The Flood

The Lord said to Noah, "You and your entire household go into the ark, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me among this generation. Take with you seven each of every clean animal, the male and its female, and two each of every unclean animal, the male and its female, and seven each of birds of the air, the male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth. In seven days I will cause it to rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and every living thing that I have made I will destroy from the face of the earth."
And Noah did according to all that the Lord commanded him.
Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came upon the earth. And Noah went with his sons and his wife and his sons' wives into the ark because of the floodwaters. Everything that creeps on the land from clean and unclean animals and birds came in two by two, male and female, to Noah into the ark, as God had commanded Noah. After seven days, the waters of the flood were on the earth.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the same day, all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
On the very same day Noah and the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark. (Genesis 7:1-13 MEV)

Quote from Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

QUOTE
[PARIS] Who would have suspected that a handheld genetic test used to unmask sushi bars pawning off tilapia for tuna could deliver deep insights into evolution, including how new species emerge?
And who would have thought to trawl through five million of these gene snapshots -- called "DNA barcodes" -- collected from 100,000 animal species by hundreds of researchers around the world and deposited in the US government-run GenBank database?
That would be Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who together published findings last week sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.
It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations -- think ants, rats, humans -- will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.
For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.
The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.
That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 per cent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?
Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean?
UNQUOTE

A global flood that destroyed all living things on land must have left evidence. The question is, do we recognize this evidence? Can a secular scientist, who think that religions are myths, recognise them?

For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. (2 Corinthians 13:8 ESV)

Where Did the First Atom Came From?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. (Genesis 1:1-5 ESV)

In this YouTube video "How Did the First Atom Form? Where did it come from? | Big Bang Nucleosynthesis - YouTube", Arvin Ash tried to explain how the universe came about via a big bang. But the big bang needs way too many Goldilocks moments (not too hot, not too cold, just right) to make things happen.

The Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. It is not a big bang. Molecule to man evolution is just not true. Uncaused existence is just not possible.

Faith of Evolutionists Challenged by Observable Science

Below are quoted from the article Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock by Ann Gibbons in News this Week, Science 02 Jan 1998, Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28:

QUOTE
The most widely used mutation rate for noncoding human mtDNA relies on estimates of the date when humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor, taken to be 5 million years ago. That date is based on counting the mtDNA and protein differences between all the great apes and timing their divergence using dates from fossils of one great ape's ancestor. In humans, this yields a rate of about one mutation every 300 to 600 generations, or one every 6000 to 12,000 years (assuming a generation is 20 years), says molecular anthropologist Mark Stoneking of Pennsylvania State University in University Park. Those estimates are also calibrated with other archaeological dates, but nonetheless yield wide margins of error in published dates. But a few studies have begun to suggest that the actual rates are much faster, prompting researchers to think twice about the mtDNA clock they depend upon.

For example, after working on the tsar's DNA, Parsons was surprised to find heteroplasmy popping up more frequently than expected in the families of missing soldiers. He and his colleagues in the United States and England began a systematic study of mtDNA from soldiers' families and Amish and British families. Like most such studies, this one compares so-called “noncoding” sequences of the control region of mtDNA, which do not code for gene products and therefore are thought to be free from natural selection.

The researchers sequenced 610 base pairs of the mtDNA control region in 357 individuals from 134 different families, representing 327 generational events, or times that mothers passed on mtDNA to their offspring. Evolutionary studies led them to expect about one mutation in 600 generations (one every 12,000 years). So they were “stunned” to find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation every 40 generations, or one every 800 years. The data were published last year in Nature Genetics, and the rate has held up as the number of families has doubled, Parsons told scientists who gathered at a recent international workshop* on the problem of mtDNA mutation rates.

Howell's team independently arrived at a similar conclusion after looking deep within the pedigree of one Australian family affected with Leber hereditary optic neuropathy, a disease caused by an mtDNA gene mutation. When the researchers analyzed mtDNA from 40 members of this family, they found that one individual carried two mutations in the control region (presumably unrelated to the disease, because it is noncoding mtDNA). That condition is known as triplasmy, because including the nonmutated sequence, he had three different mtDNA sequences in his cells.

By tracing the mutations back through the family pedigree, Howell was able to estimate that both mutations probably arose in the same woman who was born in 1861, yielding an overall divergence rate of one mutation every 25 to 40 generations. “Both of our studies came to a remarkably similar conclusion,” says Howell, whose study was published in late 1996 in the American Journal of Human Genetics. Both also warned that phylogenetic studies have “substantially underestimated the rate of mtDNA divergence.”

Several teams of evolutionists promptly went back to their labs to count mtDNA mutations in families of known pedigree. So far, Stoneking's team has sequenced segments of the control region in closely related families on the Atlantic island of Tristan da Cunha, where pedigrees trace back to five female founders in the early 19th century. But neither that study nor one of 33 Swedish families has found a higher mutation rate. “After we read Howell's study, we looked in vain for mutations in our families,” says geneticist Ulf Gyllensten of Uppsala University in Sweden, whose results are in press in Nature Genetics. More work is under way in Polynesia, Israel, and Europe.

Troubled by the discrepancy in their results, the scientists have pooled their data with a few other studies showing heteroplasmy, hoping to glean a more accurate estimate of the overall mutation rate. According to papers in press by Parsons, and Stoneking and Gyllensten, the combined mutation rate—one mutation per 1200 years—is still higher than the one mutation per 6000 to 12,000 years estimated by evolutionists, although not as fast as the rate observed by Parsons and Howell. “The fact that we see such relatively large differences among studies indicates that we have some unknown variable which is causing this,” says Gyllensten.

Because few studies have been done, the discrepancy in rates could simply be a statistical artifact, in which case it should vanish as sample sizes grow larger, notes Eric Shoubridge, a molecular geneticist at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Another possibility is that the rate is higher in some sites of the DNA than others—so-called “hot spots.” Indeed, almost all the mutations detected in Parsons and Howell's studies occur at known hot spots, says University of Munich molecular geneticist Svante Pääbo.

Also, the time span of observation plays a role. For example, because hot spots mutate so frequently, over tens of thousands of years they can revert back to their original sequences, overwriting previous mutations at that site. As a result, the long-term mutation rate would underestimate how often hot spots mutate—and the average long-term mutation rate for the entire control region would be slower than that from near-term studies of families. “The easiest explanation is that these two rates are caused by hot spots,” says Pääbo.

If so, these short-term rates need not perturb long-term studies. “It may be that the faster rate works on the short time scale and that you use the phylogenetic rate for long-term events,” says Shoubridge.

But Parsons doubts that hot spots account for all the mutations he has observed. He says that some of the difference between the long-term and short-term rates could be explained if the noncoding DNA in the control region is not entirely immune to selection pressure. The control region, for example, promotes replication and transcription of mtDNA, so any mutation that interferes with the efficiency of these processes might be deleterious and therefore selected against, reducing the apparent mutation rate.

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
UNQUOTE

Dr. Kurt Wise's Geological Epoch

In the YouTube video "What's the Natural History of the World According to Genesis? - Dr. Kurt Wise - YouTube", Dr. Kurt Wise came up with the following geological epochs are: Creation, the Edenian Epoch, the Antediluvian Epoch, the Arphaxadian Epoch, and the Modern Epoch.

Interesting.

A Panoramic View of the Bible And What We Can Learn From It - 8

The whole Bible can be summarized with four words - creation, fall, redemption, restoration.
The Bible described creation in two chapters (Genesis 1:1 - 2:25).
The Bible described the fall in one chapter (Genesis 3:1 - 3:24).
The Bible described the restoration in one and a half chapters (Revelation 21:1-22:5).
The bulk of the Bible is about redemption.

What does the bulk of the Bible tell us about the current world view?

1. Evil will only last a limited time;
2. Evolution is not possible due to lack of time;
3. Epicurus is wrong;
4. Karma is false.

The Coming World Government

With the restoration of Israel in 1948, prophecies kicked in again. We are living in times when the prophecies of the Bible is being fulfilled. And coming soon will be the one world government, one world religion and one world currency! What is blocking these today? There are three things:

1. Communism;
2. Evolution;
3. Islam.

For the one world government, one world religion and one world currency to happen, these three must be removed.

Communism is basically China. China is now vying for world supremacy with United States. The covid-19 virus will bring down China. That leaves evolution and Islam. I believe science will prove the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be true and evolution will die. That will leave Islam because Islam claim to be descended from Christianity. So proving Genesis does not disprove Islam. Islam will be taken down by the war prophesied in Ezekiel 38. With that, all obstacle to the one world religion will be removed. That will then lead to one world government and one world currency.

You will come up against my people Israel, like a cloud covering the land. In the latter days I will bring you against my land, that the nations may know me, when through you, O Gog, I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. (Ezekiel 38:16 ESV)

So I will show my greatness and my holiness and make myself known in the eyes of many nations. Then they will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 38:23 ESV)

Topics Of Interest For Those Who Believe In Genesis Creation Account

Evolution thrives in ignorance. As knowledge increases, evolution become more and more improbable. I found this link "Topics of Interest: Molecular History Research Center" which contains many articles which may prove that Genesis creation is true. From this link, I realized that many of these information were actually discovered quite some time ago. They are not new. Even the ancient cell theory proves that abiogenesis is not possible. Life can only come from life. Anyway, as science progress, knowledge increase and we are closer and closer to prove that Genesis creation account is the real scientific truth. Anything that is true can be proven to be true.

For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. (2 Corinthians 13:8 ESV)

Evolution And Mitochondrial DNA Mutation Rate

Evolution is the fake news that many atheists wanted to believe to be true. As early as 1998, secular science found that mitochondrial Eve, the mother of all humans today, could be about 6000 years old. The age of mitochondrial Eve is dependent on the mutation rate of the mitochondrial DNA.

Here is a quote from an article in "Science  02 Jan 1998, Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pages 28, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock by Ann Gibbons (News this Week | Science)".
QUOTE
Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve" - the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people - lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.
UNQUOTE

You may watch this interesting YouTube video "Were Adam and Eve Real People? ("Debunking the 7 Myths that Deny Biblical Truth" Series) - YouTube".

Big Data And Block Chain

I like this description of Marxism, taken from this website, "George Gilder: Google is Having a Nervous Breakdown".

QUOTE
A lot of people don't really understand what Marxism was. The key error of Marxism was Karl Marx's belief that the industrial revolution of the 19th century was the final human attainment, a kind of eschaton that the problem of productivity and wealth creation had been solved forever. From then on, the only challenge would be how to distribute wealth, rather than how to create it.

Well, Google Marxism just repeats Karl Marx’s error with the new technology. Google believes that their AI artificial intelligence, their machine learning, their robotics, their algorithmic biology, their search, and their solutions constitute a new eschaton, a new final achievement of human beings that’s even more grandiose than Karl’s original vision and that the Google people imagine a singularity where the machines will eclipse human minds and allow all of the rest of us to retire on beaches and collect a guaranteed annual income, the new fashion in silicon valley while Brin and Page fly off with Elon Musk to some remote planet in a winner-take-all universe.
UNQUOTE

Karl Marx believe in social evolution. He thought that societies evolved from Slavery to Feudalism to Capitalism and finally to Communism. I didn't know that Google also thought that AI is the final frontier.

Primordial Soup

Quote taken from this BBC website, "BBC - Earth - The secret of how life on Earth began":
"Every single person who died before Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 was ignorant of humanity's origins, because they knew nothing of evolution."

Thank God for those who were born before 1859! At least some of them knew this, which is far better:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27 KJV)

The following was also quoted from the same article:
QUOTE
Darwin knew that it was a profound question, but - perhaps wary of starting yet another fight with the Church - he only seems to have discussed the issue in a letter written in 1871. His excitable language reveals that he knew the deep significance of the question:
"But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes..."
In other words, what if there was once a small body of water, filled with simple organic compounds and bathed in sunlight. Some of those compounds might combine to form a life-like substance such as a protein, which could then start evolving and becoming more complex.
It was a sketchy idea. But it would become the basis of the first hypothesis for how life began.
This idea emerged from an unexpected place. You might think that this daring piece of free thinking would have been developed in a democratic country with a tradition of free speech: perhaps the United States. But in fact the first hypothesis for the origin of life was invented in a savagely totalitarian country, where free thinking was stamped out: the USSR.
In Stalin's Russia, everything was under the control of the state. That included people's ideas, even on subjects - like biology - that seem unrelated to Communist politics.
Most famously, Stalin effectively banned scientists from studying conventional genetics. Instead he imposed the ideas of a farm worker named Trofim Lysenko, which he thought were more in line with Communist ideology. Scientists working on genetics were forced to publicly support Lysenko's ideas, or risk ending up in a labour camp.
It was in this repressive environment that Alexander Oparin carried out his research into biochemistry. He was able to keep working because he was a loyal Communist: he supported Lysenko's ideas and even received the Order of Lenin, the highest decoration that could be bestowed on someone living in the USSR.
In 1924, Oparin published his book The Origin of Life. In it he set out a vision for the birth of life that was startlingly similar to Darwin's warm little pond.
Oparin imagined what Earth was like when it was newly formed. The surface was searingly hot, as rocks from space plunged down onto it and impacted. It was a mess of semi-molten rocks, containing a huge range of chemicals – including many based on carbon.
Eventually the Earth cooled enough for water vapour to condense into liquid water, and the first rain fell. Before long Earth had oceans, which were hot and rich in carbon-based chemicals. Now two things could happen.
First, the various chemicals could react with each other to form lots of new compounds, some of which would be more complex. Oparin supposed that the molecules central to life, like sugars and amino acids, could all have formed in Earth's waters.
Second, some of the chemicals began to form microscopic structures. Many organic chemicals do not dissolve in water: for example, oil forms a layer on top of water. But when some of these chemicals contact water they form spherical globules called "coacervates", which can be up to 0.01cm (0.004 inches) across.
If you watch coacervates under a microscope, they behave unnervingly like living cells. They grow and change shape, and sometimes divide into two. They can also take in chemicals from the surrounding water, so life-like chemicals can become concentrated inside them. Oparin proposed that coacervates were the ancestors of modern cells.
Five years later in 1929, the English biologist J. B. S. Haldane independently proposed some very similar ideas in a short article published in the Rationalist Annual.
Haldane had already made enormous contributions to evolutionary theory, helping to integrate Darwin's ideas with the emerging science of genetics.
He was also a larger-than-life character. On one occasion, he suffered a perforated eardrum thanks to some experiments with decompression chambers, but later wrote that: "the drum generally heals up; and if a hole remains in it, although one is somewhat deaf, one can blow tobacco smoke out of the ear in question, which is a social accomplishment."
Just like Oparin, Haldane outlined how organic chemicals could build up in water, "[until] the primitive oceans reached the consistency of hot dilute soup". This set the stage for "the first living or half-living things" to form, and for each one to become enclosed in "an oily film".
It is telling that of all the biologists in the world, it was Oparin and Haldane who proposed this. The idea that living organisms formed by purely chemical means, without a god or even a "life force", was radical. Like Darwin's theory of evolution before it, it flew in the face of Christianity.
That suited the USSR just fine. The Soviet regime was officially atheist, and its leaders were eager to support materialistic explanations for profound phenomena like life. Haldane was also an atheist, and a devoted communist to boot.
"At that time, to accept or not accept this idea depended essentially on personalities: whether they were religious or whether they supported left or communist ideas," says origin-of-life expert Armen Mulkidjanian of the University of Osnabrück in Germany. "In the Soviet Union they were accepted happily because they didn't need God. In the western world, if you look for people who were thinking in this direction, they all were lefties, communists and so on."
The idea that life formed in a primordial soup of organic chemicals became known as the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. It was neat and compelling, but there was one problem. There was no experimental evidence to back it up. This would not arrive for almost a quarter of a century.
UNQUOTE

Evolution is faith, not science.
And evolution thrives in ignorance.

Mind And Information

Which come first, mind or information? Based on our observation, mind produce information. But evolution and Buddhism insist that information come first. For evolution, it is the scientific rules. For Buddhism, it is dharma. The Bible agrees with our general observation. The mind comes first. This mind is God.

The Problem With Secular Humanism

Problem 1 - God
Secular Humanism assumes that God does not exist. The Bible assumes that God exists. This is a problem for both. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven. We are too small and too brief for that.

Bible's solution
The Bible never attempt to prove the existence of God. But the Bible make strenuous effort to prove the authenticity and veracity of the Word of God. In fact, this is the area where Christianity really shines. Christianity is an auditable religion! Other religions were started by one founder who had an idea or a vision (unprovable) or visited by an unseen angel (unseen, therefore nobody know). Buddha, like the secular humanist, offer a solution that does not need God and we have no proof if nirvana is really a solution because nobody ever come back after death to say that nirvana is real. Islam claim that the Koran is the word of God but offer meaningless proofs.

Secular Humanism non-solution
Secular humanism assumes that God does not exist and then proceed to use that as a basis for all their beliefs.

Problem 2 - Reason for Being
Why are we here? If there is no life after death, why should I do good? Why can't I be a Hedonist? Let us face this - if God does not exist and our existence is only temporal, then we all can do evil. This is reasonable and logical. In the first place, why is there good and evil? Evolution is about survival of the fittest, not the noblest. Why should I accept the humanist definition of "goodness"? Why can't I create my own standard and call evil good and good evil? Why must I accept some moral authority which have no basis other than being from another human or from some Western European culture?

How Religions Got Started - The Secular Humanist Viewpoint

Secular humanist believed that religion got invented because men appeared to be evolutionarily predisposed to religion or religious like behaviour. Below are quotes from this article, "The Human Brain Evolved to Believe in Gods - The Crux":

QUOTE
Leading scholars propose a two-phase hypothesis (here, here): First, our ancestors evolved certain mental abilities, useful for survival and reproduction, which predisposed them to religious beliefs. Then, from the multitude of beliefs that emerged, particular religions spread and persisted because their deities and rituals promoted cooperation among practitioners.
...
Evolved features of our brains, such as Theory of Mind and over-imitation, likely caused the emergence of religions in human societies. It doesn’t take supernatural beings to explain why so many people believe in them - just natural evolutionary processes.
UNQUOTE

As such, to secular humanists, all religions are equal. There is no special revelation in any of them. And science has been able to prove that many of the religious practices are mere superstitions. Because of this, secular humanists refused to give Christianity as special preference. They said if we were to look at the 6 days creation seriously, then we also have to look at the Hindu view that the world is supported by four elephants on a big turtle seriously.

Creation Myths

Secular humanist believed that the Bible's account of creation in Genesis is the same as other creation myths. This article "The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)" is an example of such belief. They asked this question, "If they allow one belief system to be taught, surely they must also teach others?" Below is the full context of the quote:

QUOTE
Several parents won a lawsuit against a Pennsylvania school district in 2005 that had added the controversial theory of "intelligent design" to its curriculum. Unlike the theory of evolution which is taught at most schools as a fact-based science, "intelligent design" -- as argued by the plaintiffs -- was nothing more than a philosophy predicated on the Judeo-Christian belief that the logical sequences found in nature are not random happenings or surprising mutations, but deftly managed events created by a greater omniscient and omnipresent intelligence with a specific plan. In short, the work of God. A federal judge thought otherwise. But therein lies the rub: Which god? When the founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States, they chose to include the separation of church and state. This was to ensure that the state-sanctioned religious persecutions that plagued much of Europe during the 16th century would not despoil the young, yet grand experiment in democracy that was to become this Republic. Scientific research has come a long way since Charles Darwin first posited the concept of "natural selection." In the intervening years, humanity has learned much about how we became the dominant species on the planet, how the Earth and the solar system were formed and the ever-changing development of the Universe. Over that time, how we understand the theory of evolution has also changed. Scientists now think that there is an intrinsic logic to our reality, that there are absolutes, laws of nature. Much remains a mystery, and as one question is answered, many others arise. The question that faced Pennsylvania's Dover School District was whether or not the imposition of one creation belief on a multi-ethnic, secular student body is in keeping with the law that prohibits the creation of a state religion. If they allow one belief system to be taught, surely they must also teach others? To help out with this dilemma, LiveScience presents a list of those Creation Myths that helped define civilizations both past and present...
UNQUOTE

The article went on to list the top 10 "Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)" to demonstrate the problem if all these "myths" were to be taught.

1. Genesis of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic Faiths
2. Greek
3. Hindu
4. Japan
5. China
6. Aztecs
7. Ancient Egypt
8. Babylon
9. Zoroastrianism of Ancient Persia
10. Norse

Bible And Scientific Rules

Three events described in the Bible had great impact on science:

1. Creation;
2. Sin entered the world;
3. The flood.

Without acknowledging these three events, the science of earth's origin cannot progress and will be stuck at its present state of speculation of big bang and evolution.

Creation
The creation was good up to the seventh day. It took six days of implementation and was successfully completed by the end of the sixth day. God rested on the seventh. The production problem caused by sin has to occur after the seventh day. So, at least for the first seven days, the scientific rules that governed the universe was different from today. There is no death and decay.

Sin
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned. (Romans 5:12 NLT)
When sin entered the world, the scientific rules that governed the world changed to cater for death and decay. But many of the good stuff that exist initially still continue. Men lived to almost a thousand years old.

Flood
The world wide flood caused an unprecedented environmental catastrophe. The life span of men dropped rapidly from almost a thousand years to seventy years.

Millennium
The Bible prophesised one more change, that is, the millennium. I am not sure if this has an impact on the scientific rules, but men will resume living to a thousand years. The carnivores will become herbivores and I suppose, death, for humans, plants and animals will be rare.

Closer And Closer

For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. (2 Corinthians 13:8 ESV)

Science is beginning to confirm the Bible. It is getting closer and closer. Time seems to be the major point of disagreement.

Universe has a beginning
Science
The universe was the result of a big bang 13.7 billion years ago.
Bible
The universe was created in six days about 6000 years ago.

All men are descended from one man and all women are descended from one woman
Science
All men are descended from Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA), estimated to live about 60,000 to 340,000 years ago. He wasn't the only man around, but he was the one whose descendants survived.
All women are descended from Mitochondrial Eve (mt-MRCA) who lived about 200,000 years ago. This doesn't mean she was the first modern woman, rather it indicates that only her descendants survive to the present day.
Bible
All men are descended from Noah (remember the flood?) about 4500 years ago.
All women are descended from Eve about 6000 years ago.

Flood
Science
In a massive genetic study, senior research associate at the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University Mark Stoeckle and University of Basel geneticist David Thaler discovered that virtually 90 percent of all animals on Earth came to being at the same time as humans did some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
Bible
All land animals were saved in Noah's ark 4500 years ago. The sea animals were not in the ark since they won't drown. There were no fish or octopus in the ark.

For the word of the LORD holds true, and we can trust everything he does. (Psalm 33:4 NLT)

Genetics - Beginning of the End of Evolution

The discovery of genes and DNA coding is no friend of evolution. But evolutionist still manage to appropriate the findings to their favour.

Evolutionist:
All living things shared the same genetic code, implying a common ancestry!

Creationist:
All living things shared the same genetic code, implying an intelligence using the same code base, as one may expect from a good programmer.

Global Flood Evidence

Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson are going camping. They pitch their tent under the stars and go to sleep. In the middle of the night Holmes wakes Watson up: "Watson, look up at the stars, and tell me what you deduce."
Watson: "I see millions of stars and even if a few of those have planets, it's quite likely there are some planets like Earth, and if there are a few planets like Earth out there, there might also be life."
Holmes: "Watson, you idiot, somebody's stolen our tent!"

It is always possible for two person to look at the same thing and come up with completely different conclusions. It all depends on their view or perception. Buddha taught that the first of the eight-fold path is right view. If you hold on to a certain view or convictions, you will interpret observations through that view. I am not sure if Buddha taught this, but the view you hold will blind you to other possibilities. It creates a blind spot for you.

Scientist never looked for soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Their view is the bones are millions of years old. There should be no soft tissue left. This quote taken from Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained:
QUOTE
"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.
UNQUOTE
So soft tissue in dinosaur bones had to be discovered by accident through a mistake.

A global flood must have left plenty of evidence. But the secular scientist's view is that religions are myths. While the myths may originate from truth or contain some truth, you cannot take the myths as truth and try to prove them. Furthermore, scientists do not allow God to be a factor in science theory. Otherwise, they will find themselves to be theologians, proving or disproving this religion or that religion. Actually scientists are in the business of proving gods to be fakes and superstition, such as thunder god, rain god, wind god, etc, rather than proving god(s) to be true.

Since scientists think that the global flood catastrophe is a myth, so the fossil and geological observations has to be explained in a uniformitarian view. What happened today is used to extrapolate the past. So the geological evidence of the flood may be hiding in plain sight, waiting for a Nobel prize winner. Do you want to be that winner?

Brothers, consider your calling: Not many are wise from a human perspective, not many powerful, not many of noble birth. (1 Corinthians 1:26 HCSB)

Especially if you are considered by your superiors, peers and inferiors as "not likely to achieve greatness" and "quite ordinary". I heard somewhere that it is better to be lucky than to be good, and that you have to be wise to know that you are lucky.

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. (1 Corinthians 1:27 NIV)

The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 2:14 NIV)

For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Corinthians 1:25 ESV)

Cell Theory versus Evolution Theory

Evolution is a form of idolatry (unbelief in God). Like all idolatries, evolution thrives in ignorance and dies in truth. Let us compare the theory of evolution with the established fact of cell theory.

Cell theory (established as FACT, proven by SCIENCE)

1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
2. The cell is the basic unit of structure and organization in organisms.
3. Cells arise from pre-existing cells.

Evolution Theory (supposedly established as FACT because the alternative is simply untenable.)
Cells can come from non-cells. The quote taken from this website explains in layman terms how it is possible:
QUOTE
These early cells were pretty simple - a molecule with a wrapper around it to keep it safe. Many scientists think that life on Earth first began about four billion years ago when amino acids developed into RNA, a larger molecule made out of amino acids that has the ability to reproduce itself, and also to make proteins. RNA was very unstable though - it often broke apart or changed the order of its atoms. After a while, some RNA evolved into DNA, which was a more stable, though more complicated, version of the same idea.
UNQUOTE

For those who wants a more professional explanation may refer to the links below:
How life evolved: 10 steps to the first cells (New Scientist article dated 2009-10-14)
How did life originate?

Genetic Code Evolution

The quotation came from this article, "Is a Bigger Genetic Code Better? Get Ready to Find Out | Quanta Magazine". It gave a very clear explanation on how cells work.

QUOTE
Take any organism on earth, and its DNA and RNA have four nucleotide bases, or letters (usually abbreviated as A, T, C and G in DNA; in RNA, another base, U, takes the place of T). Those letters constitute an alphabet that ultimately spells out how to make proteins. But for that to happen, the cell first has to read and translate that alphabet, using a set of rules - the genetic code - to decipher its meaning.

Basically, the cell's protein-making machinery reads a sequence of DNA as a sentence composed entirely of three-letter words called codons. Codons name amino acids to add sequentially to a protein. With four nucleotide bases at the cell's disposal, 64 codons are possible: One to six codons specify each of the 20 natural amino acids most commonly used, and three tell the cell to stop building the protein.
UNQUOTE

Is there any proof that genetic code with 20 amino acids evolved from simpler codes? The quote form this article "The Early Evolution of the Genetic Code: Cell" said that now they may be able to answer that question.

QUOTE
In the absence of evidence, many of the most interesting questions about the genetic code have fallen into a twilight zone of speculation and controversy. Although it is generally accepted that the modern code evolved from a simpler form, there has been no consensus about when the initial code evolved or what it was like, how and when particular amino acids were added, how and when the modern tRNA/synthetase system arose, or the processes by which the code could have expanded. Now, detailed study of the components of the translation apparatus is at last making these questions tractable.

Three general approaches have recently yielded surprising intimations about how the genetic code evolved. The first is to appeal to general principles at a primary level, in this case the chemistry of nucleic acids and amino acids, to infer how a translation system might be constrained. The second is to alter parts of the translation apparatus in vitro in ways that might reflect earlier states, showing what changes are possible. The third is to examine the phylogeny of particular components, revealing how they have changed since the LUCA (or, in the case of paralogous genes, even before the LUCA), and to extrapolate backward from the principles thus revealed. Here we show how key applications of these approaches begin to provide a general framework for understanding the origin and development of the code.
UNQUOTE