Home | Gospel Letter | TableSaw | Spanish Missions Tract | Thessalonians John | Jury Duty California | Home Defense | Blog page | Bible in History | Solar Tech | History Govt. Civilization | Ancient Climates | End of the Age | More Evidence in Science | About Me | Evidence in Science | Contact Me | Topical Bible Study Helps

More Evidence in Science

More Evidence that Demands a verdict !!!

The Great Question !!!
By Lewis Brackett.....
The great question in physics today is to find a universal theory
of everything. Science would like to combine "string theory" of the infinitely small(Micro universe) where matter is unstable; decaying and present in different
dimensions with Einstein's theory  of the galaxies (Macro universe) which shows the universe in a stable condition.
  At the time of the beginning everything started out like a  wind up alarm clock which is slowly winding/slowing down.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics amply demonstrates this as it shows the decay word total chaos of everything.
This is easily observable in String theory but is so gradual in the
large universe that it is harder to measure. 
now science is using the atomic clock to measure light.  the atomic clock is affected by the same space time forces that effect lightspeed, so both light and the clock would be increasing or decreasing at the same rate !
Since string theory says the micro-universe is unstable and slowing so the macro-universe must be slowing as well. the problem is how do you measure the length of a table that is shrinking if your ruler is shrinking also?                                                                                                              In the large einsteinium universe what science is missing is that at the beginning/creation the speed of light was instantaneous.Stellar Observations have shown that over the last 400 years the universe itself has been slowing down on a bell curve and so has light speed.
All around us decay is first observable on the cellular level .
it takes awhile for it to be easily observable in the whole organism. The universe is no different.
This problem for science will be impossible for them to resolve as long as they hold to their twin delusions of "Big Bangs" and "evolutionism"
Light is slowing down  !!!   So are Atomic Clocks !!!

I saw a great presentation  from a Chuck Missler CD showing that the speed of light is not a constant....
over the last 300 years light speed has been measured several times,,, and light has slowed down about 10%  in 300 years,,(abt 186000 mps now) showing that at creation 6000 years ago, before the fall and the "curse" ;;in the perfect creation/universe, light speed was instantaneous.... this solves how we can see galaxies at immense distances with a young earth !!!!
The speed of light has been measured 163 times by 16 different methods over the past 300 years. However, Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman, reexamining the known experimental measurements to date, have suggested a highly controversial discovery: the speed of light appears to have been slowing down!
1657: Roemer     307,600.     +/- 5400 km/sec 1875: Harvard     299,921.     +/- 13 km/sec 1983: NBS (laser method):     299,792.4358      +/- 0.0003 km/sec
      The speed of light is now measured as 299,792.4358 kilometers per second.6 (This is approximately 186,000 miles/second; or one foot per nanosecond.)

       The Canadian mathematician, Alan Montgomery, has reported a computer analysis supporting the Setterfield/Norman results. His model indicates that the decay of velocity of light closely follows a cosecant-squared curve, and has been asymptotic since 1958. If he is correct, the speed of light was 10-30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; four times as fast in the days of Abraham, and perhaps more than 10 million times faster prior to 3000 B.C.

Helen d setterfield

The following question was: "Is the speed of light constant?"  Interestingly enough, every time it was measured over the next few hundred years, it seemed to be a little slower than before. This could be explained away, as the first measurements were unbelievably rough compared to the technical accuracy later.  It was not that simple, though.  When the same person did the same test using the same equipment at a later period in time, the speed was slower.  Not much, but slower. 

  Barry Setterfield has done years of research in this area. His website is:

We have a study overviewing his discoveries, along with an interview with him, of which you can listen to large portions online:

Here's a news article on a group that independently came to the same conclusion - that light has been slowing down (God bless The Age for keeping archives):

Further links:

Truth is not a personal decision. Whether its true to YOU is irrelevant.........Truth, like the law of Gravity, just IS

There are two world views prevalent today. The first world views says “I believe “it” because its True” This has absolute laws of truth, math and physics.

The second world view is “Its true because I believe it”. This second world view has no objective truth in philosophy or science .

The presupposition of evolution violates the most basic laws of Mathematical numbers theory; the law of of probabilities; as well as the second law of Thermodynamics which is the law of ever increasing chaos in all systems.This is most evident in the rapid decay of data in ALL information storage systems.

Genetic Drift, or Natural Selection
Evolution insists that natural selection creates what is called "genetic drift". This process involves the selection of genetic traits in a species favorable to an environment with the loss of the genes not useful for existence in its environment....
If you have a heard of pigs let loose on an island, inbreeding and environment will over time simplify the genetic structure of those pigs
to fit that environment........ it has been shown that the genetic separation with other pigs not on the island will eventually be sufficient that the two groups of pigs cant be bread together.......
however, each descendant of both groups will always be a pig....
not one descendant will ever be a dog or a cat!  This shows that evolution always selects from Within a species. It does NOT create a whole new species.......... Pigs beget Pigs, Dogs beget dogs, Cats beget Cats
Peppered Moths.

Every student of biological evolution learns about peppered moths. Here we have the same issue and cause. The dramatic increase in dark forms of this species during the industrial revolution, and experiments pointing to differential bird predation as the cause, have become the classical story of evolution by natural selection. The same careful scientific approach which established the classical story in the first place, however, has now revealed major flaws in it. It is time to take another look.

The peppered moth, Biston betularia, comes in various shades of gray. One hundred and fifty years ago, the species consisted almost entirely of "typical" forms, with predominantly light gray scales interspersed with black (hence the name, "peppered"). In 1848, a coal-black "melanic" form was collected near Manchester, England, and by 1950 melanic forms made up more than 90% of the peppered moths in that area. A similar change was reported in many other species of moths, as well as in ladybird beetles, spiders, and even some birds. Since the phenomenon was observed not only around Manchester but also near other industrial centers such as Birmingham and Liverpool, it became known as "industrial melanism."

In Every case "natural selection" by "genetic drift" results in a genetically simpler animal selected for a specific environment.
This result  is the opposite of evolution tword a more genetically complex "higher" form of life.
This is Entropy in action. Entropy is ever increasing randomness
eventually resulting in total chaos. This is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.This entropy eventually causes extinction of species. It also causes old age, cancer, etc and death

Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures

From the  Y-Origins Connection

Intelligent design for everyone

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

With this statement, Charles Darwin provided a criterion by which his theory of evolution could be falsified. The logic was simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot produce complex structures in a short amount of time. It's a step-by-step process which may gradually build up and modify complex structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly.

Darwin, meet Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls "irreducible complexity." In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function.

As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe presents the humble mousetrap.

It contains five interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.

Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.

How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box"-something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more
complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated.

In fact, Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we saw in the mousetrap example. In other words, they are all-or-nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. As we saw before, such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner-it simply won't work until all the components are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at once. Remember, Darwin's mechanism is one of gradual mutations leading to improved fitness and survival. A less-than-complete system of this nature simply will not function, and it certainly won't help the organism to survive. Indeed, having a half-formed and hence non-functional system would actually hinder survival and would be selected against. But Behe is not the only scientist to recognize irreducible complexity in nature. In 1986, Michael J. Katz, in his Templets and the explanation of complex patterns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) writes:

"In the natural world, there are many pattern-assembly systems for which there is no simple explanation. There are useful scientific explanations for these complex systems, but the final patterns that they produce are so heterogeneous that they cannot effectively be reduced to smaller or less intricate predecessor components. As I will argue ... these patterns are, in a fundamental sense, irreducibly complex..."

Katz continues that this sort of complexity is found in biology:

"Cells and organisms are quite complex by all pattern criteria. They are built of heterogeneous elements arranged in heterogeneous configurations, and they do not self-assemble. One cannot stir together the parts of a cell or of an organism and spontaneously assemble a neuron or a walrus: to create a cell or an organisms one needs a preexisting cell or a preexisting organism, with its attendant complex templets. A fundamental characteristic of the biological realm is that organisms are complex patterns, and, for its creation, life requires extensive, and essentially maximal, templets."

This reference site address has been changed to
  " Genetic Rainbow  "   By Guy Cramer

Noah's Ark long thought to just be a myth finds credibility with recent Genetic Studies.Jack Armstrong emailed me a few days ago with a news story on Genetics. I will outline a brief overview of the information (a link is provided at the end of this paper).

In the ABC news article: "We Dodged Extinction" by Lee Dye, A worldwide genetic study of Humans vs. our closest living genetic cousins, the great apes of Africa, indicates that a 55 chimpanzees in a group located in West Africa have twice the genetic variability of all 6 Billion humans. These 55 chimps are more genetically different from each other then you are to any other person in the world. This finding was highly unexpected and indicates that humans came very close to extinction in the recent past.Pascal Gagneux, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California at San Diego, speaking on the findings says that our genetic variability should be at least as great as that of apes. It is nowhere near those levels.

Researchers compared 1,070 DNA sequences from apes, chimps, humans and added DNA from a Neanderthal bone. The results are very convincing, humans have the least variability. However, this low genetic variability leaves humans more susceptible to disease. "Our ancestors lost much of their original variability." "That makes perfectly good sense," says Bernard Wood, the Henry R. Luce Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University and an expert on human evolution. "The amount of genetic variation that has accumulated in humans is just nowhere near compatible with the age" of the species, Wood says. "That means youve got to come up with a hypothesis for an event that wiped out the vast majority of that variation."
That sums up the article but the researchers only conclude that some unknown event occurred in the past that eliminated almost all humans.

Of course for many people the Flood account in the Bible provides a good candidate, it tells of a large scale event that wipes out most of the population in which only 8 humans survive but this genetic research data alone does not allow for a credible flood theory.

This reference site address has been changed to

"The Origin of Information"  or how the dna molecule cannot occur by chance.

By Mark Eastman, M.D. and Chuck Missler 

    "The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in he nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for his machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information, the machinery cannot be produced. This presents a paradox of the 'chicken and egg' variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile."4

The Sunday Times June 11, 2006

I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome

THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man “closer to God”.

In 1981 Sir Fred Hoyle commented on this appeal to metaphysics:

     "I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers [DNA, RNA, proteins] on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that this is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles."18 (Emphasis added)

     If we are to assume that the laws of physics and chemistry are essentially uniform throughout the physical universe, then we must logically conclude that life could not have arisen by chance anywhere in the universe.

     Even if the laws of physics were found to be more favorable in a distant corner of the universe, there would still be no explanation for the coded information (which does not arise by chance) that is carried by the DNA molecule.

     Consequently, the source of the cellular "hardware" as well as the information carried by the DNA molecule must have been an intelligent, extra-dimensional one - beyond the bounds of space and time.

Sirius to Nova soon ??!!

  Sirius is a double star with a dwarf companion.All the ancients insist that Sirius was a red Giant star. If this was really true,and they certainly were brilliant people, this leaves us with an interesting question.
This would mean that Sirius had already exhausted its Hydrogen and was now; according to its multicolored (blue- white)spectra, be devouring its final Helium and
heavier metals.This would mean that Sirius MAY nova in the near future!

A Nova might cause Sirius to be brighter than the sun for several months especially if it goes SUPERNOVA . Supernovas occur (science thinks) when a massive star expels great quantities of its mass which are drawn into a smaller companion and ignited.

Greatly increased solar radiation IMMEDIATELY assaulting our solar system  from a nearby Supernova would cause our own sun to increase its output also, and would "burn men with fire" to quote the book of Revelation.  The nova's shockwave could reach earth in 1000 years, causing our own sun to nova, devouring the earth with fire fulfilling Bible prophecy.

Because of this, I think amateurs should keep a log of its spectral changes because if Sirius goes into its final  red stage that would mean a possible nova was imminent!!!



Solomon and Herods Temples    Did you know that the first century Jewish historian Josephus and all the ancient writers say that their temples were NOT on the "Temple mount" platform where the Dome of the rock is but on another square tower platform over the Gihon spring 600 ft SOUTH of what is now thought to be the temple mount ?
Davidic Family Quarrels

Think of the Davidic family quarrels that took place in this little town! Absalom claimed possession of the kingdom, so he climbed up on the roof of David’s palace and had intercourse with four of David’s concubines, ‘in the sight of all Israel’ (2 Sam. 16:22) where everyone in the city could look down from Mount Zion or Mount Ophel and observe the theatrical performance. That could not have happened if the palace had been up on the Dome of the Rock.

When Adonijah was celebrating his succession to the throne at Ain Rogel — just 300 metres south of Ain Gihon — Solomon, Nathan and the priest Zadok were gathered at Ain Gihon. While there, ‘Zadok, the priest, took the horn of oil from the tent’ — that is the tent of the Lord (1 Kings 2:2 8) that David estab­lished for the chest containing the contract, which he brought up to Jerusalem. There he placed it adjacent to the altar near Ain Gihon. The text continues:

‘Then he [Zadok] anointed Solomon. Then they sounded the shofar and shouted, “Long live King Solomon!”’

1 Kings 1:39

Adonijah and his friends heard the shout, just a few city blocks away. Adonijah had to run at once to David’s altar and take hold of the horns for security, but he did not have to run up to the Dome of the Rock. He had only a few city blocks to run. By the time he got there, Solomon had already ridden his father’s mule to the palace, just a short distance from the spring where he had been anointed, and he was sitting on the throne when people told him Adonijah was asking for security. Solomon promised that so long as Adonijah remained virtuous he would be secure, but if he did anything evil he would die. He soon displeased Solomon, and Solomon had him killed. All of these events took place within easy walking distance of one another (1 Kings 1:5–2:25).

AND scripture shows the spring was just south of the Altar in the Temple...Ezekiel 47:1  Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar.   

Enter supporting content here