Indicators of Recent Creation or Cataclysm

The following categories of phenomenon show that earth and its solar system, and a world cataclysm, are recent events. There are statements in Genesis and 2 Peter 3 that might indicate 'the heavens' are older.


Here is a list of phenomenon which show a recent creation in a direct way. Most of these things that require no professional expertise to see but are perfectly grounded. I have listed instances where:


'if ___ was MYO (millions years old), it would look or be ____. It is not that way, therefore it cannot be MYO.'


1, polar ice core turbidity. Even the 'oldest' samples show turbidity at the bottom...like the most recent ones! Turbidity points to a cataclysmic event at the same time in the past.

2, the life span of comets. It is 10K at most. NASA is at its weakest here, claiming there is a 'cloud' somewhere that they keep coming out of. The cloud is said to be at the edge of our system, but there is no known force that would send them our way.

3, the slight S shape of galaxies. If they were MYO, they would be blurred concentricities (rings within rings, center to edge)

4, the jagged 'finish' of granite at Ayers Rock, Australia. All the crystaline finish is recent, not dulled. Ayers is a J-shape bent piece, mostly underground. What conditions were recent that were huge enough to bend granitics?

5, the lime acidity at Mammoth Caves is not enough to have made holes, caverns, openings the size that it is. Massive amounts of water did so rapidly.

6, Beta-pleated collagens are found in dinosaur tissue. The 'adhesive' does not last more than 10K years. This is acknowledged in a Jan. 2017 LA Times article, even though the uniformitarian scientist thinks the DNA itself in the proteins will say otherwise.

7, radiation levels on our outer two planets. They were found to be too low for MYO, based on half-life calculations. Velikovsky called this right before we got there with space craft. If they were MYO, they would have disintegrated—vaporized—from the amount of radiation present MYO. The radiometric readings of Voyager 2 were 'warm,' but should have been utterly cold.

8, crumbly Cascadia mountains. They would be duney and smoothed if they were MYO. The surfaces we see don't show MY of being under ice or being tropical areas because they are all too recent. The national park understanding of Lake Morse collapse dates about 10K ago, so why would that happen by itself, isolated, unrelated to all the other cataclysmic things that Catastrophic Plate Tectonic scientists say happen and recently? Where did the ice come from suddenly? Why did it disappear suddenly?

9, Leviathan--Behemoth--The Dragon. There are several historical records like Herodotus, Marco Polo, Alexander the Great, where it would be quite a surprise if the person went into 'fantasy' mode just to mention a huge creature. They had impressed people quite enough with accounts of the far lands they had visited! The Dragon theme is all around the world, very often reporting the flame-throwing feature. Recently a native northwest American stone glyph was found in which Raven (Creator) is defeating a dragon. Interactions with dinosaurs figured greatly in the 13K Naszca stones. The passages in Job and Psalms are from 4000 and 3000 years ago. Velikovsky notes that one recent planetary collision was called the Battle of the Dragon in the texts referring to it.

To be clear, what is interesting about this item in relation to recent creation and cataclysm is the trajectory of decline or disappearance. It should be compared to the age spans mentioned in Genesis after the cataclysm of Noah. If the fact of dragons was too far back, there would be almost no mention of them. However, it was more recent but this climate is unsuited for them.

Further re the flame throwing: the 1/2" bombardier beetle is able to emit a 212 degree substance when it makes confrontations. The creature is not that temperature as a rule! One dinosaur scientist has been investigating the group that has 'domes' on their heads and whether this was the location of liquid material that would explode upon contact with oxygen, which is a known.

Human-dinosaur interaction is discussed by Dr. Dennis Swift, from various places around the world.

10, The 'pile-up' of Patagonia, SE Alaska and other plate collision sites.

Dr. H. Brown, Logistics, US DOD, did an early 1980s video on the concept of Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. (Actually the film is on several geologic anomalies around the world that point to CPT). There was an interesting one about Patagonia's mountains because they are neither magmatic granite like Yosemite (when the pile up happened) nor are they layered. He said that the blocks or pieces appear to have been slammed together and the mountains are the result of being pushed up intact. He explained that a speed of 50-60 mph was needed for the shapes they have; if it had happened at a slower speed, the pile would have a different shape.

In this example, it is the speed that matters rather than the amount of time. They were not the result of slow movement.

11, DNA tracing cannot go further back than about 6000 years based on the permutations that exist now. Dr. Rob Carlson and one Harvard geneticist.


12, documentary resources:



*EVOLUTION'S 'ACHILLES HEELS'

*HUMAN ZOOS. The Discovery Institute checks out the racism of mainstream science

*THE PRIVILEGED PLANET. How ‘in the world’ did the earth end up in perfect celestial conditions for us to see…that it ended up in perfect conditions!

*THE RIOT AND THE DANCE. Who says God is not a master artist-comedian?

*THE MOSES CONTROVERSY. The custody of the early texts of the Bible.

*THE GREAT ICE AGE. AKA the quick and recent ice age.

*ROUND STONES.

*NOAH'S FLOOD, AND CPT FROM PANGEA TO TODAY
 
I think most people (well sane people) agree that the evidence is there that creation didn't take millions of years, those that still believe that have an agenda to keep an outdated scientific theory alive lol.
 
Right. As Dr. Montgomery, U Washington, even says: 'once Bretz catastrophism was accepted by scientists in the 40s, Whitcomb and Morris wrote THE GENESIS FLOOD and no one has truly countered its arguments.' Rare bit of honesty, because most of his lecture was snide remarks about church leaders down through the 20 centuries trying to do geology, even if they got it right.
 
Many assertions are in areas I am not really conversant with, but I have had an interest in astronomy since my classes at college and on a layman level I am aware of many associated issues, so I will address one a little closely. That doesn't mean the the others are at all persuasive.

This is about #3, 'S' shaped galaxies not being possible in an old universe since according to the assertion the spiral concentration of stars would have become blurred rings...

The speed of rotation of these galaxies is not that great on a galactic time scale. Even with a 14 billion year age of the universe, a galaxy such as ours, which takes about 225 to 250 million years to rotate once (shorter time closer to the center, longer time at the rim), would only rotate about 56 times, even if it was formed immediately at the moment of creation. That is too short to cause the change imagined. And, since our galaxy was probably formed more recently, fewer cycles have occurred.

The same for other observed galaxies.

In fact, mathematical models do support the formation of spiral galaxies. Of course, such models are necessarily gross simplifications and reflect the presuppositions of their creators, but it it is interesting that they have such apparent success.

But on a much simpler approach, if the Universe is so young, how can we see galaxies at all? Except for a few dwarf galaxies such as the Magellanic Clouds, the closest is the Andromeda galaxy which is about 2.5 million light years away.

The speed of light has been measured many many times, and is quite consistent. It has even been observed as the light from a nova is seen to illuminate interstellar dust in ever widening sphere, allowing us to measure the speed of light 2.5 million years ago when a star in Andromeda goes super nova.
So, given the distance to Andromeda, which has been measured using several methods, and the known speed of light, again measured countless times, even that from 2.5 million years ago, the time required for light to reach your eye, and thus to be seen requires 2.5 million years to travel the distance.
 
Timing is from Earth.
Genesis account is concerned with the Earth (our planet) not others.
A 'year' is the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun, but you can't assume that years have ALWAYS been consistent.

So when geologists loosely bandy about the term 'year' they get people confused. A light 'year' is not actually a year on earth.
 
Timing is from Earth.
Genesis account is concerned with the Earth (our planet) not others.
A 'year' is the time it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun, but you can't assume that years have ALWAYS been consistent.

So when geologists loosely bandy about the term 'year' they get people confused. A light 'year' is not actually a year on earth.

A Light Year is a distance, not a duration. It is defined as the distance a beam of light traveling at about 300,000 Kilometers per second (186,000 miles per second) travels in the time it takes the Earth to go around our local star (the sun). It works out to about 9.5 trillion Km (5.9 Trillion Miles) It is the same regardless of whether a year is constant, or not. The distance is what is being measured, not the passage of time.
 
Hi Siloam, thanks for taking the time to write.

I also don't have the background to evaluate as far as you have. But I do have the following notes:
1, I found this from the same resource as so many of the others (there are some 40 separate categories) that I'm inclined to go with them (the scientists speaking), if only because they have the background needed and have made many of the right calls.
2, The line on day 1 about light is a curiosity, given the creation of our solar system on day 3. One suggestion is that it was the wave of light itself. I don't know if Velikovsky was thinking this (of our solar system being recent) when he expected the solar system to be young; he was right, for ex., about Jupiter, when Viking went by and found the radiometric readings to be far too warm for conventional dating. He said if you ran the half-lives back for conventional dating, several of our planets would be so hot, they would have incinerated.
3, there is a detail about the description of 2 Peter 3 which I also cannot get any closer to resolving than #1, even with graduate Greek translation experience. "by the word of God[r] heavens existed long ago and an earth[s] was formed out of water and by means of water." --NET These verbs are very different, and this captures that. It is almost implied that the 'forming' (pottery terminology) was more recent.

As you may know, this matches Gen 1:2 very well, where 1:1 is a section title (not action in the account). 1:2 is an earth that has had to be ruined (we have no usage of 'tohu wa-bohu'--formless and void--that tells us otherwise). It sort of makes a case for creation of the light waves on day 1, because there is utter darkness. Or else the POV of the passage takes over. (for other section titles see 2:4, 5:1, etc. They go on through Genesis as a recitation starting-point for the verbal memorizer.

There is a very different angle to this 'formless and void' feature. It also comes from Peter and Jude, but in the context of explaining what happened to rebellious super-human beings, probably before earth since creation (I hope that was clear: Gen 1:2 means the orb called earth was there, but it was not 'created' into anything organized or fruitful until the 1st week. Peter, after all, does employ the term 'Tartarus' to designate the 'blackest darkness'; it's from Greek legend. I understand from people with lots of time away from 'light pollution' that there are places in the sky that appear so black as to be palpable to the human eye. Doesn't that bring up many a murky topic! Peter says they were imprisoned there, waiting for the day of universal judgement. It can even raise questions about Satan.

In studies from a couple years ago, I learned the chain of custody of the verbal transmission of Genesis was through Joseph. (see THE MOSES CONTROVERSY documentary). It then seems that Joseph originated a true alphabet that had infinite ways of combining actual letters, unlike the limited pictograms of Egypt's priest class. So he was organized and astute enough to do such things and be CFO of Egypt.

I'm therefore inclined to think there is more sense to the opening Genesis pages than just a statement to neighboring religions that a god identified as a nature-force did not make this earth (refuting Hindu, Persian and Egyptian accounts is generally understood as the purpose of the opening accounts). A finished, thriving earth was the spoken creation of Yahweh ('he spoke and it existed,' Ps 33), who also set the celestial mechanics in place, so that there is continuity between the first week as such, and the succeeding weeks (as patterned in the 10 commands, Ex 20) and which affect human physiology. All of this has been somewhat damaged in the cataclysm, which Velikovsky swerved around in WORLDS IN COLLISION. For ex., the earth now wobbles and does not have the same hydrology as before the cataclysm.
 
(Pecking this out on my phone
.. Please excuse my typing) I will be away from my laptop for a few days.

Regarding Genesis Day 1.

Day 1 seems to be about the Big Bang.

Consider a thumbnail description from astronomical cosmologies and compare with Genesis account:

Although there is speculative models e.g.Brane theory where the universe was created by multi-dimensional "branes" (like a membrane, but with many more dimensions) vibrating against each other. Anyway brane theory attempts to look back before the big bang. I would require much more evidence to take it seriously.

Anyway, both standard cosmology and Genesis start out with PRIMARY out of nothing creation.

The standard model says that normal (baryonic) matter cannot exist at that initial density (Bible says without form). Bible says it was dark. Cosmology says photons could not exist at first, later after cooling and expanding photons are created (out of what came into existence first) but it is still to dense for photons to go far, but are created and reassorbed throut the dense universe. At a point the universe cools and expands enough that it undergoes a phase change (very fast change in properties) and become transparant to light. All those ohotons that were being created and absorbed suddenly did not get reabsorbed ani light as we know it shone all through creation. This was reported in Genesis ("Let There Be Light")

Now, modern cosmologies make a great emphasis on expansion and the coalessing into stars & other structures. It is only implied in Genesis, but the purpose of Genesis (and the Bible) is not to supply a survey of the sciences.

I find it remarkable to find this corespondence, particularly since I find concordism to be a hinderance to both spiritual evaluation and scientific studies.
 
(Pecking this out on my phone
.. Please excuse my typing) I will be away from my laptop for a few days.

Regarding Genesis Day 1.

Day 1 seems to be about the Big Bang.

Consider a thumbnail description from astronomical cosmologies and compare with Genesis account:

Although there is speculative models e.g.Brane theory where the universe was created by multi-dimensional "branes" (like a membrane, but with many more dimensions) vibrating against each other. Anyway brane theory attempts to look back before the big bang. I would require much more evidence to take it seriously.

Anyway, both standard cosmology and Genesis start out with PRIMARY out of nothing creation.

The standard model says that normal (baryonic) matter cannot exist at that initial density (Bible says without form). Bible says it was dark. Cosmology says photons could not exist at first, later after cooling and expanding photons are created (out of what came into existence first) but it is still to dense for photons to go far, but are created and reassorbed throut the dense universe. At a point the universe cools and expands enough that it undergoes a phase change (very fast change in properties) and become transparant to light. All those ohotons that were being created and absorbed suddenly did not get reabsorbed ani light as we know it shone all through creation. This was reported in Genesis ("Let There Be Light")

Now, modern cosmologies make a great emphasis on expansion and the coalessing into stars & other structures. It is only implied in Genesis, but the purpose of Genesis (and the Bible) is not to supply a survey of the sciences.

I find it remarkable to find this corespondence, particularly since I find concordism to be a hinderance to both spiritual evaluation and scientific studies.

Hi,
can you restate this line:
I find it remarkable to find this corespondence, particularly since I find concordism to be a hinderance to both spiritual evaluation and scientific studies.

My translation: "I'm surprised you are saying these things because forcing a unity between (the Bible and science) weakens both the spiritual meaning and scientific inquiry. It's very outdated."

I do maintain a distinction between the heavens existence and the more recent creation of our system, as does 2 Peter 3, and Gen 1.

Also the 'tohu wa-bohu' expression has a similarity to things that were said in Persian, Hindu and Egyptian cosmologies (Waltke, CREATION AND CHAOS), and Genesis was, for one, trying to say that Yahweh, not the 'hero god' of the other accounts, made this earth. In one Egyptian one, he 'destroyed all the great lizards and used the calcium of their bones to cement the pyramids...' Interesting note on dinosaurs, but probably written to 'cement' the monarchy.

Have you noticed in Ps 104 that it is very difficult to see the difference there between original creation and the cataclysm? Have a look and write again.

The superhuman entity dimension (2 Peter 2:4 and 17--where he uses the Greek legendary location 'tartarus' black darkness, and Jude 6, 13) may in the end be the most true, but the hardest for modern people to digest. Lewis said in 'Science and Religion' in an extended analogy that there are questions about these things that are "not for mathematicians, but rather for detectives, psychologists and even psychics." GOD IN THE DOCK.
 
(Pecking this out on my phone
.. Please excuse my typing) I will be away from my laptop for a few days.

Regarding Genesis Day 1.

Day 1 seems to be about the Big Bang.

Consider a thumbnail description from astronomical cosmologies and compare with Genesis account:

Although there is speculative models e.g.Brane theory where the universe was created by multi-dimensional "branes" (like a membrane, but with many more dimensions) vibrating against each other. Anyway brane theory attempts to look back before the big bang. I would require much more evidence to take it seriously.

Anyway, both standard cosmology and Genesis start out with PRIMARY out of nothing creation.

The standard model says that normal (baryonic) matter cannot exist at that initial density (Bible says without form). Bible says it was dark. Cosmology says photons could not exist at first, later after cooling and expanding photons are created (out of what came into existence first) but it is still to dense for photons to go far, but are created and reassorbed throut the dense universe. At a point the universe cools and expands enough that it undergoes a phase change (very fast change in properties) and become transparant to light. All those ohotons that were being created and absorbed suddenly did not get reabsorbed ani light as we know it shone all through creation. This was reported in Genesis ("Let There Be Light")

Now, modern cosmologies make a great emphasis on expansion and the coalessing into stars & other structures. It is only implied in Genesis, but the purpose of Genesis (and the Bible) is not to supply a survey of the sciences.

I find it remarkable to find this corespondence, particularly since I find concordism to be a hinderance to both spiritual evaluation and scientific studies.

Also: what was "there" to "bang"?
 
A Light Year is a distance, not a duration. It is defined as the distance a beam of light traveling at about 300,000 Kilometers per second (186,000 miles per second) travels in the time it takes the Earth to go around our local star (the sun). It works out to about 9.5 trillion Km (5.9 Trillion Miles) It is the same regardless of whether a year is constant, or not. The distance is what is being measured, not the passage of time.
true but when people talk about it they tend not to make the distinction, that it would take millions of years to actually travel to that galaxy. And we can't travel that fast. It's only going so fast that we can actually SEE where we are going. People then start to think or assume well it must be millions (or billions) of years OLD.
 
It is possible for the normal features and functions to be suspended; the storm that stopped immediately in Jesus' account; the water that was immediately wine. But Gen 1 does not come across that way, only that 'the Spirit of God was upon the waters' (unless that is just a normal description of wind--ruach).
 
Well, if you want to know a different creation story, as far back as Maori can remember, this is their version.

In the beginning, Ranginui and Papatuanuku (Sky Father and Earth Mother) were in a close embrace and loved each other so much they had seven sons. It was dark and their children were being stifled and unable to breathe, until one of them, Tumatuenga (who became god of war) said 'I know lets kill our parents' but the other brothers disagreed. Tawhirimatea (god of the weather) got so angry that he plucked out his eyes and threw them to the heavens. They became stars in the sky and numbered seven sisters constellation (Matariki) . Tane Mahuta then had an idea to pushed his parents apart using his strong limbs. Light then flooded into the world. Tane Mahuta became a god of the forest.

The first woman was also Tane's creation and it was he made her out of clay, and called her Hineouhone.

When Maori refer to land, the call it whenua, but personified as Earth Mother Papatuanuku.
Ranginui is like God the Father. Their children were all Atua (gods) and then they had further children that were demigods (they had special powers) . Not sure at what point everyone became mortal!

Much later when the Bible was translated into Maori they noted similarities (and differences) between their version of the creation story and the Hebrew version. But both believed there was a God and that He created.

No big bang! lol
 
I'll tell you how the demi-god Maui fished up the North Island of New Zealand later.
It wasn't formed over millions of years. lol
 
I'll tell you how the demi-god Maui fished up the North Island of New Zealand later.
It wasn't formed over millions of years. lol

Thanks, I try to follow these for same reason. I'm familiar with some Klamath, Suquamish and Tlingit cosmologies, all West Coast US. One thing in common so far is that they actually aren't cosmology because it is assumed the earth was always here, even if radically changed (signs of cataclysm). They are actually explanations of a god's existence and of creation-filling: the humans, animals and plants (Gen 1B). In Suquamish, the name of the god means 'form-changer'--that he has the ability to change a thing into something else. He loaned this power to humans for a while but they deceived each other, and so he took it back.
 
can you restate this line:
I find it remarkable to find this corespondence, particularly since I find concordism to be a hinderance to both spiritual evaluation and scientific studies.
Regarding Concordism:
Steven Gould (agnostic paleontologist) was perplexed that so many times people, including Christians would ask him to produce statements about evolution and faith. So he termed the faith view and the science view Non Overlapping Magisteria. By that he apparently meant that they are two different methods of gathering and qualifying information resulting in differing sets of facts, each set of facts organized into differing knowledge structures.

I do not go so far. I believe the underlying truths are the same whether one approaches through Biblical teaching, or by exploring general revelation, but the approach is, as Gould suggests, so different that expecting to see direct confirmation of each fact in one to be reflected in clarity in the other, or that seeming contradictions mean that one or the other is wrong.

To take an example from our studies of God's Universe: Both Quantum theory and Relativity have been 'proved' countless times. But, they are useful in completely different realms. Relativity is the science of vast distances and high velocities. As an example, we have direct evidence of the bending of light around stars. But Quantum Theory is about the very small. According to those who work in these fields they are incompatible and cannot be both right in all circumstances. So scientists are trying to come up with ways of resolving this inconsistency calling the result grand unification theory (GUT) or the theory of everything (TOE). The results are such kludges as quantum gravity.

If we have such problems, even within general revelation, which is working at different locations in the same Gould magesteria think the greater problems mapping between the two knowledge structures.

Augustine advised much caution in making assertions about the physical world based on scripture:
Meanwhile we should always observe that restraint that is proper to a devout and serious person and on an obscure question entertain no rash belief. Otherwise, if the evidence later reveals the explanation, we are likely to despise it because of our attachment to our error, even though this explanation may not be in any way opposed posed to the sacred writings of the Old or New Testament.​
John Hammond Taylor;Augustine.​
(St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis (Kindle Locations 892-894). Kindle Edition.​
Note that Augustine envisions new discoveries from exploration of nature and due to our error in Biblical exegesis we reject the facts.

This does not mean that we cannot notice where there are echoes of scientific knowledge within Biblical teaching, and vice-versa, but that one is not a peroper check on the other.
 
Thanks, I try to follow these for same reason. I'm familiar with some Klamath, Suquamish and Tlingit cosmologies, all West Coast US. One thing in common so far is that they actually aren't cosmology because it is assumed the earth was always here, even if radically changed (signs of cataclysm). They are actually explanations of a god's existence and of creation-filling: the humans, animals and plants (Gen 1B). In Suquamish, the name of the god means 'form-changer'--that he has the ability to change a thing into something else. He loaned this power to humans for a while but they deceived each other, and so he took it back.
Scientists like Rudyard Kipling's 'Just so' stories for explanations on how things came to be. They also preface their stories with 'once upon a time' except it's 'Billions and Millions of years ago' or 'there was a singularity'

evidence is that stars and volcanoes do explode, but to say the entire creation or what we know exists came out of an 'explosion' is a bit dramatic. I think they call it a 'Cambrian explosion' though why or who Cambria is nobody really has any idea. Scientists are bad storytellers.

They might be able to explain a little of the subset of the technical process but have no clue on the why's and wherefores. It just happened ok. Does there have to be a reason?
 
scientist version goes a bit like this

Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was a BIG BANG!
Then, all these bits and pieces of universe were somehow mixed up together like a big fizzy drink and went off and somehow collided with each other to form a big rock, and then somehow the rock was so huge it was earth but also covered with water, so it was like a big soup, and algae crawled out into plants. Somehow some of the water evaporated because it was so hot, and then animals were in the sea but they crawled out on to land, and some of them also climbed trees to become monkeys, then apes, and the apes changed into humans! But all this took a very very long time, you know, like billions of years. (we know it took that long, cos we made scientific calculations using our very scientific calculators).

And that, my children is how we came to exist! One day you may change into something else too! We are all evolving!
 
Scientists like Rudyard Kipling's 'Just so' stories for explanations on how things came to be. They also preface their stories with 'once upon a time' except it's 'Billions and Millions of years ago' or 'there was a singularity'

evidence is that stars and volcanoes do explode, but to say the entire creation or what we know exists came out of an 'explosion' is a bit dramatic. I think they call it a 'Cambrian explosion' though why or who Cambria is nobody really has any idea. Scientists are bad storytellers.

They might be able to explain a little of the subset of the technical process but have no clue on the why's and wherefores. It just happened ok. Does there have to be a reason?

fyi, the Cambrian explosion is an entirely different category. Cambria (cp Cambridge) is in England and some fossil discoveries there were major enough to use it as a title for an era or category.

It turns out the Cambrian explosion of fossils is actually a huge weakness for evolutionary models, because it shows a massive number of species appearing at once and without transitional forms.

re the reason for the earth, if mankind is said to have the representative image of God, then, yes, there is an important reason. The Hebrew term 'tohu wa-bohu' means the place was destroyed in a judgement of God. But God wanted to 'redeem' or restore it. That seems to come up often in God's works in all realms of creation.
 
Top