Christian Creation.

The Creation of Everything in our Universe


. It must be understood that there are only 2 explanations for design in nature. "A supernatural Creator or a natural process of organic evolution." so wrote Niles Eldredge in his book Fossils. Scientists generally believe in the second way because they are unable to accept the first as they claim that it is unscientific. We shall see that theirs is the one that is unscientific.
As of today, the professional Christians have given in to the shouting of the science lobby. The Roman Catholics, Anglican, Methodist and the rest have swallowed the concept of the evolution of life on Earth, the age of the Earth being 4.5 billion years plus and it all coming together by chance. How any one could look at the simplest of God's creation and think that it came together by chance is beyond understanding but there it is.
It should also be noted that all the anti-Christian institutions out there hold to the theory of evolution as their model. Perhaps that says something about the character of those so-called Christian organisations as well.
(Romans 1, verse 20.) "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even the eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse;"
We shall see that scientific fact supports the Godhead creation and debunks the theory of evolution and therefore the rest of the supposed science based theories as they all stand together and hang together. If true science does not really support the 4.5 billion years old earth, then the whole of the big-bang theory also falls. That is why they, the professional scientists, are so afraid of the creationists and their concept of the beginning of the universe.
The theory of evolution has NO starting place as the origin of life itself is unknown, to the scientists at least. In fact, the scientific law of bio-genesis (by Louis Pasteur) holds that life can only come from life, or in scientific terms, 'The formation of living organisms from their ancestors and of organelles from their precursors.' (Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary).
"Then there is the enigma of life. The biologist Richard Dawkins once declared that life "is a mystery no longer" because it had been solved by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Actually, life is still a complete conundrum, in spite of all the insights provided by evolutionary theory and more modern biological paradigms, such as genetics and molecular biology. None of these fields can tells us why life appeared on earth in the first place, and whether it was a probable event or a once-in-eternity fluke." Science at the Limits by author John Horgan in Courier UNESCO May 2001.
The latest theory to account for life on Earth is the last gasp attempt by saying there are many other universes out there, all unseen of course, and called 'the multi verse theory'.
Micho Kaku, in his book 'Parallel Worlds" quoted Alan Guth as saying "Inflation (this is expanding space, not economics) pretty much forces the idea of multiple universes upon us." One of the many possibly millions of universes, all are just a little different from ours (gravity is weaker or stronger for example) and one of these universes has throw up a very, very advanced race of their version of humans, (we would call them aliens of course) who found our universe devoid of life and so decided to put the simplest, replicating life form, possibly an amoeba like being, that then has billions of years to grow up into people like us. It is interesting to note that nearly all the scientists who go along with this theory are atheists, or at least agnostics, (such as Richard Dawkins) yet they have formulated a race of gods for us to believe in because anything that could create life on Earth must be classified by that life form as a god. This is scientific mumbo-jumbo of course for there is not one scrap of scientific evidence to support the theory. For the Christian creationist however, this is a wonderful irony because we hold that a race of aliens, namely 3 called the Godhead who live in another universe that we call eternity, that we have already pondered about, created our whole damn universe and all that is in it, including life forms (which means us as well of course) who reproduce after their own kind, a technique spoken of at least nine times in the Biblical account of creation.
. Not only is there no science that supports the beginning of life from non life but there is no science that support one kind of life form bringing forth a different form of life form, from the so-called 'founder effect'. "The beauty of this so-called "founder effect" model was that it could be tested in the lab. In reality, it just didn't hold up. Despite evolutionary biologists best efforts, nobody has even got close to creating a new species from a founder population. What is more, as far as we know, no new species has formed as a result of human releasing small numbers of organisms into alien environments." Evolution the Biggest Questions in Biology, the New Scientist , 14 June 2003. Scientists have struggled to make one kind bring forth a new and different kind but every attempt has failed, and all these attempts obviously do not relying upon chance at all, as evolution must do. The most interesting trial was with the fruit fly because it reproduced at a fast rate. These poor defenceless things were subject to bombardments of gamma radiation which caused their genes to mutate as the evolution theory claims happened. However, although they produced offspring with arms growing out of heads etc, they never got to producing a new kind of insect. The scientists gave up in the end and left the remaining fruit flies to their own devices. When, after a period of time, these scientists returned to the fruit flies, they found, no doubt to their horror, that all the mutilated ones had died and that only the original type ones were there, happily breeding pure fruit flies without any of the mutations, thus proving the words of the Bible and not the words of the evolution theory.
In the book 'Origins, Icons and Illusions by Harold R. Booker, the following quotes were detailed. Richard Goldschmidt, possibly the greatest geneticist of all time, reported in 40 years of experiments with gypsy moths, using small variations to be bred back, generations always returned back to the mean of the species.
Dr N. Heribert-Nilsson, the director of the Botanical Institute of the Lund University, Sweden, spent over 40 years trying to prove the theory of evolution but utterly failed. " Evolution rests on pure belief."
Evolutionary biologists, as they call themselves (like Richard Dawkins again), claiming that evolution is a fact but to support this they have no scientific facts. "The impossibility of the origin of life and however a near-impossibility of a chemical event must come to pass given enough years to play with." Richard Dawkins wrote in his book The God Delusion . However, in claiming that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, they have no facts to support that either. So let us look at the facts for an aged Earth or not.
1. Uranium 238 has a half life of 4.5 billion years when in that time half of the uranium radioactively turns into lead 206. (The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference 1995, page 256.) A half-life is defined as "Time in which half of a quantity of atoms of a given radio-active nuclide to undergo at least one disintegration" (Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary again.) This half life concept means that if you had 6 buckets of uranium 238 at 4.5 billions years ago, by now each bucket would be half lead and about half uranium, all mixed together. However, nowhere on Earth is there a uranium mine that has an equal quantity of lead nor does any lead mine have any uranium mixed with it. So by their own estimates, the Earth cannot be 4.5 billion years old.
2. . In 'the Universe, the Beginning and the End' by Lloyd Motz, the sun at 1 billion years old, (making this 3.5 or even 4 billions years ago) was 10 percent smaller and had only reached 0 degrees centigrade and therefore was too cool to support any life on earth.
3. The moon has been found to be increasing its orbit around the Earth by 2 or so inches every year. This was found out because the early astronauts in 1969 placed a mirror on the surface of the moon which enabled the scientists to shine a laser beam and measure the time the beam took to travel to the moon and back again. The 2 inches per year means that the moon would have been too close to the Earth about 2 billion years ago for life to have evolved, partly because the world would have been on fire and the surface melted.
"Moon is receding from the Earth at about 2 inches per year and the Earth is slowing in rotation. At the present rate of slowing down, about 2 billion years ago Earth and the Moon would have been so close that the surface would have been completely melted. 'Violent Storms by Jon Erickson'. So no life or even water then.
4. The Earth has a magnetic field that shields us from some of the radiation we get from the sun. This decreases by 6 percent every one hundred years which, working backwards, means a half life of 1400 years. This means that 1400 years ago ('The Collapse of Evolution' by Scott M. Huse), the Earth's magnetic field was twice as strong as it is now. Therefore 2800 years ago, it was 4 times as strong, 4200 years ago it would have been 8 times today's strength and 5600 years ago, then it would have been 16 times today's effort. Thus by 25000 years ago the Earth's magnetic field would have been too strong to allow life to survive on this Earth. Note also that the magnetic field of Mercury has a half life of only 400 years which means that it should not have any left at all by now.
5. The Encyclopedia of the Sun, published by the Cambridge University Press, states that the engine that causes it to shine is the inner 60 percent of the hydrogen which is crushed into helium atoms and gives off all the extra energy we see as light and feel as heat. Then 60 percent of the hydrogen in this inner 60 percent has been used up over the 5 billions years that the sun has been shining, which means that 36 percent of the original hydrogen has already gone into helium, as 60% x 60% = 36%.. For the scientifically minded among you readers, it takes 4 hydrogen atoms to make one helium atom and therefore releases the left over as radiation thus:- 1H1 x 4 = 2He4 + 2 x ep. Ep is short for electron plus positron which together form a photon of energy. For those who have forgotten, the number of positrons says that it is a hydrogen because it has 1 positron and a helium atom which has 2 positron, both in the position in the lower front and the number of neutrons which come at the higher back. From the original hydrogen atoms, every positron has its offset by an electron as the atom is neutral in force, so there are 2 electrons and 2 positrons missing from the newly made helium atom, as shown above. These join together to form 2 photons of energy that come to us, and everything else around the sun, in the form of radiation. The theory of the standard model, from which we get the 13.7 billion year old universe and all that entails, has that originally there were 10 hydrogen atoms created to every 1 helium atom at the time just after the 'big bang'. The sun was created by the swirling gasses that sank together to form the sun and all the planets etc, above 7 to 5 billion years ago so the sun must have had hydrogen to helium in the ratio of 10 to 1 when formed.
However, much to the consternation of the scientists no doubt, the same 'Encyclopedia of the Sun' has that as at today, the sun is composed of 92.1 percent hydrogen atoms, 7.8 percent helium atoms and 0.1 percent atoms of the rest. You will notice that this means that the ratio of hydrogen to helium, as at today remember, is 11.8 to 1! There is no way that the sun, starting at 10:1 hydrogen to helium and burning 4 hydrogen atoms into 1 helium atom over 4.5 billion years can now have a ration greater than when it started off. In fact the only way to get the 11.8:1 ratio is to accept that the sun was created quite recently by the Creator, and certainly did not get here by chance over billions of years ago. Even if the sun started off at 100 percent hydrogen, it would, as scientifically calculated, be at least 7:1 hydrogen to helium by now.
6) Do not let them fool you with the fossil record either. It has been found that within the certain fossils of dinosaur bones there were also discovered blood vessels and soft tissue, none of which could have survived from the supposed 65 million years. According to Dr. Ed Neeland, a professor at the University of British Colombia, as detailed on the DVD "The Amazing Design of Life", human protein molecules only come in left handed configurations, a mixture of left and right handed ones are death to the protein. Also in the sugars in the DNA structure are all right handed ones, the same problem exists if there are left handed ones there. In the Miller experiments of the 1950's and the meteorites from outer space , all the molecules are both left and right handed and so could not have been the basis for life. In the DVD "Time's up Darwin", Dr. Ed Neeland details how in dinosaur bones, blood, red blood cells, elastic tissue and even collagen have been found, materials that could not be in bones that are 65 millions years old as the materials have a half life far to short to have survived. This is confirmed in various scientific papers, such as the one in Scientific America of December 2010. The article was written by Mary H. Schweitzer about her findings of tissue found in Tyrannosaurs rex bones that have yielded organic material. Her conclusions were that, obviously, the materials must have lasted much longer that all the science to that date had proven to be true. This is instead of the obvious that the bones were not 65 millions years old. So rather than admit the young age of the bones, well established known science is thrown out of the window in order to keep the theory that has no scientific backing at all. Mark Armitage was even fired from the biology department for publishing an article detailing that evidence was found of soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil. His supervisors proclaimed that 'we will not tolerate religion in this department' even though the article made no mention of religion or criticized evolution. From Harold R. Booker's book mentioned above, Stephen Stanley of John Hopkins university, a palaeontologist, claims "The known fossils record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid'
So, the points above can all be accepted if the Earth were created yesterday, which it obviously was not, but certainly not 4.5 billion years ago (1), or 3.5 billion years ago (2), or 2 billion years ago (3) or even 25,000 years ago (4), or even yesterday (5), let's say perhaps about 6000 years ago. For those of you who held to a partial Biblical explanation of all things, now you can look with a straight face at anyone who says that we evolved over many billions of years and say that you believe the biblical explanation of the beginning of this universe and that you have science on your side.
To finish we shall look at some well-known scientist's comments:- Professor Stephen Hawking, in his famous book 'A Brief History of Time' wrote, "It would be very difficult to explain the universe should have begun in just this way except as an act of God who intended to create beings like us. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose that it had a Creator." Francis Crick (of dna fame) in his book "Life Itself", wrote "An honest man, armed with all knowledge available to us now could only state in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which have to be to get it going."
Sir Ernest Chain, co developer of penicillin, said "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically; and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
Dr. John Eddy wrote, in the Geotimes, September 1978, that "I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billions years old. However, given some new and unexplained results to the contrary and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical adjustment, I suspect that we could live with Archbishop Usshers' value for the age of the earth and sun. (4004BC) I don't think that we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that."
Here is one last thought on the subject of nature guiding itself from nothing to us. In his excellent book 'Life on Earth' by David Attenborough, and note that without any scientific support, on page 85 there is a picture of bee-mimicry by the Late Spider Orchid. This orchid, without the possession of a nose to smell, eyes to see and a brain that could use either of these to actually adjust its own body development, has produced a flower that looks like a female bee and gives off the perfume of a female bee on heat to attract male bees who then copulate with the false female bee, thinking that the are doing their useful job for the bee colony but are in fact spreading pollen for the sake of the orchid tribe. Of course David Attenborough never gives a scientific explanation as to how the orchid could develop such a brilliant way of spreading its pollen, just as he never gives a scientific reason for any of the other supposed developments throughout his book. Only a creator could have designed such an orchid! These are just a glimpse of the problems with the evolutionary theory from the scientific viewpoint. Never let any one tell you that it is based on science for it so definitely is not. The theory of evolution is based on belief for those who wish to believe that there is no Creator and therefore no judgement is in the future for them. Thus the truth of science will set you free, as much as the truth of Jesus will do for He was in the formation of that very science.
Why then, you ask, are nearly all the world's leading scientists, every institution that includes evolution in its manifesto, such as the United Nations, the Roman Catholic church, the Masons etc all follow the evolutionary line when the above seems to clear?
2 things. 1. Upton Sinclair, the American Pulitzer price winning author, claimed that you have great difficulty getting someone to agree with your concept if their salary demands that they disagree with it. (and all the so-called scientists are afraid of countering modern science)
2. Those who control the world's wealth, as in 1 above, also have a secondary design for the world and it is not for our benefit either.
Go to for parables