school – J.R. Cooper

Dark Matter; Why Does It Matter?

Disclaimer: I am not a cosmologist.

But here is what I do know. The model used to get from the Big Bang explosion from nothing to today’s observable universe, via naturalist or materialist means simply does not work without Dark Matter. (well, it doesn’t work for a myriad of other reasons too, but even assuming the rest fit, the naturalist needs Dark Matter).

Definitions are important, and sometimes I take for granted that everyone knows what I mean when I say things. So let’s take a second and define what I mean when I say a few terms:

Cosmology is a branch of astronomy concerned with the studies of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future.

When I say naturalist, or materialist, it is simply a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Things only developed through natural means, without a designer. Essentially this is the normative atheistic point of view.

And Dark Matter? What is it? Well, the definition provided is “a nonluminous material that is postulated to exist in space and that could take any of several forms including weakly interacting particles or high-energy randomly moving particles created soon after the Big Bang.”

These “particles” mind you, are not detectable by any means we now possess. Not visible or observable on any known spectrum. Can’t see it. Can’t feel it. Can’t hear it.

Then how, you might ask, do we know it is there? The answer is, it has to be, because if it wasn’t, the Big Bang model falls apart. In other words, those who operate under the presupposition that the universe propagated itself via natural means know that Dark Matter exists, because it has to exist for the presupposition to be true. This is the atheist’s own version of the “god of the gaps” argument. There is a major scientific gap in how stars can form and how galaxies have been able to maintain their shape (the wind-up problem) and in order to add the correct amount of gravity necessary to make the computer simulations work, they have invented, made up, concocted, pretended, that Dark Matter exists so that the observable universe is more mathematically feasible.

You see, without Dark Matter, the first stars could not have formed in the vacuum of space. If Hydrogen and Helium were floating around in a vacuum, physics tells us the particles would expand. Certainly if they were somehow inclined to coalesce into something more dense, and the temperature would rise, making them expand more, curbing any tendency inorganic, purposeless particles might have to form into a star. A star that must get so dense that it weighs 4,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 lbs, the weight of our own sun. Out of Helium. And hydrogen. In space.

The solution, enter Dark Matter. A plugged in and specified amount of un-detectable, un-observable gravity, that is there, simply because it must be, that would push these air particles together hard enough, and long enough to force them into creating the first stars.

I’d like to point out here that this is the self-same scientific community that prides itself on being the paragons of logic, who have market cornered on beliefs that are securely moored to facts, and who are quick to point fingers at believers in God as anti-science. The Berkeley science website even states, “Modern science does not deal with supernatural explanations because they are not scientifically testable.” – (understanding science, 2014).

And what is supernatural? It is defined as a force beyond scientific understanding, or the laws of nature. A force beyond observable nature.

A good example of such a supernatural force would of course be Dark matter.

Why am I so adamant, and even occasionally snarky about this subject? Because I feel the ridiculousness of these theories are obvious. The fudge factors are well known within the scientific community, and yet these obvious pleas for legitimacy are never presented to students. Only big words, and the repeating drums of the big bang being fact, along with great animation, and spectacular fairy tales propped up by eons of time. When spoken of in common language, explained in laymen’s terms, and splashed with the cold water of reality, with the physical laws of the universe, scientists are knowingly making up different types of matter, that no one can see, with the exact properties they need them to have, so that they do not have to be wrong. Dark Matter is one of several.

When I explain the reality of Dark Matter theory to my nine year old, she has the common sense to laugh at those silly scientists. Of course the atheist who sees Christians raise their kids with the notion that stars are a special creation, just like humans are, accuses the Christian of child abuse, negligence, and bad parenting.

But the materialists make up fudge factors with impunity, and without compunction. They call it good science, because it supports their idea of a Godless universe, and they manipulate data and simulations to tell the story they want to believe in. This has not been a search for truth. This has instead been a scramble to defend a dying cosmological model. Dark Matter, and it’s perfect and uncanny gravity, is just another example of this dishonest practice.

My question is, how many made up components of the Big Bang model must their be, before the materialists admit that they too are faith based, and that their faith is in that which is beyond nature, beyond the ability to observe, and in that which contradicts the laws of physics? The difference between concluding that there is a God and concluding that there is Dark Matter, is that the heavens declare the glory of God, it is obvious to any nine year old who looks up to the heavens in awe. Dark matter is declared by no one but the scientists who invented it, and use it in hopes that it will keep the truth of God at bay for a little while longer.

UPDATE: In addition to this article, I will add here an excerpt from the article, “Evidence for dark matter in the inner Milky Way”, sciencedaily.com, February 2015.

““The existence of dark matter in the outer parts of the Milky Way is well established. But historically it has proven very difficult to establish the presence of dark matter in the innermost regions, where the Solar System is located. This is due to the difficulty of measuring the rotation of gas and stars with the needed precision from our own position in the Milky Way.
“In our new study, we obtained for the first time a direct observational proof of the presence of dark matter in the innermost part of the Milky Way. We have created the most complete compilation so far of published measurements of the motion of gas and stars in the Milky Way, and compared the measured rotation speed with that expected under the assumption that only luminous matter exists in the Galaxy. The observed rotation cannot be explained unless large amounts of dark matter exist around us, and between us and the Galactic centre,” says Miguel Pato at the Department of Physics, Stockholm University.” (emphasis added).

This statement, “The observed rotation cannot be explained unless large amounts of dark matter exist around us”, is the obvious and continual bias coming from the scientific community. The effect of the presupposition of deep time is pervasive, and endlessly sabotages attempts at good science. It is the reason they must cling blindly to faith in made up fudge factors.

Also, this author claims “direct observational proof!” Of a substance they cannot detect! How did they directly observe it? They measured the rotation speed of heavenly bodies while assuming only detectable matter exists! In other words, they simply observed the natural universe. And since the conclusion makes deep time impossible, they know dark matter is proved! Are you kidding me?!

Here, from their own lips, you have faith in a made up element, rather than ever consider that their underlying assumptions about the universe are dead wrong.

What are the Odds, Layperson?

In the last article on dragons, I eluded to a default acquiescence that people engage in if they are laypeople, and are faced with advanced degrees and elite status. It is important to discover what science, and experts have learned, of course. But that is not to say that laypeople cannot engage in common sense considerations in regards to the creation vs evolution debate.

Often, we lay down against an opposing force with initials behind their name, and automatically assume that we are ignorant, or even stupid, if we disagree with them.

I have experienced this myself, when speaking to an astrophysicist. He talked circles around me, and was light-years (haha) smarter than me about Big Bang Theory, star formation, accepted postulations, lunar regression. But when I walked away, I couldn’t dismiss the fact that many of his postulations were deep time scientific models i.e. made up. The Biblical history described in Genesis was not only more logical in the end, but much more intellectually satisfying.

The point is, and this is just my opinion, laypeople have every right to engage in healthy debate, and if done cordially, and with respect, they can depend on their own sense of logic and common sense when it comes to the both biblical, and evolutionary studies. On the biblical side, we must ascertain if miracles are possible, for example. On the evolution side, we must decide if it is logical for us to believe in abiogenesis, or life from non-life. Another example may be that both camps have a huge problem with explaining starlight distance against time. One camp doesn’t have enough time for it to reach Earth, the other doesn’t have enough time for it to be observably equal across galaxies.

We have all heard the old example of monkeys pounding out Shakespeare on a typewriter. If not, it goes something like this:

If several hundred monkeys were lined up at typewriters, and were coerced to start pounding on the keys, and if this experiment went on long enough, we would eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare. This is evolution to a tee. It is a sold probability, and is supported by the elite of academia, regardless of whether or not it passes the smell test of our collective common sense. It is an accepted truth. It is technically possible, and so we add deep time, and conclude that without any guidance what-so-ever, a bacteria can through natural selection become a giraffe. This means that an unintelligent cause, literally beyond a simple-mindedness into the reality of no-mindedness, which knows nothing of giraffes, transforms a bacteria into a giraffe.

Must you be a technical expert in genetics, or biology to understand that this does not hold water?

The theory is perpetuated like this:

Can our monkeys accidentally hit the ‘T’ and then the ‘O’ one after the other? Sure, it is possible. One might say, hey neat, this monkey accidentally made a small word, the word “To”.

Is it technically possible that the space bar is hit next? Of course. Then, the odds would be small, but again technically possible for that monkey, assuming we had enough monkeys, billions of monkeys, hit ‘B’, ‘E’, ‘space’, ‘O’, ‘R’, ‘space’…

And then, ‘N’, ‘O’, ‘T’, ‘space’, ‘T’, ‘O’, ‘Space’, ‘B’, E’.

Is it technically possible? Given billions of monkeys, and billions of years, that eventually you would get the sentence, “To be or not to be”? It is a stretch. I’m going to say the answer is an obvious no. This is based on what I observe. I am not a geneticist. Not a biologist. But I know that based on my experiences this cannot happen.

We as logical, rational laypeople, realize that if I toss a handful of letters up in the air, it is possible that two letters may land next to each other, and spell ‘be’, or ‘to’, or ‘is’. If I actually got a three letter word, I’d probably laugh in amazement. “Holy cow, look, I tossed these letters up and it spelled bat! I mean, the ‘T’ is a bit crooked, and the ‘B’ is backwards, but still, that’s crazy!”

But if I go up in a helicopter, and toss out millions of letters, and I do that millions of times, will I ever spell, “To be or not to be, that is the question”?

Now imagine doing that and putting several million in the right order – the amount of base pairs in one bacteria cell’s DNA (cell of a human is 3 billion base pairs).

Another logically huge difference is evolution’s need for trillions of monkeys, to pound on that keyboard non-stop for billions of years. As if the universe, by chance through a series of non-intelligent causes with no agenda, is somehow trying to make order from chaos an infinite number of times. Not only this, but the universe must by chance continue to create new information, beneficial mutations, in order, at the right place, in a habitable zone, and with precise timing, all in order to bring about a result it does not desire in the least. Again, the mindless universe does not know what a giraffe is.

This is what we are taught. And despite our teachers telling us this is how it happened, we know instinctively that this cannot be the case. In fact, one could say, that we are “Without excuse.” It is my opinion, that people must train themselves into this belief, regardless of its absurdity. People wanted to believe it, wished for it, sold it, and of course now it is prevailing and acceptable. So much so that theistic evolutionists have adopted its processes as some warped way that the God of the bible would have created us. It is handed to us by an increasingly secular, man-centered society, and it is a gift for people to latch on to who hate the idea of God.

When Christ said ‘the truth shall set you free’, to those that sought to kill Him, they argued about accepting His truth about God the Father. He told them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did… If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.” (John 8: 39-45)

We know that an anti-God position is presented to allow for the greatness of man and his theories, but more so for his flexible morality. But I reiterate, a layperson should have every right to test what is being taught against their common sense, about macro-evolution (molecules to man), abiogenesis (life from non-life), and all random chance creating perfect order (anthropic principle) out of chaos for literally no reason, and with no intelligence.

I speak out about it to hopefully lend courage to those on the fence, or who are too scared or intellectually bullied by science elitists. It is okay to disagree with a prevailing theory that makes no sense, and is completely un-observable. It is okay to speak up and say that you don’t believe you came from a sub-species of ape, or from a fish, or from a bacteria, or the now infamous ‘we all came from stardust.’ It is okay to believe that billions of monkeys doing random things will never create the genius of a play, or the genius of a hummingbird, or the genius of you, who are made in the image of something wonderful. It is okay to believe you are worth more than happenstance, built upon random pointlessness.

It is more than okay. It is obvious.

_______

Romans 1:20 – For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse

The Logic of Dragons

Dragons are myth, and legend, and lore, yes? Part of tapestries, and tales, folklore and children stories. Certainly mankind has never hunted and defeated dragons to protect the villagers?

Dinosaurs, society knows, are very real, and of course we look to evidence within the fossil records. We see the erected bones in museums, and their animatronic representations in parks and movies. No intelligent present day person, regardless of belief, would deny that dinosaurs roamed the Earth. And regardless of the time of extinction, we concur that most of these large reptilian beasts are in fact extinct.

But with minimal research, it does not take an advanced degree to discern that dragons were very real, and in fact are the self same dinosaurs that intrigue us today. This is known in Biblical Creationist circles of course, but perhaps not so obvious to certain churches, public schools, and within homes and families that haven’t considered it. What if we use common-sense logic, and history, to identify the connection between dragons and dinosaurs?

One of our first considerations is Sir Richard Owen, a founding father of paleontology, who actually coined the term ‘dinosaur’, in the year 1841. This, as we learn in school, means ‘terrible lizard’. He was a creationist, and had built a natural history museum, within which was displayed creatures’ bones and fossils in 1838 (before the term dinosaur), called ichthyosaurs. Beneath these were the stamped words, “Sea-Dragon”.

Early paleontologists, as they discovered buried creatures, often referred to these large sea, land, and air reptiles as dragons, before and even after the term dinosaur was used. Often the two were used interchangeably.

Thomas Hawkins, and early paleontologist, wrote a research book on “Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri” called Book of the Great Sea Dragons.

This was in 1840, and in it, we can see the common name known to these scientists being used as they logged their discoveries of each fossil specimen. “Dragon”.

Aside from this, it is common knowledge that the Chinese called dinosaur fossils dragons, and is still a colloquial term used today. We certainly do not need to point out how important dragon legend is to the cultures of the Far East. But it is interesting to note that ancient emperor logs have indicated having dragons pull chariots, as well as employing royal dragon feeders, which would seem a strange position to hold with no dragons.

Another consideration would be to deduce whether or not mankind had knowledge of dinosaurs before paleontology, and natural history museums. Of course, the answer to that question is a resounding yes. How do we know this?

Perhaps we can consider the multitude of depictions within the artwork of cultures around the world?

Mayan petroglyphs depict common shapes such as humans, and birds, but also dinosaurs.

Murals and tapestries have dinosaurs depicted in them along with the subject matter of daily life. Some are full of head dresses, leopards, tribesman, and also dinosaurs!

One of my favorites are the engravings of two sauropods on the tomb of Bishop Richard Bell, in the Carlisle Cathedral, built in 1122 A.D. The rest of the tomb is decorated with the commonly observed creatures of today, such as bats, fish, even a dog with what appears to be a collar. Would be tough to explain why an artist/engraver, would suddenly take an aside, and concoct a large long-necked dinosaur that disappeared 65 million years ago.

Another interesting example comes from Calvin pic John Calvin’s commentary on the book of Genesis, the artwork for which was done in 1578 A.D. It is beautifully done, and is full of many animals, some of which appear to be dragons, again, long before paleontology, and before the term dinosaurs was ever coined. It is clear from the cacophony of history, that man has had knowledge of many creatures we would call dinosaurs today.

calvin2
calvin 3 There are hundreds of examples, from ocean stories, to cave paintings, to carvings in buildings, and these examples span the globe, as well as span a great length of time. Dinosaurs were being depicted for thousands of years, in every culture, long before modern science had reconstructed the shapes of the different species.

As the tension between Biblical creationists and Evolutionists continue, there are always rebuttals. We see this in lunar regression, in the decaying magnetic core, and we see it in the horizon problem of the Big Bang, etc. There is no difference here, as the prevailing theory is that ancient peoples uncovered fossils and depicted the animals they discovered.

Like many of the problems with evolution, the mental gymnastics of the ivy tower elite is handed off to academia for consumption. The dynamo theory, the inflation theory. Evolution asks the layperson to set aside common sense and trust the the non-observable ‘faith’ of scientists in chance and deep time to produce information against insurmountable odds, the hope being that people will believe if given enough time anything can happen.

In this case, we have a world of artistic history and discovery, and the very people who created paleontology in the first place confirming dragons as part of reality, rather than legend. Common sense would dictate that many of these creatures had been observed long before we assembled the bones in museums. Art, after all, imitates life.

I would ask that Biblical creationists not allow their common sense to be compromised through intimidation. Laypeople have every right to engage in healthy debate on the topic of origins, age of the Earth, and fun things like dragons. It is easy sometimes to defer to ‘experts’ such as the modern paleontologists who tout evolution as a fact and view all data through this presupposition.

This can lead to bad science and gross errors. Example?

Consider Carbon 14. Most evolutionary paleontologists would never consider testing dinosaur bones for Carbon 14, since it only lasts thousands of years. Why waste the money on testing, when they already “know” that they won’t find anything. Good observation by the elite, yes?

Except, when it is done, they detect Carbon 14. They get dates magnitudes closer to a biblical timeline than to the accepted 65,000,000 year old dates. Often, the secular labs doing the testing, such as The University of Georgia center for applied isotope studies is not told that the bone they are testing was from a hadrosaur so that they would indeed test it.

Typically what follows are cries of contaminated specimens (despite applied decontamination processes), but the reality is, the results are what we wold expect if dragons had walked the Earth with man. Again, observable, demonstrable, repeatable science is a help, not a hindrance, to true Biblical History.

How Geisler Defeated Skepticism

The great apologist, Norman Geisler, was battling the growing philosophy of skepticism back in the mid-sixties, made popular by David Hume over 200 years earlier. Hume’s skepticism regarding truth led other philosophers to follow suit, to expound on his ideals, leading to the pervasive skeptic movement that still exists today in academia. Hume’s assertion was that things were only actually meaningful if, and only if:

The truth claim is of abstract reasoning, such as 2+2=4, or all triangles have three sides;
the truth claim can be verified by the 5 senses.

According to his book, if it does not have reasoning concerning quantity or number, and it does not contain experimental reasoning, it should be “committed to the flames” as an illusion.

This of course does away with almost everything forensic in nature, not to mention relegating every religious book to usefulness only as fuel for a book burning.

God within philosophy was hard hit, and it opened up avenues for skeptics that are alive and well even now.

We have discussed The Law of Non-Contradiction, a self-evident first principle of philosophy in the previous article linked here. As a review, the law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive.

This Law gives logical ammunition to those who know how to use it as Geisler did, and in a college professor’s class at the University of Detroit in the ’60’s, he did just that. Hume’s philosophy was called ’empirical verifiability’, and was the second chapter of the subject matter being taught during this 14 week course. The professor, a professed atheist, allowed Norman to give his presentation on a chapter. He chose the empirical verifiability chapter.

That morning, the professor said to keep the speech at 20 minutes, so there was room for discussion after. Norm didn’t need that long. He stood up in front of the class, and stated this:

“The principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful propositions: 1. those that are true by definition, and 2. those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical verifiability is neither true by definition, nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful.”

He then sat down, and the class and professor both were silent.

Just like that, Norm had shown concisely, that the principle contradicted itself, and was not internally logical. It was self-defeating. The professor later blamed the train wreck of a semester, and all of its volatility on that one statement.

When we are faced with these world views, notice often that the writer or espouser always wishes to be excluded from his or her own statement. This occurs again with Kant, when he claims that no one can know the real world. In this premise he himself claims to know something about the real world.

We do very much believe in a God of logic, and who is reasonable. There is objective morality, objective truth beyond ourselves, and this should comfort us. Without it, we could not know anything at all. This is not to say we understand everything, for what kind of God would that be if we could comprehend all His glory. But, I dare say, it is more comforting believing in Him, then filling your worldview with doubt. What hope is there in doubt?

Taphonomy

Taphonomy is the branch of paleontology that deals with the processes of fossilization. It is like investigating a crime scene to find out the best possible explanation for the evidence. In laymen’s terms, it is attempting to find out what killed the animals in question. In the case of the paleontological dig in Wyoming run by Dr. Arthur Chadwick, it is about finding what cased the death of many dinosaurs.

Art explained: “We’re doing what’s called taphonomy. Taphonomy it’s like CSI, Crime Scene Investigation. Our goal is to find out what killed the dinosaurs, what they were doing when they died, and then what happened after they died. Did they sit around and rot, or were they buried right away? And then what happened after they were buried to preserve the bones and change them?”

The area that he was excavating for study was over 80 acres in size, and had millions of fossilized bones in it, most disarticulated. This just means that they are found disconnected from the adjacent bones. This indicates some swirling pressure, and some rot (enough to separate bone from connective tissue). Fascinatingly, most of these bones in Arthur’s bone bed are found in the first 3 feet of mudstone. In 80 acres and only a meter thick, we find millions of bones laid out together!

So what is the doctor’s conclusion as to how they got there? He explained: “These animals had to die and then their carcasses had to have time to rot. So we’re talking days or weeks or months during which time the bones and tissue were either eaten away or rotted away. And then the bones that remained were deposited instantaneously in this environment because they’re in a graded bed with big bones at the bottom and little bones at the top, and you can see that here. The big bones are all down at the bottom. When they start digging up here, they start to find smaller bones. So that condition requires a sorting process that can only take place during a catastrophic emplacement.”

“The only way I know how you could develop a graded bed is if you had a catastrophic process that transported these bones and laid them all in as a single event.” – Art Chadwick, PhD

So, take a minute and think about the environment that this must have taken place in. Not the slow gradual environment that they try to teach in school. That would not explain this, nor a plethora of other fossil graveyard sites. In a millions of years scenario, there would not be sorting. They would not all be so close to the surface. They would not be so densely packed, and over so wide a range (if say deposited by an ancient river). How would this occur slowly over time, and somehow carcasses not be consumed by nature too quickly for fossilization (like we observe in nature today). This, according to tophonomy is best explained by a single catastrophic event. You have many dinosaurs which all died together, swirled in muddy eddies, rotting and breaking apart over weeks or months, and then settled in mud and water. And most of these animals that found themselves in these swirling, violent, muddy deathtraps would indeed be disarticulated.

Remember, this is a forensic science. Studies current data to explain a past event. We have two events to consider, the slow depositing of animals world wide who all were buried in mud and water (not occurring today), or a recorded world wide deluge, corroborated by the bible, over 270 flood legends, and evidence such as bone-beds like this picture. Could this happen all over the world with slow natural processes? These observations are made, knowing full well the disdain modern scientists have for studying data in light of the reality and authenticity of Genesis. But our education is our own, not someone else’s. You must decide which model makes sense to you.

Archeological/Geological Response to Atheist Part 4 of 5

Atheist: Here’s a very incomplete list of things that cannot be explained by your flood or fit into the young earth creationist’s timeline (continued):

(for part 1, click here)

(for part 2, click here)

(for part 3, click here)

the almost universal disarticulation of vertebrate fossil skeletons (complete articulated skeletons would indicate catastrophic burial),

Fossils are found articulated (together), disarticulated (space between vertebrae), and partial. Considering the swirling violent nature of a world wide flood, and the amount of eroding mud and water that was displaced, we get exactly what wwould be expected, which is various fossil graveyards, sea creatures fossilized on mountains, evidence of swirled eddies of decaying flesh buried by mud, and yes, disarticulated spines. A better question, I think, is how do you explain this picture and many like it without a global catastrophe? Could this happen all over the world with slow natural processes?How were these animals log jammed together in what would become a fossil graveyard? How do 36 bus-sized sea creatures (Mosasaurus) end up buried on the Rocky Mountains? How are petrified clam shells, buried before death (closed), found on Mt Everest? And I guarantee that most of the vertebrate animals finding themselves in these swirling, violent, muddy deathtraps were disarticulated.

ancient sandstone that formed in deserts (not floods),

This is most likely a reference to the Coconino desert sand dunes found at the Grand Canyon. Evolution-believing geologists such as Young, Strahler, and Stearley use this formation as a slam dunk to discredit the flood. Though, as of Creationist Geologist Dr. John Whitmore’s study, none of these scientists had actually been there. So a team of Creationist Geologists (The study had many participants, including Ray Strom, Paul Garner, Stephen Cheung, and Guy Forsythe, resulting in many scientific publications, presentations, and abstracts within the scientific community, with John Whitmore as the lead investigator) went out there to examine the claims, and do lab work. They found 7 myths being perpetrated upon students of geology regarding these formations that served to convince others it was not formed underwater. (“Intraformational Parabolic Recumbent Folds in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) and Two Other Formations in Sedona, Arizona (USA),” January 21, 2015; and “Petrology of the Coconino Sandstone (Permian), Arizona, USA,” December 10, 2014.)

These included, by where not limited to whether or not the sand grains are well-sorted, well-rounded, and the dunes were at the correct angle for being formed under water vs by wind – over 200 samples revealed angles of 20 degrees, not 32, which was indicative of underwater formation rather than wind; corroborated by other geologists, and comparable to observable underwater dunes today. Bottom line? It took Bible believing scientists who saw flaws in the formation story of these dunes to investigate it themselves, without the presupposition of evolutionary time, in order to discover the problems with often adhered to claims. With molecules to man evolution having been widely accepted by academia as true, geologists unfortunately feel no need to re-examine the claims of their peers, despite the fact that contradictions with what is taught in text books exists for all to see and observe.

P.S. Similar results were found at the Navajo Sand Dunes.

P.P.S. We can add this to the list of features (coming up next) about the Grand Canyon that have no evidence which can discredit the flood, but can instead be used to support God’s word. Expected, but still amazing!

the physical shape of the Grand Canyon,

Taken at face value, the Grand Canyon continues to be quite the perplexing formation for evolutionists. The dedication to this paradigm forces geologists to theorize beyond what would otherwise be so simple. Creationists who understand the obvious reason for its formation need no such gymnastics to explain it. With proof that great spillways can form rapidly now apparent since the Mt. St, Helens eruption, and with several obvious observations at the Canyon itself, we can take joy in the truth of God’s word:

Middle is higher elevation than the head waters (Kaibab Plateau)

Both sides agree uplift of center occurred before the river was there (water doesn’t run uphill; another great observation for second graders)

Gargantuan river delta that should be present is missing

Stable, shear cliffs, little rock fall – not slow erosion, but washed out

No Talus at base of cliffs – Amphitheaters hundreds of feet of sheer Cliffside over one mile from water, with no debris (washed out)

It is relict – unchanged from what formed it, stable in current condition.

This geological feature becomes quite obviously the result of a global flood. Slow erosion could not have created it, nor could any river system imaginable. Also, the lack of river delta was addressed in an earlier part, which happens to be missing if the 1000 cubic miles of mud and rock were washed away slowly.

[side note: geologist and creationist Dr. Snelling is currently in a lawsuit with the Grand Canyon Authorities, due to them not allowing him to collect samples for his work, because of his beliefs and how they pertain to his field.]

ancient stromatolites,

These are algae fossils within the “Pre-Cambrian” strata. Creationists understand that faulty assumptions based on a geologic column that was invented out of the imagination of a bible hater in the 1800’s, and that exists no where in the world except for in the text books where they teach children about evolution, would need to be re-examined. Catastrophism is quite obvious in the fossil record, and is quickly being admitted to even by evolutionary geologists. But throwing away the sacred cow of the faith based geologic column is anathema to evolutionists. That being said, if the circular reasoning of arbitrarily dating the ‘pre-cambrian’ strata, and then using said date to infer that its fossils must pre-date the flood is again not science. It is assumption based on faith. This type of argument is called begging the question. It isn’t logically or scientifically valid.

concentrations of helium in zircons (which comes from radioactive decay),

At the present evaporation rate of helium within zircon, if it were millions of years old, there should be none left, yet we find plenty. This is yet another coffin nail in the evolutionary timeline, along with many various dating issues, such as the Carbon-14 found in diamonds! The RATE Team (8 doctors who believe the bible) did an 8 year study on this and other remarkable geology. Find it in their book “Thousands, not Millions”.

the changing chemistry of rocks over time,

addressed at dolomite question (part 2)

the nearly complete absence from the earth’s crust of elements like technetium (the most stable isotope has a half life of 4.2 million years),

This element is literally a man made, synthetic element created in the 1920’s. I had to chuckle when I looked this up. I can’t imagine how this could be levied against Christians in a desire to make their beliefs seem foolish. It being absent from the earth’s crust, being that it’s man-made, would have no bearing on this argument whatsoever. It was hard not to be sarcastic in this answer.

the current temperatures of huge masses of igneous rock (which would have taken millions of years to cool down),

Again, we are creating a problem here based on assumptions. Are we counting Granite which makes up 70% to 80% of the earth’s crust, as igneous rock which must be cooled? According to Berkley, “Debate has long centered on whether granite is igneous or metamorphic in origin. Originally granite was thought to form mainly from magmatic differentiation of basaltic magma, but geologists now believe there is simply too much of it for it to have formed this way… Evidence of intrusion or great mobility is considered to indicate an igneous origin that stems from melting of sediments; but where no good evidence of either a magma chamber or of fluidity is observed, a metamorphic origin must be considered.”

This means to the layman, that much of the earth’s crust must have been made chemically, not from being melted. This reduces the amount of rock that needs to be cooled, as the intrusive rock layers, or plutons, which are considered igneous, may instead have a metamorphic origin, which means they were never melted. Polonium halos also speak to granite’s quick formation. See the book, “Creation’s Tiny Mystery”, by Robert V. Gentry.

Again, defining the problems without assumption give us many plausible answers. Much of the crust can most easily be explained by creation on day 3.

Regarding the actual igneous rock formations, many could have actually been formed at the time of the flood during the development of tectonic plate movement. Great strides have been made in the understanding of the viscosity, and its cooling, (conduction vs convection) of plutons. Evidence suggests that these sheets of rock were quickly injected into the earth’s crust, and could have cooled in less than 3000 years.

large metamorphic bodies,

Amusingly, the creation model detractor has put every type of rock we observe in nature on his list for reasons their can’t be a creation or a flood. This has more to do with the fact that geologists have adopted the evolutionary paradigm of biology, and presume millions of years upon every feature they observe. As with the geological sorting that has occurred to lay down sedimentary rock layers showing obvious signs of catastrophe, and likewise the observable processes and evidence of igneous rock formations, we can now consider the observable reality of metamorphic rocks. The evolutionary model of how these formations were formed of course involves millions of years. As with other factors, this is simply not the only possibility, and through studying, can even have evidences stacked against it as a possibility. More importantly than that, though, is the realization that according to the creation model, dry land was formed, created by God on day 3. If God truly created the heavens and the earth, if the bible is in fact true, then the miracles of earth formation, as well as stars, water, the sun and moon, and other actual creative miracles were obviously assumed to be the method of formation in many cases.

Evolutionists will claim this is a “God of the Gaps” argument, that we insert God’s creative powers anywhere that doesn’t fit the biblical paradigm. This could grow into a lengthy answer, if responded to completely. But the short answer is simply, a realization that this is not a fall back excuse, but a believed in process, supported not only by the great design we witness, but by the fact that the alternative is that matter had to have made itself, which is its own ‘evolution-of-the-gaps argument, relying on time and unobserved mutations, violations of laws of motion, and of thermodynamics, to create matter, and order from nothing.

the sheer amount of volcanic deposits…

Most of the volcanic evidence we observe in the earth’s crust was from when when the fountains of the deep broke open. The evidence shows just how volatile the flood really was. Spillways, mountains, volcanoes, oceans, ice age, these geological observances indicate not only the event’s seriousness, but also its scale. Remember this was to wipe out all life. It is not the mild rains depicted in children’s books. It was a global killer, and is responsible for the fossil record, the ring of fire, and the great amounts of pillow lava we observe, some making up whole sections of continents (Northwest America), evidence that the magma burst forth under water. Again, all this points to the reality of a flood, and continues to.

Archaeology does not support the exodus from Egypt,

This is quite plainly a false assertion. Archaeologists tend to know that despite biblical criticism, the bible ends up being proven right as more and more evidence is uncovered. It used to be that arguments against the bible were made from silence, that is they said we hadn’t found evidence to support it yet. But that is always a dangerous position, as many have found; and as more evidence has been uncovered, in archaeology specifically, it corroborates what the OT has already stated as history for thousands of years. This is true with cities, kings, customs, economies, and more, and we have an embarrassing amount of evidence, such as bulla, cuniform, and architecture to prove it. Anyone making this claim is saying so without proper study, or is being intellectually dishonest, and more than likely wishes there to be no evidence and is willing to take a skeptic’s rant against the bible as true fact.

There are over 52 historical people from the bible who have been confirmed archaeologically, many cities such as Nineveh, and Ur, Babylon, and Jericho. And there are great studies and documentaries on the subject in question, such as “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus” which detail evidences of the forensic science of archaeology, and how it pertains to the bible.

(Continued in Part 5)

Archeological/Geological Response to Atheist Part 3 of 5

Atheist: Here’s a very incomplete list of things that cannot be explained by your flood or fit into the young earth creationist’s timeline (continued):

(for part 1, click here)

(for part 2, click here)

huge amounts of chalk,

These are exampled by the thick chalk beds of Dover, England.

The first thing to note is that these chalk beds, like many other large sedimentary examples, stretch across vast areas, even continents! These great rock formations, and how they cover so much land is a great sign that they were laid down not only catastrophically, but that they were part of a global event strong enough to spread them over large territories. Millions of years of slow local processes would not, and could not accomplish this.

“The Cretaceous chalk beds of southern England are well known because they appear as spectacular white cliffs along the coast. These chalk beds can be traced westward across England and appear again in Northern Ireland. In the opposite direction, these same chalk beds can be traced across France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, southern Scandinavia, and other parts of Europe to Turkey, then to Israel and Egypt in the Middle East, and even as far as Kazakhstan.

Remarkably, the same chalk beds with the same fossils and the same distinctive strata above and below them are also found in the Midwest USA, from Nebraska in the north to Texas in the south. They also appear in the Perth Basin of Western Australia.” – Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/transcontinental-rock-layers/

Dr Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute (Loma Linda, California) and John Woodmorappe are two of several doctors that again provide math that allows for their thickness, once scientists are willing to see past their uniformitarian assumptions. (Article on Chalk beds by Snelling)

Rather than rehash the same response as with syntectonic deposits, and dolomite, it might be interesting to point out here that a major problem with the two opposing views is interpretation of what we observe. We all have the same facts, large chalk formations, sediment in the ocean, the moon and its features, and we must interpret them depending upon our world view. This has been explained several times, and in several different ways, so I won’t re-explain here. But what one must also do is then weigh these theories, these models, these interpretations, and decide for one’s self if they hold water collectively.

When taken as a whole, the obviousness of the order in our universe is apparent, from the solar system to our DNA, evidence of biblical history, evidence of the resurrection, and the numerous factors that can be viewed easily from a biblically historic perspective, where what we observe matches a history written so long ago, and is still proven reliable and verifiable over and over. Or we can believe that humans have no soul, that life, and reason, and art, and music, and love were accidental. And in believing so, we must adopt mental gymnastics, and propose great gobs of time to develop the godless model of our existence.

So the common argument, in order to hope there is no god, is to say, I have a plausible explanation for everything being random if we add enough time, despite obvious signs of catastrophism the world over.

Dr. George Wald, Professor of Biology at Harvard University, and Nobel Laureate espoused well the necessary belief to convince oneself of such incredible explanation: “The origin of life” Scientific American, August 1954 “However improbable we regard this event [origin of life], or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.”

“Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.”

Sounds like faith to me.

offset of sediments along faultlines like the San Andreas,

Don’t know much about this, or why it would mean the world is millions of years old. Would have to research, however the conventional opinion of creation scientists is that most or all of the fault lines were created when the fountains of the deep broke open, allowing subterranean water chambers to flood the earth, and forming plates.

the amount of oil and coal in the earth’s crust,

Answered regarding biomass in part 1.

the mere existence of oil and coal,

Previously addressed numerous times. Here is an excerpt from Diamonds Have Carbon 14:

“Consider this as well: Scientists in a lab made coal in 6 hours. At a different time, in 1982 the British made oil in 10 minutes. Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University triumphantly stated, “We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do.” This is yes another stellar example of our presuppositions determining our interpretations. Another, more obvious conclusion, if one were not blinded by evolutionary theory would be to instead triumphantly announce, “It doesn’t take nearly as long as we thought for coal and oil to form!”

So what we have is, depending on conditions and pressure, the scientifically proven ability to form these things quickly. Furthermore, we have evidence that they are from not long ago, with artifacts from mankind having been found in them, such as bells and figurines, as well as having found carbon 14 in them, diamonds, and bones that should at this point be carbon dead.

I would submit that the existence of coal, oil, and the fossil record prove that millions of things were buried quickly andglobally, since this is how they are in fact formed, and do not detract from the reality of a flood, but support it greatly.

the absence of soft tissue in older fossils,

This is an argument from silence. A few years ago, the argument would have been “you don’t have soft tissue in fossils at all!” That of course has changed, since many examples of soft, stretchy tissue have now been found, in T-Rex samples, in triceratops horns, and many others. Now the criticism is, we don’t possess soft tissue from things older than “60 million years” or “older fossils”. The mineralization of organic material is evidenced all over the earth; millions of animals and plants buried quickly by mud and water. The very nature of how they were buried provides us with our ample fossil evidence. We know again from observation that most things that aren’t buried do decay quickly, and are consumed by the natural recycling of nature. Any soft tissue of extinct animals would be rare indeed. Soft tissue of such examples only verifies the creation model. A better question for atheists is, why do we have this many fossils at all?!

early fossils found in gastroliths in the bellies of dinosaur fossils,

Interesting assertion here. A gastrolith is a rock swallowed by a dinosaur that is used to aid digestion. As they roll around in the belly of an animal, they become polished and rounded. Evolutionists have found some of these with fossils already in them, so as you can see, if the fossils within the gastroliths were formed before the dinosaurs, then how did the the flood cause both samples to be fossilized at different times? The solution, as verified by Zaleha, M.J. and Wiesemann, S.A., (Hyperconcentrated flows and gastroliths: Sedimentology of diamictites and wackes of the Upper Cloverly Formation, Lower Cretaceous, Wyoming, U. S. A., Journal of Sedimentary Research 75(1):43–54, 2005), is that these gastroliths with fossils are not gastroliths at all, but merely akin to the river rocks of today. Polished, smooth rocks washed miles and miles by water. We can easily imagine in a receding flood, many rocks being eroded and deposited all over the land. Why then are these classified as such? To promote evolution? Perhaps. Or perhaps an evolutionary scientist gets more kudos by reporting on a supposed “proof” of anti-creation, and a rare gastrolith, then reporting on some river rocks?

(Continued in Part 4)

Archeological/Geological Response to Atheist Part 2 of 5

Atheist: Here’s a very incomplete list of things that cannot be explained by your flood or fit into the young earth creationist’s timeline (continued):

(for part 1, click here)

plate tectonics, the higher elevation and older age of the continents compared to ocean floors,

Plate tectonics is not a criticism of creationism. Both models agree we see observable plate tectonics. However, based on what we observe today, there are many features that can be explained by a global flood. Many canyons and hundreds of volcanoes lining the ocean floor; layered strata, most fossils, the ice age, the Grand Canyon, and yes the tectonic plates, which were created when the great fountains of the deep burst forth. Imagine water exploding violently from great cracks in the crust such as the Atlantic Ridge, forcing water and mud to race around the globe. Great plates of land began to buckle, forming the mountains of today (complete with buried lifeforms on top of them), This is why the major mountain chains are parallel to the ridges from which they slid.

In regards to the assertion that the age of continents are greater than the age of the ocean floor, my response would be, who dated them? This is circular reasoning. One cannot tell me the earth is very very old, and then use the date they tell me it is to prove it is old. This conclusion is based solely on the faith in this evolutionary model. Aside from its obvious assumptions, this is like declaring that the mountains are old because they are old.

the sheer number of animal species that exist,

Doctors and scientists from both AIG and Creation MInistries International have done exceptional work in this area. Taxonomy and speciation have massive hurdles to overcome if evolution is true, as well as does the fossil record. The animals found are stubbornly found complete and distinct, perfectly designed, and in most cases easily classifiable. This would not be the case if evolution is true, and again obvious to a second grader, if slow gradual change was the rule, then it would not be necessary for all evolutionists to scramble at every presumption of a found transitional form, for there would obviously be millions and millions, so many that taxonomy itself would be impossible. The great variety of species is a boon to special creation, because we do not have to assert that humans, bananas, the porcupine, mold, and octopuses are all somehow related!

Further study will allow you to conclude that not only was their room on the ark for all land animals, but that God has provided great variety within His beautiful design. Species in each case can be traced back to either the genus or family level of classification, now known as the baramin, and each baramin can account for the many species and sub-species that micro-evolution has caused over time. But in each case, and this is key, we always find that biological constraints keep one kind from changing beyond a pre-designed, natural, genetic limit.

angular unconformities,

Not overly familiar (I am not a geologist), though there is a great creation evidence in bent rock layers, evidence that great amounts of earth were buckled and uplifted during a time where all the rock was soft and pliable (no evidence of cracking). This wouldn’t have happened it hard, brittle rock was slowly uplifted for millions of years. Regarding the uncomformities, I’d direct anyone who wishes to delve into it specifically to Creationist Taz Walker’s explanation of the most famous site for angular uncomformity east of Edinburgh, Scotland.

dolomite,

Touting dolomitization as evidence for evolution, we find evolutionists claiming “evolution” as a pervasive force through all sciences. This is done as if natural occurrences are for some reason denied by Christians in a continued attempt to label them “anti-science”. I have hotly debated atheists who are very precise in their definitions, and who attack when attempts to offer different syntax through context are used. It is a great inroad to an ad hominem attack in many cases. That being said, the consensus among the science-minded elite within the debates have asserted emphatically that evolution is defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool. This is from experience, and again, this was emphatically, sometimes rudely asserted. As you can tell from the definition, it applies to organic material. Yet somehow, we keep running across inorganic evolutionary assertions, like in geology here, or in regards to chemical or stellar evolution, where one must deduce that somehow inorganic material is somehow also mutating to provide the universe with different or more abundant types of matter. (We find this as an insurmountable hurdle in the Big Bang Theory model, as matter not only has to explode from the central explosion, but must also keep creating new material along the way).

The reality regarding dolomite is that minerals do change over time. This is hardly anything new, though claiming it is analogous or even a type of evolution, and that biological and geological evolution have occurred together to bring about the existence of man was not something Darwin agreed with, but has become part of the great evolutionary thinking that has been forced to cover many sciences, since without God it must explain everything. That is of course what materialism is. Robert Hazen the geologist wanted dolomitization to be defined as ‘mineral evolution by mutation’ (Hazen, R.M. et al., Mineral evolution, American Mineralogist 93(11–12):1693–1720, 2008). The bottom line, the chemical changes of minerals over time is well understood, is observable, and does not exclude a creationist account.

massive deposits of salts via evaporation of ancient lakes and oceans,

Remember, the claim is that this is a list of things that CANNOT BE EXPLAINED by a flood or in a young earth timeline. In this case, this is predicated upon evaporation being the definitive cause of these large salt beds, a theory presented by Ochsenius in 1877. Here are a few problems with the evaporation theory, however:

To form a deposit only 1 km thick would require seawater 60 km deep to be evaporated.⁶
The salt formations show negligible contamination with sand, contradicting the evaporation model which requires a sandbank in combination with consistently dry weather over a long period of time. This process would introduce a lot of sand into the salt evaporation enclosures.
The salt formations exhibit negligible contamination with marine fossils, contrary to what would be expected with seawater constantly flooding into the evaporation area and the enormous amount of seawater involved.
The evaporation areas need to be in regions of high sunlight and low rainfall if the seawater is to evaporate. However, the distribution of salt deposits globally contradicts the idea that all of these areas were once near the equator for the required time to achieve such a result.

This model is wholly inadequate to explain the thickness of these formations. The obvious response to evolutionists is, ‘based on your assumption that the evaporation theory is how these formations formed, we may have a time problem. However, is that how it was formed?’ James Hutton, who introduced deep-time as a geologist, was convinced that these formations had a hot magma, or igneous origin. This model has been studied since and explains the formations much more adequately. So yes evolutionists can debunk biblical chronology only if they cling to assumed theories they know demand great time. This is often the default assumption in science, since they already “know” that evolution is true. It isn’t a surprise that if you devise a theory based on great amounts of time, you can then use that same theory to prove great amounts of time.

syntectonic deposits,

These are simply deposits that accompany tectonic activity, which were of course abundant and global during the flood. Not sure which geological observances around cracks in the earth’s crust would be proof against the flood, but again, I am not a geologist. I would caution those who study it though, to be mindful, just like in the prior salt formation examples. A theory based on deep time to explain a deposit will no doubt be asserted because “we already know evolution and deep time is true”. So you will get lots of “millions of years ago” and “slowly over time” comments. The fact is most geological features we can observe can happen very quickly. Obviously, based on the observation of deposits laid down all over the world catastrophically should lead most to conclude that there must have been a catastrophe. To be blind to it because you have already philosophically ruled out a global flood is not science. It is faith.

To be continued Part 3

Archeological/Geological Response to Atheist Part 1 of 5

The list that follows is copied and pasted from a comment in a small debate with an atheist. Though science wasn’t the original topic of the feed, rather it was the hopelessness of atheism, this list was presented as a sound refutation of why creation and the flood couldn’t possibly be realities. I thought rather than get into a tit-for-tat debate in someone else’s comment feed, which tends to by highly unfruitful, I would address the list here. Less emotion, less noise, and a teachable moment for anyone following, that much of the criticisms fired at Christianity are not proofs against it, but are assertions based on the presupposition that their world view is correct, i.e. “there is no God”. In this way, maybe bible believing Christians can be edified by knowing that regardless of the other side’s presumption, there has historically been great reason to hold fast to the truth of the word. Since “there is no God” must be true for an atheist, everything they observe in nature must not support the bible, or the biblical world view, but only materialism, which means an evolutionary explanation. Out of respect for the atheist and his list, I would state that I am not implying his list was exhaustive, and I am quite sure there is a rebuttal for each comment made. The point here is to realize evidence must be interpreted based on world view.

Admittedly, I have similar biases, for all that I see in nature screams loudly that there is in fact a God, and that the Bible’s history is accurate down to minute detail. I am a firm believer that people are saved through the hearing of the gospel, and the Holy Spirit moving in or softening their hearts. But this doesn’t exclude facts, logic or reason. How could it if God is the creator of our organized reality? My faith in God and His word is the filter through which I see the observable world. One thing biblicists will admit, and which is an obvious truth, is that “scientists don’t say anything – scientists do.” What we then observe, based on presupposition, is our interpretation of hard facts. Let’s explore!

I’ll put atheist comments in Green, and my responses in Black:

Here’s a very incomplete list of things that cannot be explained by your flood or fit into the young earth creationist’s timeline:

Varves, the Green River Formation,

What the heck are varves?! Varves are sedimentary rock formations, ripples, or laminae that are thought to be annual deposits. At the Green River, geologists can see millions of these varves, and it is often pointed to in much of evolutionary literature as proof the world is very old. When clinging to the presupposition of uniformitarian thinking, an evolutionist would certainly try to claim these must be annual. The truth is, in field observations and in labs, varves have been seen to form very quickly, especially in storms and unusual conditions (aka. a global deluge). In many observations, multiple ridges form instantaneously! Plus at Green River, we find a great many perfectly fossilized fish with great detail preserved in the varves, down to the eyeballs, scales and the like. More than even this, we find a great many fossils there from different ecosystems; plants, and birds (shore birds all the way to forest birds all in the same formation). We know, again from observation that fish rot and are consumed by nature quickly upon death. If we cling to the millions of years to form the Green River Formation theory, we must try to explain how these fish didn’t rot long enough over the millions of years, to form such detailed fossil samples, or why there are fossils at all. Using common sense, I believe we can safely deduce a great catastrophic event not only caused these sedimentary rock formations, but also buried life from a wide area in this one place. Most geologists don’t cling to the idea that each varve equals 1 year.

ice cores,

This theory of annual ice rings has been smacked down like a jump shot defended against by Lebron James. The best and most obvious example is the famous lost squadron. It is worth researching yourself and is a fascinating tale, but to make a long story short – A WWII squadron was lost in 1942 over Greenland. These planes were recovered in 1988, only 46 years later. Due to the shifting in ice, and to the great surprise of the search teams, the squadron was finally located 250 feet down below the surface, and through hundreds and hundreds of ice rings in the mere 46 years. Rings are formed during hot and cold, and are not a product of deep time.

the sheer amount of buried biomass,

This argument is unfortunately due to ignorance of the creation model. Creationists do not have issue with the huge amount of biomass (oils, coals, natural gases) found in the earth’s crust, but evolutionists think we do. This is because there is great misunderstanding as to what the pre-flood world looked like. Again, blinded by the present-being-the-key-to-the-past assumption (an unscientific one), if one imagines all the organic material on the earth today being used to form coal, we would fall desperately short of what is in the earth’s crust currently. And that would of course be correct. The problem is evolutionists assume the present land area of the earth is the analogous to the creation model’s pre-flood world. They assume every and all creationists believe in a Pangaea arrangement of continents, and that, like today’s world, the earth back then was only habitable on about 3% of its surface area. But God’s word clearly teaches that not only was the original design supposed to be conducive for man to spread out and subdue it, as well as enjoy its bounty and ability to provide longevity, but also that the post-flood world dramatically changed the earth, as evidenced by plummeting ages, fossil records, and plant material even under the icecaps. In a proper understanding of the pre-flood world, one that fits with the evidence, we would have a surface covered with land, springs underneath (as described in the Garden of Eden [different hydrological cycle], and plentiful biomass, which easily explains the amount of coal and oil in the earth’s crust without resorting to billions of years of assumption. Imagine a world where 65% of the earth is habitable? With better growing conditions, denser atmosphere, and higher magnetism, we have the potential for a great amount of biomass, much of which would have been buried in the earth’s crust quickly. In other words, this criticism of the bible is based on assumption, an observation of what we see today pushed through the filter of an evolutionary world view. Biomass does not pose a problem to the creation model at all.

ocean sediments,

A surprising factor for an atheist to present in my opinion. Ocean sediment is a factor that fits much more comfortably in the creationist model. Here is what we observe: Water and wind erode 24 billion tons per year. The sea floor should be choked, but average height of sea floor sediment is only 1300 ft
Therefore the limit based on current erosion rates is 12 million years (much shorter when catastrophic events are factored in) not in the billions.
North America should have been leveled in 10 million years if erosion has continued at the average rate. Mathmatically, and again based on observation, a height of 150 kilometers (93 miles) of continent would have eroded in 2.5 billion years
crumble the concept of ancient mountains. Now of course the evolutionist will counter by saying uplift replaces that which is eroded. But if this were true, uplift from the earth’s crust would not carry with it fossils, or sedimentary rock layers. Therefore after 10 million years, we should no longer find these “old” rock layers on any of the earth’s continents, especially the fossils we find in mountainous regions.

river deltas,

Again, a surprising factor to be presented. River deltas are the fanned out erosion formations at a river’s termination point. The flood accounts for a wide variety of erosion rates, depending on the type of rock and mud in an area, and current river flow in the last 4500 years, but more importantly, the river deltas we do see should be way larger than current sizes if the world was millions of years old. This is another limiting factor. The most striking example of this is the Grand Canyon, a huge evidence for a global catastrophe. This giant spillway has left relatively no river delta from the over 1000 cubic miles of earth that has been removed. If this is slow time, the base of the Colorado River should be the most epic river delta the world has ever known. It is simply not there. The rock and mud has been washed out of this enormous spillway, leaving a great many evidences of catastrophe.

caves, coral reefs,

I am not sure how to address “caves”, as they typically do not present a geological conundrum for creationists. Regarding reefs though, we can look at The Great Barrier Reef, which is dated by greatadventures.com to be 18 million years old. Livescience has it at both 500,000 years old, and 8000 years old. News.com.au has a writer who says it’s 25 million. Now, we could get in to the weeds on this topic, but for the sake of brevity, science has observed its growth patterns, which vary widely, depending greatly on how much fresh water runoff there is from the continent. There are of course, newer and older segments of it, and where it is thickest, The Great Barrier Reef reaches a thickness of 55 meters! Now, growth of coral has been clocked at 5 mm per year and at 25 mm per year, with an average rate of approximately 15 mm. This means that despite its vast size and impressiveness, the reef in its entirety could have been formed in only 3700 years. The new parts being clocked now, are only about 660 years old. This is not a factor that is a friend of evolutionists.

fossilized forests,

Like a broken record, I question the wisdom of using this factor as anything but proof for a world wide deluge. The obvious response is to point out the many polystrate fossils, or trees that pass through more than one geological layer. Some of these pass through rock, then coal, then rock again, and still others are fossilized upside down, clearly pointing to catastrophism. The obvious question would be, how does one imagine a tree standing upside down for millions of years so that sediment can slowly cover it? If the evolutionist asserts that fossilization of these forests must have happened slowly, I would suggest examining the quick and complete fossilization of many modern objects, such as hats, boots and pickle jars, which would shed light on it. Plus, again via observation, I would suggest examining the fallen trees of today on a hike or some such thing – take a second grader, not an evolutionary scientist. You will most likely get better observations. (I kid). Then examine these fallen trees, rotting, full of mushrooms and fungus, brittle and decomposing, and try to imagine how given enough time, they might slowly become fossilized. You can do this observation experiment with many fossils. Then see if God’s explanation, or man’s seems like truth to you.

To be continued in Part 2

Why do we care: Young Earth vs Old Earth inconsistencies (abstract)

We have explored the fact that Jesus Christ believed mankind was created at the beginning of time. We have discussed the references from Paul, John, David, Peter, indicating that they firmly supported the testimony of early patriarchs, and the Genesis account, specifically the actuality of a global deluge. For example:

2 Peter 2:5:

“if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly”

Matthew 24:37–39

“For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

Hebrews 11:7

“By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.”

2 Peter 3:5–6

“For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.”

I was teaching the other day at church, and someone asked (believers in molecules-to-man evolution have asked several times as well) why does it matter how old the Earth is? In other words, why must this be a node that our faith hinges on? Or maybe more to the point, why am I so passionate about exploring it?

I will repeat this point to start, that being saved by the propitiation of Christ does NOT hinge upon origin beliefs. You can absolutely be saved by faith in Christ and still believe the Big Bang theory created everything from nothing, and that spontaneous matter flew through the empty vacuum of space evolving into massive stars, which then exploded into more stars creating heavier elements, which eventually coalesced into orderly solar systems upon which billions of years affected its habitability so that abiogenesis could take place, which led to the slow development of continually more complex organisms despite observable entropy, until eventually man sprouted from the animal kingdom evolved enough to begin understanding a God that set it all in motion. Yes, you can believe this (despite the lack of evidence, and the fact that it was invented to escape the reality of God 200 years ago), and be saved. But at what point will a logical student, who is learning this as a world view in college, start to realize that if this is true, then the bible must not be?

What do I mean? Consider the amount of death that took place in order to bring about mankind within the evolutionary model. Billions of dead animals, and man-like creatures eventually rising to an evolved enough state to proclaim that there is a God. Not only death, but thorns, cancer, disease, arthritis, abscesses, tumors, rickets, syphilis, all before man and the fall in fossil record.
Then we read,

“Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.””

And later, a messiah who shall lift this curse:

Colossians 1:20 – and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross
Revelations 21:4 – And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away
Revelations 22:3 – And there shall be no more curse.

At what point will the student realize school is teaching him or her that

a) this was all by accident instead

b) death is not the unnatural enemy and curse of mankind, but a means of creation via mutation

c) if it took millions of years of evolution, at what point did God impart souls to people? or are there no souls in reality?

d) if what we see in geology is not the result of an obvious flood, but instead of millions of years of erosion, then Christ, Moses, David, Peter, Paul, John and others were all lying or just story telling (Nearly every book in the bible refers to Genesis (over 200 times in NT alone))

e) if my parents asked me to believe all this in Genesis, and it isn’t true, and they also asked me to believe in a virgin birth, miracles, the death and resurrection of Christ, them why should I believe it?

f) religion must be man made…

This is perhaps the reason that 75% of church going students who go off to college drop away from the church, and from their faith in the Good News of Christ. As with the parable of Christ, the world is not fertile ground, but is instead hard ground and thorns which will not allow faith to grow.

But, when Paul relays the gospel to us, what phrase is repeated in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-4:

“that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures”

According to the scriptures! This means we should expect them to be accurate! If we consider the scriptures, the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies (uncanny proof of their veracity), if we consider the geography presented – even skeptic archaeologists use the exactitude of the bible to uncover ancient discoveries in the Middle East, places like Ur and Nineveh, which date back to before Abraham – if we consider the eye-witness testimony, we should very easily be able to apply it to our world view with no problem. And we can! Abraham is in Genesis, and from Abraham on, we have abundant evidence that things happened just as was stated by eye-witnesses, and recorded by Moses. It was then verified by prophets and historians for centuries, and backed with prophecy, and miracles, not the least of which involves an empty tomb, also verified by history.

This is played out similarly in the word, when it says in 1 Corinthians 1:23:

“but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles”

Why foolishness to the Gentiles? Because they have no frame of reference with which to believe such a story. They do not accept the concept of sin, or God, of God’s law, or the fall of man, and therefore do not even acknowledge their need for salvation. This was addressed also in Acts by Paul, who had to explain who God was when he preached to non-Jews. He was not preaching to people who were waiting for a messiah. He was preaching to a people who had no idea they needed one!

This is the secular environment of the world today. Christianity seems like foolishness to the world, to America, to students on college campus. It doesn’t matter that the anti-god world view of those they look up to, learn from, and revere, has no evidence to support it. It is what they prefer, for in that world view, they need not ever humble themselves, and the world before them is a justified buffet of consequence-free pleasure, and power, for anyone strong enough to get it.

Often, an atheist will contemplate the meaning of life, as we all do, yet they do so with the naturalistic world view. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson stated, we are nothing but stardust. Existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre said, “I existed like a stone, a plant, a microbe… I was just thinking… that here we are, all of us, eating and drinking, to preserve our precious existence and there’s nothing, nothing, absolutely no reason for existing.” If we are truly an accident, a blip, then the cold truth is, life has no meaning. It is a fleeting thing, and we are as worthless as the ant, the leaf, and the rock. Your feelings are happenstance, and your moral compass is random programming.

It is with this understanding that I consider the bible, and must logically conclude it must either teach truth, or all be a deranged hoax. This is a serious consideration, and if it is true, which I think it clearly is, then how could I not be passionate about the hope we have in Jesus Christ! How could I not also push for others to understand that when the bible is taken as truth, the world very much makes sense within its framework. As well it should, for God created it! In it we have answers from archaeology, genetics, paleontology, geology, biology, and cosmology, just to name a few.

At what point could someone see all this, believe all this, verify all this, a God who wrote you a love letter, and a history of the world, over a 1400 year period, which has withheld critics for centuries and stood strong under the most extreme scrutiny, and then choose to believe all but the beginning, the very reason a messiah is needed, and the very reason that screams to us all how special a creation we are, thereby causing everyone in the rest of the book to be lying, or foolish. Not only that, but would instead chose to believe a team of men who set out specifically to concoct a theory that would disparage God’s word (and succeeded), the consequences of which cost 100’s of millions of lives.

And all this damage, this godless, twisted result, all of it so that a person can impose their will for a time before a meaningless death consumes them. Whether the life of an atheist is perceived as good or bad, it could not matter one iota, as the end must be the hopelessness of nothing, tantamount to never having been at all.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: