Indicators of Recent Creation or Cataclysm

Also: what was "there" to "bang"?
Yep, as I mentioned in Post #8, brain theory attempts to go around this question rather than address it. I believe it is their attempt at avoiding Aquinas's prime mover argument for the existence of God. And as I stated, it would require more evidence to convinv=ce me (although I do not think they care about convincing someone called Siloam).

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.
Not really, the Cambrian age was so long ago that it is remarkable that any remains can be found. What appears to be a quick population explosion is actually quite long in evolutionary terms, and advances in complexity can be lost in the compression.

Further, as microscopic examination of earlier deposit show, there was a wide variety of micro-organisms to start from.
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!
The Big Bang was based on the work of Edwin Hubble measuring the distances and speeds of distant galaxies. Each galaxy was (is) receding away from the our Galaxy (Milky Way) in direct proportion to distance. A galaxy twice as far away was (is) going away from us twice as fast. Applying a little trigonometry to the distances, angles and speeds showed that if one measured from any of those far away galaxies, other galaxies would still be receding proportional to their distances from the new point of measure.

If one projects those galactic trajectories backward, it was found that they all come together at one place and time in the past. THAT is the where and when of the Big Bang. Further evidence has been found in the form of cosmic radiation that is the lasting result of the Big Bang. My High School science text was written before this controversy was settled and presented both the Big Bang and the steady state theory which postulated that new stars were created from the remains of dead stars, preserving the number of stars on the whole. With the evidence of cosmic radiation, along with many other avenues of study, the Big Bang has emerged as a best explanation of observed phenomena.
 

Decoder

Account Closed
Yep, as I mentioned in Post #8, brain theory attempts to go around this question rather than address it. I believe it is their attempt at avoiding Aquinas's prime mover argument for the existence of God. And as I stated, it would require more evidence to convinv=ce me (although I do not think they care about convincing someone called Siloam).


Not really, the Cambrian age was so long ago that it is remarkable that any remains can be found. What appears to be a quick population explosion is actually quite long in evolutionary terms, and advances in complexity can be lost in the compression.

Further, as microscopic examination of earlier deposit show, there was a wide variety of micro-organisms to start from.

The Big Bang was based on the work of Edwin Hubble measuring the distances and speeds of distant galaxies. Each galaxy was (is) receding away from the our Galaxy (Milky Way) in direct proportion to distance. A galaxy twice as far away was (is) going away from us twice as fast. Applying a little trigonometry to the distances, angles and speeds showed that if one measured from any of those far away galaxies, other galaxies would still be receding proportional to their distances from the new point of measure.

If one projects those galactic trajectories backward, it was found that they all come together at one place and time in the past. THAT is the where and when of the Big Bang. Further evidence has been found in the form of cosmic radiation that is the lasting result of the Big Bang. My High School science text was written before this controversy was settled and presented both the Big Bang and the steady state theory which postulated that new stars were created from the remains of dead stars, preserving the number of stars on the whole. With the evidence of cosmic radiation, along with many other avenues of study, the Big Bang has emerged as a best explanation of observed phenomena.

I'm confused about the Cambrian explosion. My point was that it was unrelated to Big Bang, in any case. When Darwin realized all forms were present at once, he called it an abominable obstacle; and along with the facts of bees, he didn't want to finish ORIGINS, but the Huxleys wanted to bury Schneider's plate tectonics discoveries (also 1859, Paris) with ORIGINS before anyone could realize what they meant for earth history and Genesis. They basically disappeared for 80 years until the USGS grudgingly gave Bretz his 'honorary doctorate' about catastrophism. The worst 80 years of the West, with Sanger doing research on population genocide in LA and having Nazis come to co-research, but by God's power we can recover. Dr. Montgomery U Washington geology, says that in 2 decades after Bretz, Whitcomb and Morris produced THE GENESIS FLOOD and no one has successfully countered. (2015 lecture at Harvard? on youtube).

As I hope I've mentioned, I think both Genesis, 2 Peter 3 and radiometrics show a recent solar system unlike the rest of space. This is what Velikovsky expected and NASA pretty much buried and shamed him for being right. Several of the 'indicators' show this. One recent one (took me some time to grasp) was the anomaly of our sun. It does not show 'senility' like most stars, and is called healthy and vibrant. The source should be noted in the list.

Lewis encourages us to be skeptical of science; certainly in the covid era we must be. "...we have been trained to look at the universe with one eye shut... 'Developmentalism' was made to look plausible by a kind of trick." --"Two Lectures" GOD IN THE DOCK.
 
The point about Cambrian life is still germain regarding Old Earth vs Young Earth. We could delve deeper, but I am not so much trying to convince anybody of anything beyond that one can be a committed Christian and still take science seriously.

I believe that God is outpouring a great deal about Himself. But, His love for us and His relation to us is not front and center in the Universe. That is the focus of special revelation (Scripture). But even Biblicaly, we know that His nature is revealed in His works. This is called Special revelation. The focus of general revelation is His immensity and power and sovereignty.

But to learn this we must allow that teaching. Sometimes that means correcting misconceptions.

Let me tell you about an illustration on which I have meditated. Although I do not claim that it originates with me, the person involved is a very real acquaintance from my boyhood:

In my grade school, middle school (called a junior High school at the time), and high school, there was this one kid that was in my class at several periods. He was extremely smart. He also know than and was extremely cocky.

Now the following is an exaggeration of what really happened:

In grade school they taught us to add and subtract. Somewhere, and I have heard grade school teachers say this, it was stated that you cannot things like subtract 3 from 2. They also said you cannot divide 3 by two, (or two by three that matter). Using the math He had been taught, that was indeed the case.

But when a later teacher placed 2 - 3 n the board, in preparation to introduce negative numbers, rather than wait for the teacher to present the material, this smart kid said "you cannot do that".

The same thing happened when the teacher introduced fractions. He insisted that "You can't divide 3 by two".

Each time an instructor introduced more complex math this kid got upset and said "you cannot do that". This went on time after time.
"You cannot take the square root of a negative number"
"You cannot find the complex root of a number". etc, etc, etc.

Now consider, the teachers had not lied. What they told him was true within the class of math they were studying.

What he claimed was not really wrong, it just again did not address the class of math being introduced.

What was being introduced potentially enabled him to address more and more situations. The simpler math could even be duplicated in the more complex term since they were simple cases of the advanced math.

What he failed to do was to understand that as he dealt with more intricate problems, the simpler assumptions he had made were not reliable.

It is the same with Biblical understanding, and its relationship to the sciences (which are the studies of God as revealed in His works).

As society progresses (if you call this progress) the clergy has been asked to comment about things that were not the primary focus of Scripture, and they did and do their best. But along the way they forced scripture to be applied as if Scripture were God's science textbook. They began to think of these imperfect instances of exegesis as God's message.

But when God created the Universe, it was at His command. So the Physical Universe is quite literally God's Word in the physical realm. "Let There Be Light" is so intrinsic to both approaches.

From my point of view, we must allow Special Revelation and General Revelation of respect each other, using God's Universe to tell us about the mechanics of His creation. We should use Special Revelation to tell us about His relationship to us.

There are points of overlap. General revelation gives us insight into His providence for us. Special revelation tells us that the reason for that providence is His love for us.

We must tread very carefully when making statements regarding how it all fits together.
 

Decoder

Account Closed
Siloam, I just noticed one thing about the Cambrian age that might not be clear up front. Your dating is dependent on the dating you are using for the universe. This list is saying something else: that earth history is not in that category. In broad categories this comes from genetics, geology, some astronomy (duration of comets, radiometrics of our solar system), even chemistry (lack of depletion of helium).
The point about Cambrian life is still germain regarding Old Earth vs Young Earth. We could delve deeper, but I am not so much trying to convince anybody of anything beyond that one can be a committed Christian and still take science seriously.

I believe that God is outpouring a great deal about Himself. But, His love for us and His relation to us is not front and center in the Universe. That is the focus of special revelation (Scripture). But even Biblicaly, we know that His nature is revealed in His works. This is called Special revelation. The focus of general revelation is His immensity and power and sovereignty.

But to learn this we must allow that teaching. Sometimes that means correcting misconceptions.

Let me tell you about an illustration on which I have meditated. Although I do not claim that it originates with me, the person involved is a very real acquaintance from my boyhood:

In my grade school, middle school (called a junior High school at the time), and high school, there was this one kid that was in my class at several periods. He was extremely smart. He also know than and was extremely cocky.

Now the following is an exaggeration of what really happened:

In grade school they taught us to add and subtract. Somewhere, and I have heard grade school teachers say this, it was stated that you cannot things like subtract 3 from 2. They also said you cannot divide 3 by two, (or two by three that matter). Using the math He had been taught, that was indeed the case.

But when a later teacher placed 2 - 3 n the board, in preparation to introduce negative numbers, rather than wait for the teacher to present the material, this smart kid said "you cannot do that".

The same thing happened when the teacher introduced fractions. He insisted that "You can't divide 3 by two".

Each time an instructor introduced more complex math this kid got upset and said "you cannot do that". This went on time after time.
"You cannot take the square root of a negative number"
"You cannot find the complex root of a number". etc, etc, etc.

Now consider, the teachers had not lied. What they told him was true within the class of math they were studying.

What he claimed was not really wrong, it just again did not address the class of math being introduced.

What was being introduced potentially enabled him to address more and more situations. The simpler math could even be duplicated in the more complex term since they were simple cases of the advanced math.

What he failed to do was to understand that as he dealt with more intricate problems, the simpler assumptions he had made were not reliable.

It is the same with Biblical understanding, and its relationship to the sciences (which are the studies of God as revealed in His works).

As society progresses (if you call this progress) the clergy has been asked to comment about things that were not the primary focus of Scripture, and they did and do their best. But along the way they forced scripture to be applied as if Scripture were God's science textbook. They began to think of these imperfect instances of exegesis as God's message.

But when God created the Universe, it was at His command. So the Physical Universe is quite literally God's Word in the physical realm. "Let There Be Light" is so intrinsic to both approaches.

From my point of view, we must allow Special Revelation and General Revelation of respect each other, using God's Universe to tell us about the mechanics of His creation. We should use Special Revelation to tell us about His relationship to us.

There are points of overlap. General revelation gives us insight into His providence for us. Special revelation tells us that the reason for that providence is His love for us.

We must tread very carefully when making statements regarding how it all fits together.

In 1900 "most Bible-believing fundamentalists accepted science's age of the earth and even a merely local flood in Genesis 6-8. This helped eliminate catastrophism. But the change came from another scientist. A geologist named Bretz surveyed the entire Columbia drainfield and realized that something as big as a quarter of the continent had taken place suddenly, and at the same time as the collapse of Niagara and other sites. But the USGS suppressed him until 1940s. Within 2 decades, Whitcomb and Morris wrote THE GENESIS FLOOD and no one has countered their claims yet, which affect the age of a global cataclysm, the earth and the fossil record." --J. Montgomery, UWashington geology, 2015, annual Harvard presentation on the history of science.

I'm just noting that, especially now in the age of climate and covid 'science,' we should be skeptical of science.

Montgomery, for ex., failed to mention anything about Schneider, which is extremely embarrassing to modern science (supprressing Schneider is, not Montgomery failing), now that catastrophic plate tectonics is well-supported.
 
Yep, as I mentioned in Post #8, brain theory attempts to go around this question rather than address it. I believe it is their attempt at avoiding Aquinas's prime mover argument for the existence of God. And as I stated, it would require more evidence to convinv=ce me (although I do not think they care about convincing someone called Siloam).


Not really, the Cambrian age was so long ago that it is remarkable that any remains can be found. What appears to be a quick population explosion is actually quite long in evolutionary terms, and advances in complexity can be lost in the compression.

Further, as microscopic examination of earlier deposit show, there was a wide variety of micro-organisms to start from.

The Big Bang was based on the work of Edwin Hubble measuring the distances and speeds of distant galaxies. Each galaxy was (is) receding away from the our Galaxy (Milky Way) in direct proportion to distance. A galaxy twice as far away was (is) going away from us twice as fast. Applying a little trigonometry to the distances, angles and speeds showed that if one measured from any of those far away galaxies, other galaxies would still be receding proportional to their distances from the new point of measure.

If one projects those galactic trajectories backward, it was found that they all come together at one place and time in the past. THAT is the where and when of the Big Bang. Further evidence has been found in the form of cosmic radiation that is the lasting result of the Big Bang. My High School science text was written before this controversy was settled and presented both the Big Bang and the steady state theory which postulated that new stars were created from the remains of dead stars, preserving the number of stars on the whole. With the evidence of cosmic radiation, along with many other avenues of study, the Big Bang has emerged as a best explanation of observed phenomena.
I don't know if Edwin Hubble is correct about trajectory though because objects far away recede as far as we PERCEIVE them. We can't accurately measure them and it depends on how fast we, the viewer are going as well.
When you look at a point that is far as the eye can see, it looks as if it is going away from us but we may actually be moving forward as well its not like we are a fixed point either.

of course when objects are close to us, they seem like they are not going away. But objects far from us, appear to be receding. Its perspective, it doesn't always mean they are going somewhere either.

So yea. its easy to model 'backward' and connect the dots and say well we think this happened.
But it might not have even happened that way. Modelling forwards can be problematic too.

anyway. I'm just saying it probably didn't happen that way scientists assume given the limited knowledge they have.
 
recent cataclysm - man made this time, invasion of Ukraine.

The thing with man made cataclysm is they are inherently destructive, violent and pointless.
They are not creative in the way God makes things. He doesn't just punch something and leave a mess. His hand is on it and His fingerprints are on us.
 
As an aside or other observation:

When I was in High School (late 1960s) the texts listed an age for the Earth that was older than the date listed for the Solar System. My teacher chuckled and said that the various ages were the consensus of workers in the various fields. The age of the Earth was determined by geologic observations with a lot of deductive steps while the age of the Solar system was determined by solar observations and comparing them with other stars, etc. As we collect more observations and measurements with increasing precision, such gaps narrow.

This is how sciences work. Theory and associated statements are at best conditional. If contrary information arises and withstands scientific scrutiny, we must be willing to adjust to the new information. We can be quite confident with such equations as F=MA or E = MC2, but if contrary phenomena is found and confirmed, we have to adjust. This is a reason why my HS text presented both the steady state theory as well as the Big Bang. Since then, evidence has overwhelmingly pointed to a Big Bang. The consensus has adjusted. New texts are unlikely to present steady state as a viable cosmology.

A similar thing has happened in the age of earth vs age of solar system. In actuality, no single observation or measurement or line of reasoning or experiment for experimental sciences is the final word.

If you are interested in possible ways of casting doubt on evolution, I can think of several ways:

Consider: for years I used a reptilian coprolite as a paperweight. I still have it. If one were to collect one of these, maintaining reliable providence, and analyze the rock strata where it came from as well as the digested bone fragments within it, one could get a good idea of some of the other animals around at the time the dino was alive. One could also examine the structure of those any imbedded bones or plants and since such structures have changed over the years, if you could (again conserving providence, etc) find modern structures embedded in that fossilized dung it could open up a line of investigation.
I don't know if Edwin Hubble is correct about trajectory though because objects far away recede as far as we PERCEIVE them. We can't accurately measure them and it depends on how fast we, the viewer are going as well.
When you look at a point that is far as the eye can see, it looks as if it is going away from us but we may actually be moving forward as well its not like we are a fixed point either.

of course when objects are close to us, they seem like they are not going away. But objects far from us, appear to be receding. Its perspective, it doesn't always mean they are going somewhere either.

So yea. its easy to model 'backward' and connect the dots and say well we think this happened.
But it might not have even happened that way. Modelling forwards can be problematic too.

anyway. I'm just saying it probably didn't happen that way scientists assume given the limited knowledge they have.

Actually, there are many ways astronomers use to determine speeds. For nearer galaxies e.g. Andromeda, They look at photos taken from opposite ends of the Earths Orbit, giving a long axis for measuring parallax against galaxies farther off. It's like if you take a compass reading on a distant hill to the north, drive a mile to the west and take another compass reading on that hill. The difference in angle and a little trigonometry will tell you how close it is.

Another way is red shift, which is very like how a radar gun catches speeders. Light emited from something going away will have its spectrum shifted toward the long end of the spectrum. It is like hearing a train wistle as it passses: As it approaches it is a shrill sound, as it passes and goes away, it is shifted to lower notes. This is directly analogous to the light waves being streatched out. Examining the spectrum will show the classic absorption lines shifted toward the red end.
 

Decoder

Account Closed
recent cataclysm - man made this time, invasion of Ukraine.

The thing with man made cataclysm is they are inherently destructive, violent and pointless.
They are not creative in the way God makes things. He doesn't just punch something and leave a mess. His hand is on it and His fingerprints are on us.

The Cataclysm is the Greek term used in Deucalion for a global event, mentioned in some 500 different diverse accounts of things that happened far beyond normal scale (of flooding). Peter borrowed from the Greek account in 2 Peter 3 when naming it.

The back cover of a geology hiking book for WA users, sold at national parks, says 'did you know the surface of the whole earth was totally altered just 10-15K years ago?' That's what I was referring to.

From a pre-cataclysm point of view, it probably looked like a mess afterward. There were now temperature extremes, flash floods, blowing sand, sedimentary piles that could collapse, etc. But it was still in a range that was habitable for humans. See Genesis 8 on the seasons, for ex.

One of the big pushes of the 20th century in media etc was to 'adore' exotic features of earth. This was at the same time that catastrophism as a science was at its most suppressed (both Schneider 1859 on tectonics and Bretz in 1920 on catastrophic change in the Columbia drainfield) were suppressed by major science for a span of 80 years. So mountains and deserts were now 'cool.' I don't think the pre-flood person would agree.
 
Last edited:
Are they talking about Noahs flood. Pretty huge and a catastrophic if you ask me.
Then it takes time for things to settle down. mountains and deserts aren't for our benefit though they are awe-inspiring places precisely because humans can't comfortably live there. The best places for humans to live are near springs and rivers and in climates that are not too extreme. Sheltered valleys with enough soil. Alluvial loamy soil is probably the best for growing things. Clay and rock for building homes, and gentle rolling land.
Forested areas just need undergrowth cleared not razed to support life as forests are needed for oxygen and wood. They need continual maintenance. But forest don't just grow instantly there is actually a succession and a process they go through.

Mountains and deserts on the other hand, can be made in an instant with landslides, volcanoes, floods, and the crushing hand of God. Those continental plates and massive crumbling of rocks cannot be explained by simply 'erosion' over millions of years.
 
I believe most of science which appears to point to an old earth can be answered directly by the flood.. I believe it was Peter who mentions in the last day. People will be scoffers. Assuming all has been the same from the begining (of time) forgetting there was a flood which covered the whole earth.(2 peter 3)
 
The Big Bang was named by a British astronomer (atheist) who held to the steady state theory, he was trying to ridicule the idea, instead the name stuck. He hated the idea because it meant he was wrong in his beliefs. 13.8 billion years is still not enough time for evolution to have worked.
 
I believe most of science which appears to point to an old earth can be answered directly by the flood.. I believe it was Peter who mentions in the last day. People will be scoffers. Assuming all has been the same from the begining (of time) forgetting there was a flood which covered the whole earth.(2 peter 3)

Now, not in any way to argue, only to point out a few things that tickle my mind. Young earth creation science proponents are quick to use dinosaur graveyards as evidence of Noah’s Flood saying that the flood is the cause. They claim the dinosaurs herded together, and then were quickly buried. However, in reality, is that possible?

When I read the work of the YE's the dinosaur graveyards they referr to are mostly in North America, in sediments in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and Canada. However, looking at the positioning of the rock layers, there are thousands of feet of sediment below these layers that the young earth theorists claim were deposited by the Flood.
Shouldn't all of that sediment be ON TOP of those bones?????

Clearly, the young earth flood model cannot explain the dinosaur fossil distribution in the rock record. However, if one accepts a local flood event, with the dinosaurs having lived over 65 million years ago, there are no problems.
 
Now, not in any way to argue, only to point out a few things that tickle my mind. Young earth creation science proponents are quick to use dinosaur graveyards as evidence of Noah’s Flood saying that the flood is the cause. They claim the dinosaurs herded together, and then were quickly buried. However, in reality, is that possible?

When I read the work of the YE's the dinosaur graveyards they referr to are mostly in North America, in sediments in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and Canada. However, looking at the positioning of the rock layers, there are thousands of feet of sediment below these layers that the young earth theorists claim were deposited by the Flood.
Shouldn't all of that sediment be ON TOP of those bones?????

Clearly, the young earth flood model cannot explain the dinosaur fossil distribution in the rock record. However, if one accepts a local flood event, with the dinosaurs having lived over 65 million years ago, there are no problems.
I have never heard this argument used for Young Earth (not saying your wrong. I just do not remember seeing this)

However. I must ask you. How can a fossil be formed, Unless sediment is deposited soon after death. And then the body decays. creating a fossil

While many see the fossil record as a evolutionary record of creation. Many also see the fossile record as a record of events which occured during the flood.
 
Something I recently learned is that the Appalachian mountain chain, among the oldest mountains on earth, actually extends from the US and Canada through Greenland, Iceland, Scotland, and Sweden. That relationship between the mountains is found by comparing the geologic content of the mineral construction. Scientists view this as evidence of the supercontinent of Pangia. Could it be that while Noah was in the ark, God reshaped the physical features of the earth so as to obscure and destroy any remnants of the antedeluvian civilization lest we discover something about them and fall into the same perverse condition under which they suffered?
 
Something I recently learned is that the Appalachian mountain chain, among the oldest mountains on earth, actually extends from the US and Canada through Greenland, Iceland, Scotland, and Sweden. That relationship between the mountains is found by comparing the geologic content of the mineral construction. Scientists view this as evidence of the supercontinent of Pangia. Could it be that while Noah was in the ark, God reshaped the physical features of the earth so as to obscure and destroy any remnants of the antedeluvian civilization lest we discover something about them and fall into the same perverse condition under which they suffered?

Correct.
Today, the soil of the Appalachian Basin and the sand of the Outer Banks is full of the sediment produced as the Central Pangaean Mountains eroded away. Estimating that volume, geologists believe that the lowly Appalachians were once as high as the rugged Himalayas, and some now-vanished mountain in modern-day New Hampshire or North Carolina could easily have been taller than Everest is today.
Source: https://www.cntraveler.com/story/appalachian-mountains-may-have-once-been-as-tall-as-the-himalayas.

However......for that to be the case, it would have taken millions of years ( 250) to do so, not just a few thousand.
 
Something I recently learned is that the Appalachian mountain chain, among the oldest mountains on earth, actually extends from the US and Canada through Greenland, Iceland, Scotland, and Sweden. That relationship between the mountains is found by comparing the geologic content of the mineral construction. Scientists view this as evidence of the supercontinent of Pangia. Could it be that while Noah was in the ark, God reshaped the physical features of the earth so as to obscure and destroy any remnants of the antedeluvian civilization lest we discover something about them and fall into the same perverse condition under which they suffered?
This is actually mentioned in the plate tectonics theory and the Hydroplate theories of YEC. Dr Andrew Snelling goes into great detail in is book the “earth’s Catastrophic Past”, which was an update to the book “the genesis flood”, It was these books along with the Hydroplate theory written by Dr Walter brown that changed my view about the age of the earth. While I do not agree 100 % with either view, I do believe in the end we will find that things that they have both proposed will be the way it was.
 
I have never heard this argument used for Young Earth (not saying your wrong. I just do not remember seeing this)

However. I must ask you. How can a fossil be formed, Unless sediment is deposited soon after death. And then the body decays. creating a fossil

While many see the fossil record as a evolutionary record of creation. Many also see the fossile record as a record of events which occured during the flood.

Again....I am not the one to ask. What I have learned is that it does not matter when an animal has died. What matters is that fossilization is extremely uncommon on dry land and wind and rain and other animals scatter the bones. What has been found - Fossils are fairly common in sediments deposited on river floodplains or ancient sea beds.

This sediment quickly buries the dinosaur, offering its body some protection it from decomposition. While the dinosaur's soft parts still eventually decomposed, its hard parts -- bones, teeth and claws -- remained, thus turning bones into stone.
 
Unless God deliberately reshaped and reformed the continents during the year the flood waters covered the planet beneath the ark.

Yes He certainly could have done that.

But isnt that more of a "I hope so" thesis than one of science or geography?
 
Unless God deliberately reshaped and reformed the continents during the year the flood waters covered the planet beneath the ark.
And again...........
"there are thousands of feet of sediment below these layers that the young earth theorists claim were deposited by the Flood.
Shouldn't all of that sediment be ON TOP of those bones?????
 
Top