No Conflict Between Science and the Bible: Six Day Creation 6000 Years Ago

I hope you noticed that sentence was not complete. The Bible Is Not Needed to Know God is Real and Evolution is a Myth. In other words you don't need the Bible to know evolution never happened. Here are five reasons: #1 Mutations are harmful. #2 Natural selection cannot direct the course of evolution. #3 It is impossible for genetic changes, that require more than two steps, to ever happen. #4 It is totally impossible for even simple proteins, the building blocks of life, to form outside of a living organism. #5 Life only comes from life. God says we can know He exists by looking at His creation. And when we do look, it is obvious it is His creation. For details, go to: http://www. SciencePastor.com/obvious

When talking about Genesis and creation with a Christian who believes in evolution, there are many questions they need to answer. Here are just three: 1. How do you know what in the Bible is true, and what is myth or allegory? How do you determine when a plain reading of scripture is not the correct way to read scripture? 2. Is there anything you would accept as proof God created everything in six days? 3. If humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes, why are apes in zoos and humans are not? For more, go to: http://www.SciencePastor.com/theisticevolution

Here are three questions to ask someone who believes in evolution... #1 - How do you define evolution? Proving evolution true is done by changing the definition in the middle of the conversation. If you define evolution correctly, it's game over. #2 - Has evolution ever been observed as it happened? No. Never #3 - How did life originate? Life originating from non-life was proven impossible over 150 years ago. Evolutionists have no reasonable answers... Go to http://www.SciencePastor.com/questions for more information and links to additional questions.

It has been known since the late 1960's that evolution is impossible. Yet, 50 years have gone by and people still hang on to their belief in evolution. Year after year the evidence against evolution piles up, it is is a fairy tale. So why do people keep hanging on to this dead theory? Because they reject God and love their sin. John 3:19 -- “The Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light” For the historical background go to: http://www.SciencePastor.com/1960s

First, Noah didn't need to take all the animals. All he needed was two of every kind. That's about 16,000 animals, including the dinosaurs. And keep in mind the ark wasn't small like we see it pictured in art or in children's books... the Ark was huge... about 1.54 million cubic feet – but what about those huge dinosaurs? Most likely young dinosaurs were on the ark... not the full grown ones. How could all the animals in the world fit on Noah's ark? Easily. There was plenty of room. For the details go to: http://www.SciencePastor.com/ark

Hummingbirds are amazing... Romans chapter one tells us we can look at God's creation and know God is real... and we see this in hummingbirds. It is impossible for these incredible creatures to have evolved. They can fly at 55 miles an hour... come to a dead stop and hover... and even fly backwards... which they need to do when they finish feeding. How they feed and how they fly work together... one without the other is a dead hummingbird. It's called evolution couldn't do this... For the details go to: http://www.AJ83.com/hummingbird

If you believe in evolution, you need to know this. People have about 30 trillion cells in their body. Each one contains DNA that can vary. DNA operates in four dimensions. It is one dimensional like a computer program... but it's self programing (2D) adapting to it's own instructions... and folded into a 3D shape (3D)... and that shape changes in response to what's happening in your body... changing what the DNA in that cell does (4D). Evolution could not have created DNA. It's way to complicated. Go to: http://www.SciencePastor.com/impossible for a more detailed video.

Over 270 legends and stories, around the world, recall what we refer to as Noah's Flood. These cultural memories have obviously been altered by a millenia of retelling, but each provides a reflection of the actual global flood. And if this story was not so universal, skeptics would have good reasons to doubt the credibility of the Biblical flood. And what's amazing is that, of all the stories, the Bible is the only one that is coherent and that provides a realistic means of survival. For the details go to: http://www.AJ83.com/floodstories

Humanity is going extinct. We are not evolving and becoming better. With every generation we are degrading... going downhill... and heading toward extinction. IF mutations were causing us to evolve and get better there would be lines to buy radioactive waste. We know mutations are harmful. Mutations destroy DNA, they don't improve it. Because of mutations we are heading for extinction... and soon. For the details go to: http://www.SciencePastor.com/gone

Evolution and the Bible are not compatible. For example the order of creation is very different. The order according to evolution was: first the Big Bang and hydrogen atoms; then the Sun; the Earth; Dry Land; Oceans; Single cell life bringing death; Fish; Plants; Land animals and then Birds – In Biblical creation the order is: The earth and water; Dry land; Plants; The Sun; Fish; Birds; Land Animals: Man; Then death They are very different. The Bible and evolution ARE NOT compatible. For more information go to: http://www.SciencePastor.com/wrongorder

What is the scientific evidence proving evolution is true? I went to the Smithsonian web site.. It says the because there is just a 1.2% difference in DNA between humans and chimps, evolution is true. Hey, Smithsonian... that was proven as to be a myth over 13 years ago. Even the journal Science, in 2007, admitted it. It's a myth! Why do you use a proven myth as your proof evolution is true? For URLs and more information go to: http://www.SciencePastor.com/evidence1

Carbon 14 is used to date human fossils Mungo woman was found in Australia in 1969. Based on carbon 14 the bones dated to be 19,000 years old, but the collagen dated to be almost 25,000 years old... but it was found to be buried below charcoal dated at more than 26,000 years old. So which is it? That's a 40% difference! Which is it? Whatever gives the oldest date because that results in the most prestige for the discoverer. For more info: http://www.SciencePastor.com/mungo1 If you'd like to jump ahead and get all the details, the following article provides that information: The Dating Game (Details About Mungo Woman) (CIM Article) Image of Mungo Lake in video is by: dfinnecy - Wikkicommons images: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mungo_lake_1.jpg

Different Dating Methods - Different Results In 1969 the fossil Mungo Woman was dated, using Carbon 14, at about 27,000 years old. In 1998 the Mungo Woman sediment layer was dated using thermoluminescence. The new age? 42,000 years, 16,000 more than the C14 date. Are you starting to see the problem? Thermoluminescence has a lot of problems, such as not knowing the amount of radiation originally ‘stored’ in the mineral. It's not reliable. For more information and links to our related web pages and videos, go to: http://www.SciencePastor.com/mungo2 Image of Mungo Lake in video is by: dfinnecy - Wikkicommons images: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mungo_lake_1.jpg Image of the Skull in video is by: Didier Descouens - Wikkicommons images: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mungo_lake_1.jpg

30X2 VIDEO: Today I have a true story: Mungo Woman is a fossil discovered in Australia. At first the bones were carbon dated at 19,000 years old... then soft tissue from the fossil was carbon dated to be 24,700 years old. Shouldn't they be the same age? Then a charcoal layer above the fossil was carbon dated to be 26,500 years old. The fossil dates had to be wrong and the age was set at 26,500 years. But in 1998 sand from the sediment layer the fossil was in was luminescent dated at 42,000 years old. The carbon dates all had to be wrong, and the fossil was now declared to be 42,000 years old. In 1999 testing using different methods, gave a an age of 62,000 years. BUT WAIT... A 62,000 year old fossil in Australia would upset the accepted ideas of human evolution... it didn't match the evolutionary story... so it's age was declared to still be 42,000 years. How was the age of this fossil determined? The tests results were all over the place... the age is the age evolutionists want it to be... that's not science. For more information and links to our related web pages and videos, go to http://www.SciencePastor.com/evidence2

We're looking at the Smithsonians's human origins web site. They claim evolution is shown to be true by the dating of human fossils. They talk about paleomagnetism, biochronology and molecular clock as proven dating methods... but all three of these are based on evolution being true. What they are saying is, based on evolution being true, we know evolution is true. Don't accept that. It's a bunch of nonsense. For more information and links to our related web pages and videos, go to http://www,Science Pastor.com/evidence3

30X2 Video: We've been looking at the proofs that evolution is true on the Smithsonian Institution's human origins web site. Probably the most powerful "proof" is the page showing all of the known supposed human ancestors. Wow, there are so many, and you can see the progression from ape to human in their faces... except... these are all artist renditions. They are drawings showing how they think the fossil might have looked based on the assumption that evolution is true. So once again the proof that evolution is true is based on the assumption evolution is true. The facts are... there is a lot of uncertainty, differing opinions, and in many cases very few actual fossils. For example, they say there are fossils representing 300 Australopithecus afarensis individuals. What they don't tell you is... all of those fossils would easily fit on a six foot picnic table. Some individuals are represented by just a tooth or skull fragment. The truth is, the fossil record does not show evolution from ape to human. It's just wishful thinking once again For more information, go to http://www.SciencePastor.com/humanorigins

The Smithonian's web site says that... “human fossils representing more than 6000 individuals have been found.” Sounds impressive... but is it? ...if evolution were true, we'd expect to find millions of human fossils, not a few thousand. Humans buried their dead and just looking at the past 200,000 years there should be millions of human fossils. Where are they? Instead, the few fossils we find are consistent with creation of humanity 6000 years ago. Get the details: http://www.AJ83.com/humans Credits for images used in the video: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Neanderthal_Museum_06.jpg -- Einsamer Schütze https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Homo_erectus_pekinensis_%28cast_of_Zhoukoudian_III%29_at_G%C3%B6teborgs_Naturhistoriska_Museum_8768.jpg -- Gunnar Creutz https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Homo_erectus_Peking_man_skull.jpg -- Netha Hussain https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dmanisi-D3444._Homo_erectus_or_Homo_georgicus.jpg -- Ryan Somma from Occoquan, USA

In 2004 Douglas Axe, a molecular biologist, proved evolution is impossible. In his words, “evolutionary biologists would be compelled to hang 'out of business' signs on their doors.” He showed that accidental processes require 10 to 74th power opportunities to produce one good protein sequence. Anything above 10 to 40th is impossible. Life is built on proteins and proteins don't just happen... he proved evolution is impossible. More information: http://www.AJ83.com/axe

In 1996 biochemist Michael Behe demonstrated that multiple components of a biological system need to exist and be fully operating as a system in order for the organism to survive. This is called irreducible complexity and it scientifically proved evolution is impossible. Since then, although under a heavy barrage of name calling, professor Behe has successfully defended irreducible complexity... evolution is scientifically impossible More Information: http://www.AJ83.com/behe

In 2019 Michael Behe's book “Darwin Devolves” rocked microbiology by showing that yes, there are beneficial mutations on a small scale, but they are a two-edged sword, overall degrading DNA. He proved we are not evolving upward, but all life is degrading downward heading toward extinction. Scientifically evolution is not happening... More information: http://www.AJ83.com/devolve

Evolutionists want you to believe dinosaurs evolved into birds. It didn't happen. And many Orthinologists, bird experts agree... birds have many special features such as a once-through lung. Specially shaped wings. Muscles that operate on a pulley system. And hollow bones. A dinosaur transitioning to have these features would die as their bellows lung was replaced by a once-through lung. It couldn't happen. Get the details on the Science Pastor web site: http://www.AJ83.com/birds To subscribe to our channel click here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGSM... Image credits for video: - C. Abraczinskas - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cranial_sinus_and_postcranial_air_sac_systems_in_birds.jpg - Squelette_oiseau.JPG: BIODIDAC - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Squelette_oiseau.svg - Scott Hartman, derivative by IJReid - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Theropod_skeleton_labelled.png - Gyps_rueppellii_-Nairobi_National_Park,_Kenya-8.jpg: Jorge Láscar from Bogotá, Colombia - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gyps_rueppellii_-Nairobi_National_Park,_Kenya-8-4c.jpg

If God created everything, then why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? They are...but the word dinosaur is not used... it's a word that was not invented until 1841. Dinosaurs are land animals so they were created on Day six when all the other land animals were created. For example, Job 40 describes an animal called behemoth which appears to be a sauropod dinosaur. In most cases the word dragon is used in the bible for the animal we call a dinosaur. More information: http://www.AJ83.com/dragon

Dinosaur footprints provide compelling evidence there was a global flood.\ Go walk in the mud. Your footprints will soon disappear. They don't last. To be preserved dinosaur footprints would need to be buried quickly and deeply. We don't see that happening today. Dinosaur footprints are found on flat bedding planes, around the world, with no vegetation. It it seems like only dinosaurs with body plans that indicate they could swim left footprints. What's the connection? Noah's flood. Go to http://www,.SciencePastor.com/footprint Video Image Credits (CC License): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dinosaur_footprints_in_ToroToro_Bolivia.jpg - Credit: Havardtl https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dinosaur_footprints_(Dakota_Sandstone,_Lower_Cretaceous;_Dinosaur_Ridge,_Colorado,_USA)_11_(21589104073).jpg - James St. John

Dinosaur eggs... are they better scrambled or fried? Well... we don't know. What we do know is that dinosaur eggs provide powerful evidence that the Biblical global flood was real. It happened... and it preserved billions of dinosaur eggs as fossils. We find those eggs on flat bedding plains, laid in the open with no nests and no protection... and fossilized so quickly that, in some cases, the cause of death was fossilization. Learn more at: http://www.SciencePastor.com/eggs

What do you think? Would dinosaur meat be good to eat? We don't know... and there is no way we can know... except... You've heard of Marco Polo. In the 13th century... he went to China ... stayed for 24 years, and then returned to Venice and wrote about it... he tells us about a huge beast that had two tiny little arms each with three sharp claws... and a huge mouth. This beast could eat anything. Sounds like a dinosaur. But, the Chinese found a way to kill them... and their meat was an expensive delicacy. To get the details go to http://www.SciencePastor.com/dinner