Treasure in Earthen Vessels

On the question of waves ... they have yet to come up with an explanation for light. Some said it is particles (photons) like Isaac Newton (1642 – 17). Then they said it is waves like Christiaan Huygens (1629 – 1695). Then in the early 20th century (1904) Albert Einstein (1879 – 1956) and Max Planck (1858 – 1947) said it was particles of energy when working on black body radiation. Their investigations ultimately led to other Scientists developing views about the atom, electrons, quantum theory and the story rolled on. Science classes in Australia teach both views today. There appears no simple answer for a questioner about the nature of light. Planck has an interesting quotation about Science and the Natural World. This might direct us to understand why there is still no definitive answer to the question, ‘What is light?’ He said, “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve”. The Bible declares in I John 1:5 that God is light and Jesus said ‘I am the light of the world’ (John 8:12). This is the true reason why there is no united answer from any human about the nature of light. The more pertinent 'facts' for a 6 day, 6 thousand years since God created everything are: (1) The Bible account; to challenge it is a direct denial of Jesus' words. You cannot be a Christian and deny what Jesus said. (2) Where has all the cosmic dust gone? If the universe has existed for billions of years, then the moon should have had metres of dust on its surface but none was not found when the Earth astronauts went to the moon in 1969 and afterwards. (3) Why are there still heaps of mountain ranges on Earth? If they were here for millions and millions of years, then erosion and weathering would have worn them down, especially ones near coastal areas. (4) Helium ... the levels are too low for millions of years as it comes from the rocks; it is the result of a breakdown of chemicals by nuclear decay. You can google this. The Creation Science group put out an article about this a few years ago. The article can be found at: http://creation.com/blowing-old-earth-belief-away-helium. (I disagree with them on the question of dinosaurs. They say they existed; I say they are a figment of 19th century novels written by people like Jules Verne). His 'survival of the fittest' theory has significant flaws. In a nutshell, he proposed that the Earth was very old - you can have whatever years you need. He is middle 19th cent and the big bang is 20th century. You also need a lot of luck as there is no intelligent design in anything in this world. He lived and died an atheist (his wife belonged to the Church of England but was a deist and an Arian in her theology about Jesus (i.e. he was created)). You have millions of years. You need a lot of luck. He starts with creatures (not slime like 20th cent biologists). They reproduce as creatures do. At some point an unusual one is born. Usually something with a thick coat. Adverse weather conditions occur. It becomes very cold. Only the creatures with the warm coats survive. Years go by and more unusual creatures are born. They fit in better if there is a change in the climate. This process goes on and on. Creatures evolve into other creatures. Giraffes are born with longer necks. Food only becomes available to those with long necks. They survive and short necked giraffes die out from lack of food. He said each new creature was different from the last which is how his theory is supposed to have worked out. Creatures were always progressing forward. A bit like a political slogan. The problem with this is a German Augustinian monk called Gregor Mendel (1822 – 1888) was working on the characteristics of peas in the 1880s. From his work which blossomed into Genetics we find that Darwin was WRONG. Darwin claimed that a species’ features continued to change or alter as they adapted to changing climates and food supply situations. Mendel found a different mechanism to operate. A species’ characteristics or traits may miss a generation so that the offspring is different in some way to its parents but these traits come back in the next generation. So, a child may have a special feature which they share with their grandparents and not their parents. Following through on Darwin's thesis ... there should not be a multiplicity of species on earth today. One species is before us. Whatever it came from should have disappeared as not being viable at one time but giving way to another species. It was not the strongest so it did not survive - survival of the fittest. A TV show talked about monkeys and one of the males in banter said that if we came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys on Earth? And another point is that humans too should have evolved into a different species as was portrayed in the TV show of the 70s called the Outer Limits or Rod Stirling's the Twilight's Zone where they presented episodes about advanced humans. They either had a standard human body with a massive head or they were enormous in size compared to a human’s body or they simply consisted of a giant brain.