now in all fairness Ar-Ar dating can get the right age for a sample of known age, but it can also date samples as way too old, but without a known date there is no way of knowing when it is too old. One key factor is the fact that Ar-Ar dating need a standard of "known" age. If standard is of historically known age, such as would likely be used for testing Ar-Ar dating on sample of known age, then one would be more likely to get the correct age. For allegedly older samples K-Ar is used to "date" the standard and as such it still has the same problems as K-Ar dating.

--

Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Mission
Genesis Mission
Creation Science Talk

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Radiometric dating - The assumptions of Radiometric dating

http://genesismission.4t.com/Radiodating/methods.html

Some of the basic Dating Methods are as follows:

• Samarium - Neodymium. (Sm-Nd)
• Rhenium - Osmium (Re-Os)
• Uranium / Thorium - Lead. ( U/Th-Pb)
• Ribidium - Strontium (Rb-Sr)
• Potassium - Argon (K-Ar)
• Argon - Argon (Ar-Ar)
• Lutetium - Hafnium (Lu-Hf)

All these methods rely on the changing ratio of  parent or daughter isotopes in a closed system. Now such a closed system does not really exists, but open system affects can't be determined easily, so it is hoped that they about balance out. These methods all have the same basic assumptions.

1. Constant decay rate.
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope.
3. Known amounts of daughter isotope at start.

Realizing the difficulty of dealing with assumptions #2 and #3 above Isochron Dating was developed in an attempt to solve this problem. According to theory the sample starts out with daughter isotopes ratio with other isotopes of the same element at a constant value, but with the parent isotope is arbitrary. As a result is forms a strait horizontal line on a graph. As parent decays to daughter, the ratios change and the straight line remains but becomes angled. The slope of the line equals the number of half-lives of the parent isotope has passed sense solidification.

A shift  from contamination can take place in all of the data points, but such contamination does not affect all data points equally, so it can cause the data points to shift off the true Isochron completely. Given this when one looks at an Isochron plot how can one really tell where the true Isochron line should be. Sufficient contamination can produce any Isochron pattern regardless of the true Isochron. It is even possible to get a negative slope, this would be equivalent to a negative or future date.

When you look at actual isochron plots such as the ones at above link, there seems to be room for subjectivity. Some are better than others but there is often room for multiple plot lines. Even uniformitarian geologists recognize the existence of false isochron. So how do they distinguish good data from bad? The answer is where the sample fits in the Geologic Column.

The unique key assumption of Isochron dating is that the affect of contamination does on the Isochron can be determined. However the quality of an Isochron is still judged by where the sample fits in the Geologic Column. Also like all forms of radiometric dating it assumes that nuclear decay rates are constant, an assumption which will later be shown false.

--
Charles Creager Jr.
Genesis Science Mission
Genesis Mission
Creation Science Talk

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Radiometric dating - The theory behind Radiometric dating.

The theory behind radiometric dating is actually quite simple.  Every Atom of a given element has the same number of protons, but there are varieties in the number if neutrons. These varieties are called isotopes. Some of these isotopes decay (parent isotope) into other isotopes of other elements (daughter isotope). The time is takes for half of a sample of a given isotope to decay is called its half life. The half life of a given isotope can be as small a fractions of a second to billions of years. Some as far as we know are stable and do not decay.

Measurements of the half lives show that in general they are constant though there have been some reports of small variations. It is these half lives that form the theoretical bases of radiometric dating. The basic idea is that if you have x amount of the parent isotope and y amount of the daughter isotope that given a constant half life you can calculate how much time parent isotope would have to decay to produce the measured amount of the daughter isotope.

Next the assumptions of Radiometric dating

Evidence Claimed of a Forming Planet

Astrophysicists have claim that they found evidence of of planet forming around a star with the unimaginative name of HD100546. It is located 335 light years from Earth and has a diameter 2.5 times larger than that of the sun.  HD100546 is also  30 times brighter than the Sun. As is often the case with such claims the facts do not live up to the claim being made.  Now no actual observation of a planetary body of any kind has actually been made let alone one that can objectively be considered to forming. what has actually be been observed is a excess carbon monoxide emission  source who's velocity and position seems vary in a manner that indicates that it orbiting around the star.

The claim of a forming planet is nothing  more than the hypothesis that the emission is a result of a circumplanetary disk of gas orbiting a gas giant about three time the size of Jupiter. A similar claim had been made before form around this star in the form of a faint blob of gas at about the distance of Pluto from the sun. Even with this large star are according to planet formation theory, a planet should not be forming that far out however this could simply be a Jupiter size planet with some gas and dust around it.  


The star have a disk of dust and gas orbiting it, but the logic behind the claim of forming planets is the assumption that planets and stat actually form from dust and gas in space. The theory generally referred to as the Nebula Hypothesis is a purely atheistic theory of the origin of stars and planets, that was specifically designed to explain the existence of stars and planets apart from God. The theory that has problems requiring repeated patching to protect it from reality. The reasoning behind this claim is that planets form discs of dust and gas around star, so finding evidence for planets inside a disc of dust and gas around a star gets interpreted as forming planets.

 

Lunar recession and the Age of the Earth Short Version

 

 

The longer version contain the math used to calculate the results, to watch it click on the following link. 

Lunar recession and the Age of the Earth

 



Measurements of the distance to moon made using retro-reflectors left on the moon by Apollo astronauts has shown the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.82 cm per year. Measurements using atomic clocks have shown that an day is Earth are getting longer at a rate of 1.7 milliseconds per day per century.  

 

Now it turn out that these two phenomenons are related to each other by way of the tidal forces between the Earth and the Moon. It has been know for decades that when these figures are plugged into the laws of physics that they show that the Earth moon system can not be more than about1.25 billion years old.

 



Such calculations are largely dismissed by those claiming that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. They also point to paleontological data as evidence that the moon is receding and it is receding at a rate compatible with 4.5 billion years. These claims not only ignore alternative interpretations of the fossils and rocks in question but they usually use only one or two data points when multiple data point are used the scattering in the data is not what would be expected if it were really a result of the slowing of the Earth rotation.

It also turns out that when any model using a 4.5 billion year old earth-moon system is plugged into the same laws of physic they never produce the current Earth-Moon system with out significant tweaking and then the always come in below the paleontological data. This includes the currently accepted “Giant Collision Hypothesis of the Origin of the Moon.”

Furthermore when the same paleontological data is plugged into the same laws of physics it produces a maximum age for the Earth-moon system of about 2.067 billion years. Tweaking this model to make it reach 4.5 billion years requires putting an impossibly small delay time in high tide of less than 24 seconds.

There is simply no way of reconciling a 4.5 billion year old Earth-moon system with the laws of physics and the paleontological data claimed as evidence for the same. They simply do not and can not be made to match up. All of this makes a very strong case that earth-moon system can not be 4.5 billion years old.

 



Asteroid 2014 RC

At 2:18 p.m. on September 7 Asteroid 2014 RC will pass 25,000 miles from Earth  or about 10% of the distancebetwen the Earth and the Moon. Asteroid 2014 RC is just 60 feet across ans will not be visible to the unaided eye. It is no danger of an impact with the Earth but in Astronomy terms it is a near miss, Even  it did impact the explosion would only  be at about 90 kilotons of TNT or 4 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki Japan.  

The Nebula Hypothesis claims that asteroids a remnant from formation of the solar system but the theory has problems with an inbalences of angular momentum. Further more thereare real planets both in the solar system and exoplanets that are not in orbits predicted by the Nebula Hypothesis. Alternative theories include an exploded or shattered planet between Mars and Jupiter. They could have originated from outside the solar system which from a creationist perspective could have been created on day four of the creation week with the rest of the universe. There is  also the idea that they formed from material ejected from Earth during the Genesis Flood.

 

Old Earth evidence - Radiometric dating

At first glance radiometric dating seems like a quite convincing method for obtaining absolute ages of rocks, however looking further shows that there is actually evidence against its accuracy. In turn I will be dealing with the following topics on Radiometric dating.

 

The theory behind Radiometric dating.

 

The assumptions of Radiometric dating

 

Erroneous Radiometric dates.

 

Possed Young Earth Solutions.

 

R.A.T.E

 

Conclions on Radiometric dating

 

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

History of Astronomy

http://genesismission.4t.com/Astronomy/history.html

 

http://gscim.com/astro/history_of_astronomy.html

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvDAlvwRPw4

 

 

I have posted some introductoru material on the History of Astronomy. Astronomy is the one area that creationist have made some real progress in rececnt years. Humphreys' model of planetary magnetic feilds has has been quite sucessful in predicting the magnetic field stregnths if planets and moons.While the above links do not mention Humphreys' model being introductory it does bust the anti Chrtistian myth surounding Galileo and his trouble with the Catholic Church.

 

 

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Distant Star light - Time Dilation models

There are three main theories the use time dilation. They are Dr, Robert Herrmann's rapid formation model, Hartnett's cosmology based on Cosmological Relativity, and Humphreys' White Hole cosmology.

 

Rapid formation

 

Dr, Robert Herrmann's rapid formation basically postulates that God had rest of the Universe sensually on fast forward during day for of creation. While it does maximize the God's miraculous involvement, it lacks  specific predictions that distinguish it from any of the other models in fact you can place the other two models within rapid formation. It's main flaw is that whiles is explains how we can see distant star light, it dose not explain or predict any thing else, this reduces its apologetic value to eliminating the one problem of seeing distant star light.

 

 

Cosmological Relativity.

http://genesismission.4t.com/Physics/cr.html

 

Hartnett's cosmology is based on a theory in physics called Cosmological Relativity developed by Moshe Carmeli with John Hartnett adding some further it. In particular he found a cosmological relativistic solutions to galactic rotation rates that dose not use dark mater. Now when Hartnett applied Cosmological Relativity to a bounded universe he found that it the expansion rated had been fast enough in the past that being at the center time on the the Earth would have been much slower than in the rest of the universe. This approach has three main draw backs:

1. Cosmological Relativity is not widely accepted.

2. The exact one way light revel time to the Earth is not exact and depends on a constant of arbitrary value.

3. The time dilation described by this model would not have left any evidence that it had occurred.

 

White Hole cosmology

http://genesismission..4t.com/sldp/WHC.html

 

Humphreys' White Hole cosmology, was first proposed in his book Star Light in Time and to day it has wide acceptance among Young Earth Creationists. Based on General relativity it is grounded in accepted physics giving it great apologetic value. While it has has some developmental hic cups Humphreys has solve many of the m by discovering that for an object at rest with in an event horizon time is stopped. The result is that the Earth would have been in an achronous region wher time was stopped while distnat star light made it way to Earth. Most of the criticism of this cosmology by evolutionists is based on problems with the initial version of it as well as misunderstanding it. This is a theory that the mor it is refined the better it gets.

 

I currently have my refinement to the White Hole cosmology under review for publication. Based on a new metric is inproves on Humphreys achronous region by kepping the space around the Earth flat. One of the results of this new metric is that it explains Type Ia supernovae data inerpreted as an accelerating expansion as being a reult of a bounded unverse and particularly one bounded by a large amount of water.

 

So while the Distant Star light  was once one of the most challenging peice of evidence used to support and Old Earth ir has been solved.

 

Next  Radiometric dating. 

 

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Distant Star light - Decay of the speed of light.

The idea that the speed of light had decreased since creation, was first proposed by Barry Setterfield in the 1980's. While it initially resulted in some excitement  It was based on the some old measurements of the speed of light, most of which are highly inaccurate and the oldest of which has been recalculated showing an error in the original calculation  with the corrected value within the margin of error of the accepted value for the speed of light. While it still has its supporters It has fallen out of favor.

 

http://www.icr.org/article/has-speed-light-decayed/

 

Despite its failing C-decay stands out the first scientific theory proposed by Young Earth Creationists to solve the distant star light problem. It's real legacy is that it sparked the idea the the distant star light problem might have a scientific solution. 

 

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Distant Star light - The distances are wrong.

This questions if the distances are being measured accurately since you can not use a ruler to do it. The basic method of measurement which is stellar parallax is based on geometry and would be quite accurate but it only works up to about 100 Light years, so go further required other forms of measurement. This idea suggested that the other forms of measurement may not be accurate. However the assumptions behind using Cepheid stars and galactic redshift are reasonable enough that they are probably off by no more than a factor of 10 not the factor of 2,200,000 needed by this claim.  

Parallax

 

The most basic way of determining the distance to star is by way of parallax. This method is based on geometry but it is useful only up to a dew hundred light years because then the angle get too small to measure.

 

Cepheid variable stars

 

Cepheid variable stars are large bright stars that vary in brightness over days and based on Cepheid variable stars close enough for their distances to be measured by Parallax their absolute brightness can be shown to be related to the length of their period of variability this means that they can be used as a standard candle for measuring distance. This method works up to about 50 megaParsec  (163 million light years)

 

Galactic Redshift

 

It was as a result of easements of Cepheid variable stars it was found that the light from galaxies is resifted proportionally to their distance. This works to at least 10's of billions of light years.

 

Type Ia supernovae

 

These are new commers to the list the are a result of whift dwarf stars that build up material from a large commpanion star that builds up until it explodes in a vary predictable way, resulting in a constent brightness, producing a new standard candle that is good for billions of light years.

 

The fact that these methods can all cross checked and are ultimetly based on the gomotry of Parallax shows that any error in calculating distances would is no greater than a factor of 10. But since this idea requiers a factor of 2,200,000 it is clearly wrong. While questioning the assuptions behind scientifc conclusions is a good thing to in this case it just dose not pan out.

 

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Distant Star light - Light created in transit.

This is the idea that God created the star light already in transit from the stars on day four of the creation week without having to cover the distances. IT was the first proposed solution to this problem and it was based in the idea of a mature Creation.

 

The main argument against this idea is that it make most of what we see in the universe distance greater than 6500 light years a fiction that never happened. This put God’s honesty in to question since most we see of God’s creation 99.999975% by distance would be fictitious. Because of this the Light created in transit has been largely abandoned.

 

 

Other major problem with it is the fact that it is inherently untestable making it totally unscientific and of little if an apologetic value.

 

One possibility of solving some these problem comes this idea the the Universe is fundamentally information. One aspect of my model which I call the Information Universe is that the information about the state of an object is not fully processed until it is observed by a conscious entity. In this case a distant star and other distant objects exist only as mathematical probabilities that are narrowed when we observe it in a given state from its light to the range of mathematical probabilities constent with the observations. In this case distant events are just mathematical probabilities the program of the Unisvese with no actaull reality until it light is observed. This both eliminates the problem of God creating sn object in deep space with apparent history, making it no more dishonsest than the back ground of a video game. It also provides a scientific backfround for the Light created in transit.

 

The big problem and one reason why I do accept this is that it still makes the observed events of the Universe 99.999975% fictitious and dishonest or not God would still be giving sinnful men an excuse to denigh the The word of the the salvation offered through faith in Jesus Crist.

 

The other problem is that even within the Information Universe there is no reason why God could have not let the universe have a real history even in the context of the mathematical probabilities and so there is no reason for creating the Light from distant objects in transit.

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Most challenging - Distant Star light

Without a doubt the strongest evidence for vast time is distant star light. Unlike most dating methods it strait forward in the formula is t = d /c where t = time, d = distance and c = the speed of light. It really only requires two assumptions. One is that the distances are real and other is that the speed of light is constant. This simplicity has made it the toughest claim of vast time for Young Earth Creationists to deal with. However there have been Young Earth Creationists several theories to deal with this. I will deal with each of these briefly in this posting and the each of them in turn in more detail in separate posts

 

 Light created in transit.

 

This is the idea that God created the star light already in transit from the stars on day four of the creation week without having to cover the distances. The main argument against this idea is that it make most of what we see in the universe distance greater than 6500 light years a fiction that never happened. This put God’s honesty in to question since most we see of God’s creation 99.999975% by distance would be fictitious.

 

The distances are wrong.

 

This questions if the distances are being measured accurately since you can not use a ruler to do it. The basic method of measurement which is stellar parallax is based on geometry and would be quite accurate but it only works up to about 100 Light years, so go further required other forms of measurement. This idea suggested that the other forms of measurement may not be accurate. However the assumptions behind using Cepheid stars and galactic redshift are reasonable enough that they are probably off by no more than a factor of 10 not the factor of 2,200,000 needed by this claim.  

 

Decay of the speed of light.

 

This is the idea that the speed of light had decreased sine creation, maybe starting with the fall. It was based on the some old measurements of the speed of light, most of which are highly inaccurate and the oldest of which has been recalculated showing an error in the original calculation  with the corrected value within the margin of error of the accepted value for the speed of light. While it still has its supporters  it has fallen out of favor.

 

Time Dilation

 

This is in general the basic idea proposed by Russell Humphreys and John Hartnet. While there different versions of this idea it proposed that the Earth experienced one or two pariods of  time dilation (slowed down time) usually durring the first four days of the creation week and durring the Flood. When using General Reletivity this aproach has the most appologetic value since it requiers no new physics and it has the advantage being expandable to a general Young Earth cosmology.

 

 

There other theories that have been proposed but they never caught on. These four will be elaborated on it future postings.

 

Most challenging Old Earth evidence.

This the next part in may series on Evidence for Young Earth Creation. This part deals with the most challenging Old Earth evidence that is the evidence that that is used to claim an old Earth that have posed the biggest challenges for Young Earth Creationist. This does not mean they are unanswered but they have been the hardest to deal with. What follows is the list of topics that I plan on dealing with here. I would also like any suggestions you will have. They will be considered for inclusion as long as I get the suggestion before I conclude this part.

 

Top List

 

Distant Star light.

Radiometric dating.

Carbon 14 Dating.

The 4.5 Billion year age given for the Earth,

Craters.

The fossil record.

The Geologic Time scale.

Sedimentology.

 

By the way I know that Radiometric dating, Carbon 14 Dating, and the 4.5 Billion years all deal with Radiometric dating but Carbon 14 Dating, and the 4.5 Billion year are specialized areas that need special treatment.

 

As I said feel free to make suggestions. The most likely reason why I may not include it is if I think it is best included under “Alleged Old Earth evidence easily dealt with.”

 

Analysis of Kepler-186f

http://gscim.com/phy/Thermodynamics/Statistical_Thermodynamics.html

 

The discovery of Kepler-186f announcement of an Earth size planet inside its star's habitable zone produced excitement as well as speculation about life existing on this plane and possibly intelligent life. Also followed were the usual artist depictions of the planet making it look similar to Earth. However an actual analysis of Kepler-186f shows that all it really has in common with the Earth that it is similarity in size with Earth.

 

 Despite  the atheistic evolutionary presupposition  that Kepler-186f might be habitable, there is no  evidence that ithas even a drop liquid water, and even if it did that is not evidence for life. However behind the repeated desperate hopefulness of finding life on one of these exoplanets is the theory abiogenesis a theory of biological origins that is thermodynamically impossible. Abiogenesis is the theory that life arose spontaneously for non living chemicals. The thermodynamic impossibility of abiogenesis results from statistical thermodynamics and not from the 2nd law. However the desperation for atheists to explain how we got here without God requires them assume that life arose spontaneously for non living chemicals no mater how much the laws of physics say it can't happen.

 

 

Neanderthals as smart as modern man

http://www.newser.com/story/186220/modern-humans-no-brainier-than-neanderthals.html

 

While Evolutionists have tented to depict Neanderthals as intellectually inferior brutes, Creationists have been saying that they were at least as intelligent as we are.

 

Now Evolutionists looking for support for the intellectually inferior brutes idea have shown that Neanderthals were at least as intelligent as modern man.

 

Now while they would never admit it, these Evolutionists have shown the Creationists have been right on the intelligents of Neanderthals all along.  

 

So once again creationist models of the past have made a successful prediction, while the Evolutionist has missed it.

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

 

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creation - the Kings

From the previous post we have the time from Creation to the beginning of Saul’s rain at 3329 years +/- 40 and1667 years +/- 35 since the Flood.

 

Acts 13:21 (KJB)  And afterward they desired a king:
and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man
of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.

 

Saul’s rain would is given as 40 years

 

2 Samuel 5:4 (KJB) David was thirty years old when
 he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.  

 

David reigned 40 Years

 

1 Kings 11:42 (KJB)  And the time that Solomon
reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years.

 

Solomon reigned 40 Years

 

This gives us a time for the unuited kindom of 120 years +/- 1

 

 

 

1 Kings 14:21 (KJB)  And Rehoboam the son of
Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty
and one years old when he began to reign, and he
reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city
which the LORD did choose out of all the tribes
of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's
name was Naamah an Ammonitess.

 

Rehoboam reigned 17 Years

 

1 Kings 15:1-2 (KJN)

1  Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam
the son of Nebat reigned Abijam over Judah.

2  Three years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his
mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of
Abishalom.

 

Abijam reigned 3 Years

 

1 Kings 15:9-10 (KJV)

9  And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king
of Israel reigned Asa over Judah.

10  And forty and one years reigned he in

Jerusalem.. And his mother's name was Maachah,

the daughter of Abishalom.

 

Asa reigned 41 Years

 

1 Kings 22:41-42 (KJB)

41  And Jehoshaphat the son of Asa began to
reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab
king of Israel. 42  Jehoshaphat was thirty and
five years old when he began to reign; and he
reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem.
And his mother's name was Azubah the
daughter of Shilhi.

 

Jehoshaphat reigned 25 Years

 

2 Kings 8:16-17 (KJB)

16  And in the fifth year of Joram the son of
Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then
king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat
king of Judah began to reign. 17  Thirty and
two years old was he when he began to reign;
and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.

 

Jehoram reigned 8 Years

 

2 Kings 8:26 (KJB) Two and twenty years
old was Ahaziah when he began to reign;
and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And
his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter
of Omri king of Israel.

 

Ahaziah reigned 1 Years

 

2 Kings 11:1-4 (KJB)

1  And when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah
saw that her son was dead, she arose and
destroyed all the seed royal.

2  But Jehosheba, the daughter of king Joram,
sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of Ahaziah,
and stole him from among the king's sons which
were slain; and they hid him, even him and his
nurse, in the bedchamber from Athaliah, so that
he was not slain.

3  And he was with her hid in the house of the
LORD six years. And Athaliah did reign over
the land.

4  And the seventh year Jehoiada sent and
fetched the rulers over hundreds, with the
captains and the guard, and brought them to
him into the house of the LORD, and made
a covenant with them, and took an oath of
them in the house of the LORD, and shewed
them the king's son.

 

Queeb Athaliah reigned 7 Years

 

2 Kings 12:1 (KJB)  In the seventh year of
Jehu Jehoash began to reign; and forty years
reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's
name was Zibiah of Beersheba.

 

Jehoash reigned 40 Years

 

2 Kings 13:10 (KJB)  In the thirty and seventh
year of Joash king of Judah began Jehoash the
son of Jehoahaz to reign over Israel in
Saria, and reigned sixteen years.

2 Kings 14:1-2 (KJB)

1  In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz
king of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash
king of Judah. 2  He was twenty and five years
old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty
and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother's
name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem.

 

From these veres we get a 2 year co-rain between Amaziah and his father Joash reducsing Amaziah 29 years to 27.

 

2 Kings 15:1-2 (KJB)

1  In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam
king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah
king of Judah to reign. 2  Sixteen years old
was he when he began to reign, and he reigned
two and fifty years in Jerusalem. And his
 mother's name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem.

 

Azariah/ Uzziah reigned 52 Years

 

2 Kings 15:32-33 (KJB)

32  In the second year of Pekah the son of
Remaliah king of Israel began Jotham the
son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign.

33  Five and twenty years old was he when
he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen
years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name
was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok.

 

Jotham reigned 16 Years

 

2 Kings 16:1-2 (KJB)

1  In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of
Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah
began to reign.

2  Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to
reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and
did not that which was right in the sight of the
LORD his God, like David his father.

 

Ahaz reigned 16 Years

 

2 Kings 18:1-2 (KJB)

1  Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea
son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son

of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.

2  Twenty and five years old was he when he
began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine
years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was
Abi, the daughter of Zachariah.

 

From these veres we get a 2 year co-rain between Hezekiah and his father Ahaz reducsing Amaziah 29 years to 27.

 

2 Kings 21:1 (KJB)  Manasseh was twelve years
old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty
and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother's
name was Hephzibah.

 

Manasseh reigned 55 Years

 

2 Kings 21:19 (KJB)  Amon was twenty and
two years old when he began to reign, and he
reigned two years in Jerusalem. And his

mother's name was Meshullemeth, the daughter
 of Haruz of Jotbah.

 

Amon reigned 2 Years

 

2 Kings 22:1 (KJB)  Josiah was eight years old
when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and
one years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name
was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath.

 

Josiah reigned 31 Years

 

2 Kings 23:31 (KJB) Jehoahaz was twenty and
three years old when he began to reign; and he
reigned three months in Jerusalem. And his
mother's name was Hamutal, the daughter of
Jeremiah of Libnah.

 

Josiah reigned 3 Months

 

2 Kings 23:36 (KJB)  Jehoiakim was twenty and
five years old when he began to reign; and he
reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his
mother's name was Zebudah, the daughter of
Pedaiah of Rumah.

 

Jehoiakim reigned 11 Years

 

2 Kings 24:8 (KJB) Jehoiachin was eighteen
years old when he began to reign, and he
reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his
 mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter
of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

 

Jehoiachin reigned 3 Months

 

2 Kings 24:18 (KJB) Zedekiah was twenty
and one years old when he began to reign,
and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem.
And his mother's name was Hamutal, the
daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah.

 

Zedekiah reigned 11 Years

 

2 Kings 25:2 (KJV) And the city was besieged unto the eleventh
year of king Zedekiah

 

Jerusalem was besieged untill the of the 11’s year of Zedekiah  and fell to Nebuchadnezzar about six months later.

 

This gives us a time for the Kings of Juda of 391 years +/- 10

 

For a total time from Saul to the Fall of Jerusalem was 511 years +/- 11

 

From the previous post we have the time from Creation to the Fall of Jerusalem at 3840 years +/- 51 and 2178 years +/- 46 since the Flood.

 

Now based on a combination of archyology and the Biblical account the Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar occurred in 607 B.C.

http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm

 

This date creation to 4,447 B.C. and the Genesis Flood to 2,785 B.C.

 

It is now the 2014 AD so that means that it has now been 2,620 years +/- 1  since the Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar.

This means that Based on the Bible the age of the Earth is nowt 6,460 years +/- 52 old.

This also shows that the Flood occurred 4,798 years +/- 47 ago.

 

So if we take the Biblical account literally we have to conclude that the Earth and Universe were created less than 7,000 years ago, why when compared to 4.5G and 13.5G from Evolutionists would qualify as young.