Creation in detail

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

This is where objects to produce natural light are now being created. Both the sun and moon are being created here. And what they were created for is mentioned.

The creation of the moon also plays an important part in making the seasons work. The orbit of the moon actually helps keep the tilt of the earth, on it's axis, where it needs to be so the seasons can actually exist.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

These verses are confirmation of exactly what was being created. And where they were being placed.

Side note: And the mention of what these created objects were created to do, actually proves there is a God. How? How long has the bible been around? So back when it was written, how could anyone have the knowledge of what each created object was created for? At this point, no human has peered into space to see how all this stuff works, like we have today. And you can look it up in the oldest translations of the bible. The information on creation is the same. In fact, most people thought the sun orbited around the earth, like the moon does. So this shows that what was written was inspired by God, just as it says. For how else would knowledge like this be obtained?

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Verse 18 confirms why the sun and moon were created. Notice that it does not say that God divided the light. Natural light divides itself by casting shadows. The first light created was not natural, it was spiritual light from God, and therefore had to be divided by God to create day and night.

Also, the exact placement of the sun and moon proves there is a God. You can read more about this here: http://yecheadquarters.org/catalog2.0.html6.1.html  Make sure to read that whole section if you want to get the general idea of just how complicated our placement in the solar system really is. When we have a total solar eclipse over any part of our planets. Direct placement of the earth moon and sun become more evident. For when the moon blocks the light of the sun, the sun's chromosphere (outer atmosphere) shows, and can be observed. In order to achieve this precise blocking of the sun, would require precise placement of all three objects. Not random chance and accident as science would claim. But it would also require all three sizes to be exact to get the desired result.

But here's another fact that proves there is more going on than meets the eye. The moon's orbit decays, caused by tidal forces and magnetic field decay, about 3 inches per year. The sun gets smaller as it burns up it's fuel. For the eclipse to continue to work all these years. The decaying orbit of the moon would have to mathematically match the rate that the sun is shrinking . If this did not, the precise placement and sizes of all three objects would have been out of sync, to cause a precise total eclipse, a long time ago. So not only do we have precise placement of three objects. Plus precise sizes. But we also have one decaying orbit, that has to match the amount of a shrinking object, to produce a precise total eclipse to show only the sun's chromosphere. As seen below.

If the sun were not shrinking at the correct rate to match the moon's orbit decay, what you see above would not be achievable. But every time we get a total eclipse of the sun some where. This is what they see. The sun being bigger, would allow more light around the moon. Which would not allow us to see the sun's chromosphere. If it shrunk faster, a total block out of the sun and it's chromosphere would happen. And we would see only darkness.

Then you have some other amazing factors. The distance between the moon and the sun is 400 times greater than the distance from the earth and the moon. But, that's not all. The sun is 400 times bigger than the moon. How do you get a 400 to 400 match, along with all the other things (sizes and exact distances) just mentioned? But there's even more.

The earth has to orbit the sun at a precise distance as well. There is a zone around the sun, the the earth has to stay in in order for life to exist. To close, we burn up. To far, we freeze.

To sum it up:

1) We have exact sizes of three objects.

2) We have exact placement of three objects.

3) We have a 400 to 400 match, which makes this mathematically possible.

4) And we have the decaying orbit of one object, that matches the shrinking of another. So that we can observe a total eclipse where the sun's chromosphere is visible to the human eye.

5) Earth's exact distance from the sun in order for life to exist on this planet.

The focal point of a shadow produced by a total eclipse. There is a flash illustration further down this page that illustrates this problem of the moon's decaying orbit.	A picture of the actual shadow on the surface of the earth.

The picture above is an example of how the exact placement, size, and distance of three objects cast a precise shadow that allows us to see the sun's chromosphere all the way around the moon while standing in one place. This is called being in the focal point of the eclipse. The other picture (above the two pics) is an experiment you can do yourself to see just how precise a focal point has to be in order to work. Most of us have already done this. But if you take a magnifying glass out into the sun, along with a piece of paper. Then take and try to make the smallest point of light that you can on the paper, as shown in pic. Move magnifying glass closer, and further away to see how easy it is to change the focal point on the paper (also, it will burn a hole in the paper if you hold it in one spot for to long). The area, on the earth's surface, is so exact (where you can actually see the eclipse when it happens), you have to be at the right place, at the right time to even witness it. Any change in distance, or size, of these three objects. And the visual we see during the total eclipse, at that exact place on the surface of the earth, would not be possible. And yet the moon moves out of orbit 3 inches a year.

Now how far away does the moon have to move, in order for this to not exist anymore? But according to old earth belief, it just happens to be this way after billions of years? See the math chart below about how 3 inches turns into several miles over time.

So let's do some math with the 3 inch orbit decay of the moon per year:

Distance decaying orbit (3 inches per year).	Time it takes to decay that far.
1 Foot	4 years
10 feet	40 years
100 feet	400 years
1000 feet	4000 years
5280 feet (1 mile)	21,120 years

And if you reverse this scale, and go back in time to where the moon was 1 mile closer to the earth. What do you think a moon 1 mile closer would do to the earth? It gravitational pull would cause more earthquakes, and higher tides which translates into major shoreline erosion. And you go back just 1 million years, the moon is 47.35 miles closer to the earth. Apply the inverse square law, and you have major problems at just 47.35 miles closer. But at 1 billion years the moon is 47, 350 miles closer. Now what do you think would be the problems then? And the moon is supposed to be how old? But a 6,000 year old earth + moon translates to around 1,500 feet closer. Which is a little over 1/4 of a mile. More than safe for life to exist.

Years back in time.	How much closer the moon would be.
21,120 years (reference)	1 mile closer
1 million years	47.35 miles closer
2 million years	94.70 miles closer
3 million years	142.05 miles closer
1 billion years	47,350 miles closer
2 billion years	94,700 miles closer
3 billion years	142,050 miles closer

This may not seem like much until you apply the inverse square law of gravity. Which means the earth would be destroyed by the moon's gravity, because it was so close to the earth (when two objests that have gravity get closer, the gravitational pull quadruples).  But this also causes another problem. The moon controls the tides as it gravity pulls upon the earth's water as it orbits the earth. As shown in the flash illustration below.

So as you go back in time, apply the inverse square law of gravity. We find that in just a million years the moon would have flooded the planet twice a day. How? The moon pulls on the water on one side, while the spin of the earth throws the water outward some what on the other. So we have high tide, on two sides of the earth, at the same time. Just as we have low tide, on two sides of the earth, at the same time. So when the gravity pull quadruples, the tides become so high everything drowns twice a day. Now back to the eclipse discussion...

Now, the evolutionists say the sun does not shrink at all. So the moving away of the moon (orbit decay) should have already made the visual total eclipse, at the focal point we see, not possible. But every-time it happens, we still see it. In fact, with angle, distance, and size of the three objects. Plus the 3 inch orbit decay of the moon. Mathematically, it could be calculated how much the sun shrinks per year. But science has already committed to one answer, and science can never be wrong when it concerns creation (science is run by naturalist who refuse to go into the direction of anything that may support creation, even though scientist are supposed to follow evidence in the direction needed to get the conclusion. This is why you won't see this information in any science book, it's censored out). So they will fight this tooth and nail about the sun "never shrinks". Even though it breaks the laws of physics. But science will break their own laws as long as it supports their hard earned efforts to prove a certain theory right. The other reason the sun shrinkage is denied, it poses several problems for old earth theory. Which is a major problem for the evolution theory as well.

The flash illustration below shows how the focal alignment, to produce the shadow on the earth's surface, is affected by the moon's decaying orbit.

Why does the sun shrink?

The sun does two things that changes it's size:

1) The sun burns up 11 billion pounds of hydrogen every second.

2) The sun produces solar wind. Which is particles spewed into space (speeds between 200-800 km/s).

Number one "almost" evens out because it's a conversion of one gas to another as hydrogen burns (according to theory, which can be wrong). But number two is not. Matter cannot be removed from an object without loss of mass. Solar wind is a stream of charged particles, plasma actually, that is shot into space from the sun. It consist of high energy electrons and protons that were able to escape the sun's gravity. In fact there is so much solar wind, that if it were not for the earth's magnetic field (which deflects it), our atmosphere would totally be stripped away. And our planet would become as barren as the moon with no life. Flash illustration of solar wind below.

Eternal time star light creation:

God divided His creation into 4 firmaments (sections).

Number of firmaments.	What each firmament is.	Created to sustain life?
Firmament one:	The Crystalline Canopy.	Yes.
Firmament two:	The earth's atmosphere.	Yes.
Firmament three:	Our solar system.	Yes.
Firmament four:	The space beyond our solar system.	No (created for us to see).

The reason that the age of the star is determined by it's distance from earth. Is because this was the only part of the creation that was created that it's pupose was not to sustain life directly. Firmaments 1-3 (our whole solar system) were created to sustain life on this planet in a direct manner. So age upon creation was controlled with that goal of life. The last firmament was not. You can read more about the creation of the firmaments on this page: http://www.yecheadquarters.org/Creation9.0.4.html about half way down.

Problems for science:

As we look at stars and galaxies, they are at different ages. And the further away they are, the older they get. Which supports the view that their distance, and how far their light had to travel. Controls how old they really are. So here's where the problem lies for science. How do you see a star, or galaxy, at it's real age if it is billions of light years away from us? What we should be seeing (if no creation by God occured) is the star's condition billions of years ago. Why? The light from billions of years ago is just now reaching us, correct? So what we should be seeing is a very young universe because the light of that young universe is just getting to us. But what we do see instead, is a very old universe. Example:

The oldest globular clusters contain only stars less massive than 0.7 solar masses. These low mass stars are much dimmer than the Sun. This observation suggests that the oldest globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old. The uncertainty in this estimate is due to the difficulty in determining the exact distance to a globular cluster (hence, an uncertainty in the brightness (and mass) of the stars in the cluster). Another source of uncertainty in this estimate lies in our ignorance of some of the finer details of stellar evolution. Presumably, the universe itself is at least as old as the oldest globular clusters that reside in it. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html*

The most distant object known has a redshift of just over 5.  That means that the light from this object started its journey toward us when the Universe was only 30% of its current age.  The exact age of the Universe is not known, but is probably roughly 12 billion years. Thus, the light from this object left it when the Universe was a few billion years old.  Its distance is roughly 25 billion light years. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5639

Explaination: So if the oldest star is 11-18 billion, and it's distance is 25 billion light years away. And we are able to see it. Adding the two together would equal a universe much older than predicted. About 40-50 billion years old. But that don't work either. Constantly changing the age of everything does not solve the problem that still exists. The problem that there are things that date older through time and distance than the universe that contains it. And that their light get to us even though we should not be able to see it.

Even one of those website talk about the age problem:

An Age Crisis? If we compare the two age determinations, there is a potential crisis. If the universe is flat, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years. The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest stars. This contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we need a form of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given observed expansion rate. Some astronomers believe that this crisis will pass as soon as measurements improve. If the astronomers who have measured the smaller values of the Hubble constant are correct, and if the smaller estimates of globular cluster ages are also correct, then all is well for the Big Bang theory, even without a cosmological constant. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html*

Page last updated: Thursday, August 23, 2007