Dr. Russell Humphreys Discusses Starlight and TimesteemCreated with Sketch.

in truth •  last year

Dr. Humphreys provides a fascinating cosmology for how stars could appear to Adam and Eve.

For biblical creationists this seems to be completely contrary to the Bible's Young Earth perspective. Since some stars are billions of light years away, it seems foolish to believe that the universe is only 6.000 years old. This is a problem for biblical creationists and it is a huge public relations problem since it is easy for moderately educated people to understand the problem and what it means in regard to the age of the Universe.

In recent years creation cosmologists have been thinking about how to solve the problem. Several of them have come up with testable hypotheses. Dr. Humphreys has a scientifically realistic solution to the problem. His PhD is in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972. He has worked for General Electric and Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics.

Watch this video to learn about Einstein's theory of relativity, atomic clocks, an event horizon, black holes and red shift. Through this interview you will learn how modern understanding of physics helps us understand that light from the stars was indeed available for Adam and Eve to see.

The world is quickly changing in favor of creation and design. Science and technology is on our side not on the side of evolution.

To support this claim consider the predictions of evolution. The theory predicts that life began as a primitive "simple" cell and evolved into more complex organisms on up to humans. Darwin called it descent with modification. Evolutionists do not have a coherent explanation for the chemical origin of life. On the other side, the law of biogenesis states that life only comes from life, for example, puppies come from dogs – we see this everyday. It is interesting to note that biogenesis is a law but it is seldom discussed in text books while abiogenesis is speculative and is frequently discussed in basic biology text books.

Another prediction of evolution was that the universe was eternal, it was always there. Then Edwin Hubble messed things up using a telescope he revealed red shift. Even Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted that the universe had a beginning. Einstein himself did not want to believe it because the universe with a beginning is a very big problem for naturalists. Where did the universe or singularity come from? Physics tells us every cause must have an effect.

The universe having a beginning is exactly what the Bible says in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So again reality did not conform to evolutionary ideas while it fits perfectly with the prediction of creation. God being eternal and all powerful is outside of time and space. He created the laws of the universe so He is not bound by the laws. God created it all.

Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. If you were a biologist living in the age of Charles Darwin you would have believed that the simple cell was indeed "simple". That is what chemical evolution predicts -- it is the notion that chemicals in nature have the capability to combine naturally to form life. But with better scientific instruments the simple cell idea is now extinct.

So there is another prediction of evolution that has failed and is again a massive problem for evolutionists. How do you get the first proteins made (by natural causes) when numerous protein machines are required in order to make proteins? It appears that life does not just look designed -- it was designed.

Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. For decades evolutionists touted the human genome was made up of 98.5% junk. Why was it there according to evolutionists? It was the evolutionary leftovers from evolutions’ trial and error. DNA is the best evidence for evolution. Richard Dawkins wrote about Junk DNA in his best-selling book, The selfish Gene. But in recent years through the ENCODE project it was revealed to the world that Junk DNA is not junk but treasure troves of codes yet to be understood. But the damage from evolutionary thinking was done. As written in Scientific American Feb. 12, 2007 What is Junk DNA and What is it Worth? “Although very catchy, the term "junk DNA" repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years.” Here is an example where the evolution prediction is not only wrong it prevented important medical research.

Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. But this article is getting too long. I would like to discuss the topic of Mitochondrial Eve using mitochondrial DNA and how it too was wrong. I would like to discuss the so-called 1% difference between humans and chimps. Not only have the results been wrong the means for getting their results are ultra-extremely biased for finding similarity. I would like to discuss the hyper complexity of the DNA structure. I would like to discuss the nature of the code within DNA which is expressed in five ever more complex levels.

As I stated in the beginning, the evidence for creation and design is growing and is very exciting for those who believe in God.

Subscribe to this channel and check out www.EvidencePress.com to learn more.

Website Link

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

upvoted

·

Thank you for the support!