| Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 189
|
dynasty: Quote: |
What does a computer animation mean? Well it could mean a lot if the information in the program is accurate, and can be proven to be accurate by other scientists. Here's the catch though: Baumgardner has not published his so called "findings" of catastrophic plate tectonics in any peer-reviewed science journal, other than creation science magazines.
| I'm sure he would if they would allow him. You think they just go an publish an creationist paper. No way. They discriminate against them all the time. First of all, do you see all those pictures of pangea they are disputing over? That is purely hypothetical. I don't believe in pangea at all. I think we don't know what the landmass looked like exactly, but from the bible it teaches that the land was one.
Keep in mind that at this point it get really hypothetic, they still trying to "flesh out the details".but this is admitted because we're dealing with origins. There are much greater signs of a global flood. If the flood happened, we can try our best to piece together what happened, but ultimately it had to have happened from some outside force from the earth's system.
The catostrophic plate tectonics idea proposed by Baumgardner does seem to explain some things better than the current plate tectonis models.
But like I said, there is much more obvious evidence for a world wide flood and to show the evidence of that it in the fossil record. Hope you don't mind if I share. Quote: Scientific Reasons
The earth's surface and sedimentary crust also bear strong witness to the historicity of a worldwide Flood, and the early geologists (Steno, Woodward, etc.) taught this. Most modern geologists have argued, on the other hand, that the earth's crust was formed slowly over billions of years. Yes, but consider the following significant facts. - All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Even most volcanic mountains with their pillow lavas seem largely to have been formed when under water.
- Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstones, shales, limestones, etc.). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources.
- The assigned "ages" of the sedimentary beds (which comprise the bulk of the "geologic column") have been deduced from their assemblages of fossils. Fossils, however, normally require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidly—even catastrophically—and more and more present-day geologists are returning to this point of view.
- Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a time when "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."
- It is also significant that the types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately throughout the various "ages" supposedly represented in the column. To all outward appearances, therefore, they were all formed in essentially the same brief time period.
- The fossil sequences in the sedimentary rocks do not constitute a legitimate exception to this rule, for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age. That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution, which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being." Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial.
- The fact that there are traditions of the great Flood found in hundreds of tribes in all parts of the world (all similar in one way or another to that in the Genesis record) is firm evidence that those tribes all originated from the one family preserved through the cataclysm.
This brief article is a mere introduction to the large array of scientific and Biblical evidences that could be cited for the great Flood of the Bible, global in extent and cataclysmic in character and results. The book, The Genesis Flood (co-authored by Dr. John Whitcomb and myself back in 1961), supplemented by many subsequent books and especially by many writers and articles in the Creation Research Society Quarterly scattered over its 35 years of publication, as well as various other creationist journals, provides an abundance of further evidence and documentation of the global extent and cataclysmic nature of the Flood.
One can understand why atheistic and pantheistic evolutionists have to interpret Earth history in terms of great ages and evolution, rather than Creation and the Flood. They really have no other choice, once they have decided to reject the God of Creation and His record in the Bible. However, it is very difficult to understand why men and women who do believe in God and His word do this. The Bible is explicitly clear on the global Deluge, and sound scientific evidence supports it.
But this position does mean that the geological ages could never have happened, and too many establishment-oriented Christians are not yet willing to take such a stand. And that's rather sad in these last critical days.
* Dr. Morris is Founder and President Emeritus of ICR. | http://www.icr.org/article/842/ Quote: As far as science is concerned, it should be remembered that events of the past are not reproducible, and are, therefore, inaccessible to the scientific method. Neither uniformitarianism nor catastrophism can actually be proved scientifically. Nevertheless, the Flood model fits all the geologic facts more directly and simply, with a smaller number of qualifications and secondary assumptions, than does the uniformitarian model.
An obvious indication of global water activity is the very existence of sedimentary rocks all over the world which, by definition, were formed by the erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments by moving water with the sediments gradually converted into stone after they had been deposited.
Similarly, an obvious indicator of catastrophism is the existence of fossils in the sedimentary rocks. The depositional processes must have been rapid, or fossils could not have been preserved in them."To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."<sup>5</sup> The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils."The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time-scale for relative age determinations and for world-wide correlation of rocks."<sup>6</sup> Thus, the existence and identification of distinctive geologic ages is based on fossils in the sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is prima facie evidence that each such fossiliferous rock was formed by aqueous catastrophism. The one question, therefore, is whether the rocks were formed by a great multiplicity of local catastrophes scattered through many ages, or by a great complex of local catastrophes all conjoined contemporaneously in one single age, terminated by the cataclysm.
The latter is the most likely. Each distinctive stratum was laid down quickly, since it obviously represents a uniform set of water flow conditions, and such uniformity never persists very long. Each set of strata in a given formation must also have been deposited in rapid succession, or there would be evidence of unconformity—that is, periods of uplift and erosion—at the various interfaces.
Where unconformity does exist, say at the top of a formation, there may well have been an interval of uplift or tilting, at that location. followed by either sub-aerial or sub-marine erosion for a time. However, since such formations invariably grade laterally into other formations (no unconformity, is worldwide), sooner or later one will come to a location where there is a conformable relationship between this formation and the one above it. Thus, each formation is succeeded somewhere by another one which was deposited rapidly after the first one ... and so on throughout the entire geologic column.
Thus, there is no room anywhere for long ages. Each formation must have been produced rapidly, as evidenced by both its fossils and its depositional characteristics, and each formation must have been followed rapidly by another one, which was also formed rapidly! The whole sequence, therefore, must have been formed rapidly, exactly as the Flood model postulates.
But, then. what about the geologic ages? Remember that the only means of identifying these ages is by fossils and fossils speak of rapid formation. Even assuming a very slow formation of these beds, however, how can fossils tell the age of a rock?
Obviously, fossils could be distinctive time markers only if the various kinds each had lived in different ages. But how can we know which fossils lived in which ages? No scientists were there to observe them, and true science requires observation. Furthermore, by analogy with the present (and uniformitarianism is supposed to be able to decipher the past in terms of the present), many different kinds of plants and animals are living in the present world, including even the "primitive" one-celled organisms with which evolution is supposed to have begun. Why, therefore, isn’t it better to assume that all major kinds also lived together in past ages as well? Some kinds, such as the dinosaurs, have become extinct, but practically all present-day kinds of organisms are also found in the fossil world.
The only reason for thinking that different fossils should represent different ages is the assumption of evolution. If evolution is really true, then of course fossils should provide an excellent means for identifying the various ages, an "unambiguous time-scale," as Schindewolf put it. Hedberg says:"Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely-separated regions."<sup>7</sup> The use of fossils as time-markers thus depends completely on "their record of evolution." But, then, how do we know that evolution is true? Why, because of the fossil record!"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."<sup>8</sup> So the only proof of evolution is based on the assumption of evolution! The system of evolution arranges the fossils, the fossils date the rocks, and the resulting system of fossil-dated rocks proves evolution. Around and around we go.
How much more simple and direct it would be to explain the fossil-bearing rocks as the record in stone of the destruction of the antediluvian world by the great Flood. The various fossil assemblages represent, not evolutionary stages developing over many ages, but rather ecological habitats in various parts of the world in one age. Fossils of simple marine invertebrate animals are normally found at the lowest elevations in the geologic strata for the simple reason that they live at the lowest elevations. Fossils or birds and mammals are found only at the higher elevations because they live at higher elevations and also because they are more mobile and could escape burial longer. Human fossils are extremely rare because men would only very rarely be trapped and buried in flood sediments at all, because of their high mobility. The sediments of the "ice-age" at the highest levels are explained in terms of the drastically changed climates caused by the Flood.
The flood theory of geology,<sup>9</sup> which was so obvious and persuasive to the founders of geology, is thus once again beginning to be recognized as the only theory which is fully consistent with the actual facts of geology, as well as with the testimony of Scripture.
| http://www.icr.org/article/54/ Quote:
Scientific arguments for a young earth are numerous.- The old-earth idea was developed historically, not from letting the physical facts speak for themselves but by imposing anti-biblical philosophical assumptions onto the geological observations. See this article and this DVD.
- The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. You cannot expect this icon of evolution to be overthrown in a few short paragraphs.
- John Morris’s book (The Young Earth) gives a good layman’s summary (with documentation and plenty of pictures to illustrate) of the some of the strongest evidences for a young-earth and global Flood. For more in-depth arguments see John Woodmorappe’s book (Studies in Flood Geology). Excellent DVDs illustrating some of these points are on Mt. St. Helens (Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe) and Grand Canyon (The Grand Canyon: Monument to the Flood). Creationist scientists (or any scientists, for that matter) don’t have answers to everything and so are continuing to do research (and the number of qualified creationist geologists is increasing), but following is some of the evidence brought out in these resources:
- The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).
- Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.
- Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.
- Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.
- The rock record screaming “Noah’s Flood” and “young earth.” The secular geologists can’t hear or see the message because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. The reason that most Christian geologists can’t see it is the same, plus the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible that they claim to believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. There are also thoroughly researched scientific refutations of skeptical objections to Noah’s Ark and the Flood here, which strengthen one’s faith in the biblical account of the Flood.
- Creationists still have many challenges regarding the scientific evidence for a young universe, but distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents, as this DVD by Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D. in astrophysics) shows: Distant Starlight.
Both God’s Word and His creation are saying the same thing. And over the past 50 years, true science has been increasingly confirming Scripture. With more research by both evolutionists and creationists in the years ahead, we can fully expect that many questions that young-earth creationists cannot presently answer will later be answered and will be shown to confirm that God created the whole universe a few thousand years ago, then cursed His whole creation a few days later because of Adam’s sin and then destroyed it with a global, catastrophic, year-long flood at the time of Noah, just as the Bible clearly teaches.
| http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../2006/0303.asp Quote: Evidence for a Young World
by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics
First published in
Impact #384, ICR
June 2005
Abstract
Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages.
<hr class="main"> <table mergenum="7" class="sidenote" align="right" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="5" width="200"> <tbody mergenum="6"> <tr mergenum="5"> <td class="sidenote"> Spiral galaxy NGC 1232 in constellation Eridanus (photo courtesy of European Southern Observatory).
</td></tr></tbody></table> Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.<sup>1</sup> Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”<sup>1</sup> The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.<sup>2</sup>
2. Too few supernova remnants.
<table mergenum="7" class="sidenote" align="right" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="5" width="200"> <tbody mergenum="6"> <tr mergenum="5"> <td class="sidenote"> Crab Nebula (photo courtesy of NASA)
</td></tr></tbody></table> According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.<sup>3</sup>
3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.<sup>4</sup> Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.<sup>5</sup> So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.
4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
<table mergenum="7" class="sidenote" align="right" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="5" width="300"> <tbody mergenum="6"> <tr mergenum="5"> <td class="sidenote"> Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it.
</td></tr></tbody></table> Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.<sup>6</sup> This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.<sup>7</sup> The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.<sup>7</sup> As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.
5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
 Every year, rivers<sup>8</sup> and other sources<sup>9</sup> dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.<sup>9,10</sup> As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates.<sup>10</sup> This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.<sup>10</sup> Calculations<sup>11</sup> for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
<table mergenum="7" class="sidenote" align="right" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="5" width="200"> <tbody mergenum="6"> <tr mergenum="5"> <td class="sidenote"> Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.
</td></tr></tbody></table> The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.<sup>12</sup> Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.<sup>13</sup> This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.<sup>14</sup> The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.<sup>15</sup>
7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.<sup>16</sup>
8. Biological material decays too fast.
 Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.<sup>17</sup> DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.<sup>18</sup> Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.<sup>19</sup> Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.<sup>20</sup>
9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
<table mergenum="7" class="sidenote" align="right" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="5" width="200"> <tbody mergenum="6"> <tr mergenum="5"> <td class="sidenote"> Radio Halo (photo courtesy of Mark Armitage)
</td></tr></tbody></table> Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.<sup>21</sup> “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.<sup>22</sup> “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.<sup>23,24</sup>
10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.<sup>25</sup> Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.<sup>26</sup> This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
 With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.<sup>27</sup> These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,<sup>28</sup> during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.<sup>29</sup> If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.<sup>29</sup> Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.<sup>31</sup>
<table align="center" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="5"> <tbody> <tr> <td> </td></tr></tbody></table> 14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.<sup>30</sup> Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.<sup>31</sup>
|
__________________
"29Then God said, ".. I have given you every plant yielding seed ..., and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; ....30and to every beast of the earth ..,I have given every green plant for food";... "
It's a plant
It grows in the ground
It's green
it has seed
When man's law and God's law contradict, Gods law prevails. Man is judging God's law. Thank God for cannabis.
Last edited by jonathan; 09-19-2007 at 05:13 AM.
|
09-17-2007, 10:39 PM
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
Grasscity RSS
