Again, great work Noel. You have done a lot of research.
If you look up etymology of the word destroy, you will find the Italian version distruggere
pulling apart that word in di - struggere you have
struggere- to melt or liquify
The great flood of light / water is the purification of our souls. When we all get aboard the Arc we ascend leaving our material world behind with an everlasting mark, where the Mark, a proverbial hologram/holygram, testament to there is no such thing as time.
How do we explain the fact that, after the flood, marsupials and only marsupials ended up in Australia? Did all the kangaroos, wallabies, echidnas, koalas, platypuses, wombats and Tasmanian devils (along with emus and taipan snakes), walk or crawl en mass all the way from Mt Ararat across Asia to Australia without ANY stopping along the way? Makes no sense. Easier to visualize a mammalian ancestor being split into two populations with the breakup of Pangea with Australian members evolving into present day marsupials and others becoming placental. Timing is about right, albeit using evil radiometric dating for continental breakup and the spotty fossil record for mammalian evolution.
Hi Ian, I feel should point out that there are plenty of marsupials in the Americas, as well as Australasia / South East Asia. So, as you say, plenty stopped along the way (and went in all directions since the Flood), no doubt in a relatively short time. However, do not forget that sea levels fell away and land masses rose, as is evidenced of course by the isolation of the Australiasian islands, the enormous cliffs of sedimentary rock supplying us with abundant evidence of the Deluvian period, all around the world, where once these were submerged after the sediments were laid down in just a few years or less in some areas. Then of course there is strong evidence of many mountain ranges being built in a few hundred or perhaps a thousand years, otherwise there would be no SEDIMENTARY ROCK remaining on tops of the Himalaya and European Alpes (and full of common PRESENT DAY and some extinct spp of marine life), as it would all have been eroded away in a few million years based on current erosion rates!
Much has happened that we are only now beginning to understand even the evidence for. The anti-flood uniformatarian model of geology have no way of explaining what we actually find in the rocks, without assuming millions of years.
About marsupials: I personally believe that its perfectly possible that there are no marsupials in temperate countries and Africa due to marsupials being easy food for carnivores and of course their need for rain forest habitat and savannah in the majority. This is only opinion, but as evolution from simple to complex is completely impossible, there is an explanation that fits the Bible's account of the spread of life after the flood, and there are folks working on clarifying it. As to why there are no large carnivores in Australia (except crocodiles in some salty creeks, not inland): I do not know, but there are a number of possibilities. However, the evo-hypothesis is not satisfactory from a scientitic point of view for Australia either; we might just as well ask why there are NO CARNIVORES in Australia except the dingo which is actually an omnivore? The evolutionist's story on that one is "they didn't evolve there". But perhaps they never made it there before the Australian continent was separated, or perhaps they did, but died out due to survival pressures. The 'did not make it there seems more likely, as there are no carnivores in Papua New Guinea either, but a few in Borneo, and some in Malasia e.g. water cats with webbed feet! Wonderful adaptation of the cats has occurred almost wherever we look.
By the way, it is best not to use the terms 'radioactive' and 'dating' in the same sentence. The two are not related by any known scientific method, but only an relative age in estimated half-lives is actually possible to state. Calibration of any radio-isotope decay rate is not possible with what appear today to be half lives of millions of years. This does NOT mean that the we should assume those millions of years, when all the other evidence for a relatively young Earth is staring us in the face. No macro evolution (only adaptation) is the most obvious thing.
... and there were marsupials in Europe, once, along with hippo, elephant, and other beasts which must have looked very fine prowling up and down the river systems. See:
Just found an interesting reference on the Hualalai lava flow age date. The lava did not date at 1.4-22My but rather the xenoliths or inclusions of mantle olivine which the lava carried up from depth which could be any age. The purpose of the dating was to test the method on "cooked" inclusions, not date the lava which, incidently, came back as zero. "Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4601-4607 (15 July 1968)" I also found an article which claims that the K-Ar method used to date Mt St Helens (and gave a 300,000 year age) is generally accepted as being inappropriate for such young rocks in that there is virtually no daughter product Ar to measure. Several suggestions are made as to why the bad date was produced, including lab contamination because the lab in question normally tested much older rocks (ie high Ar) and/or exotic xenocrysts included in the sample. Further I see that over 180 samples of fallout material produced by the K-T meteorite impact which were taken from 5 locations around the world and dated by 5 different radiometric methods at 5 different laboratories all produced dates of about 65 million years, +/-1%. I think we have to be fair and qualify each of these occasional decrepancies with possible explanations as to why the numbers are problematic, not just blanket discredit the whole radiometric dating method.
It seems that you are really stuck on the fallible radiometric dating methods that all take into account assumptions. They do not know if the decay rate was always constant, they do not know the original amounts of parent or daughter isotopes. Neither do they know if there was any addition or subtraction going on during the "millions" of years that would have affected the end result. Here is a brief video clip, although dealing with radio carbon dating, would apply to all radiometric dating method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A2ZczkIMaA
I was going to forward you some other stuff, but I think there is enough evidence in the world alone for the Creator, that I think I will leave it there. The evolutionary hypothesis has been debunked time and again, but they keep coming up with "new" evidence, which will also be debunked, and not mentioned in short time. Humanity, in every generation, always thinks that they are the pinnacle of intelligence and knowledge, and looking back, they view their predecessors as a bunch of cavemen. A Scripture comes to mind:
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 2:18-31)
It is expedient for you to search out this matter diligently as time is so short. Life twill soon be past. So take heed while you can, for "he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)
How do you fit the glaciation of half of North America, Asia and Europe into a 6000 old Earth? It must postdate the Flood but predate human settlement. Pretty fast advance and retreat!
That is a question that I had, and found very satisfactory answers, which I wrote a book on, (which I would send you free of charge if you email me your address). It began with some research on the phenomenon of the pyramids that are found around the world. The short answer is that they all came from a common origin, which is mentioned in the Bible in the story of the Tower of Babel which postdated the Flood.
But there are several technical publications, which I have in my library, that deal with this very issue, by Dr. Larry Vardiman and Dr. Michel Oard. But a brief summary would go like this. The whole world before the Flood was a tropical paradise. The evidence presents the possibility of this case. Just north of where I live, there is a Bay called Coral Harbor, above the arctic circle, where fossilized coral can be found in abundance. Fossil palm trees in Alaska. Mummified giant redwoods found in Nunavut above the arctic circle. None of these live there now, but show that the Northern Hemisphere was at one time tropical. I believe coral needs 20 Celcius to grow. The waters of the world would have been way warmer than they are now.
But when the world wide mountain covering flood happen in the days of Noah, we are told, "all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11) There was a catastrophe that was unparallel to anything we have ever seen or could imagine. The mantle of the earth was shattered like a broken egg, and many of the sub terranean aquifers, along with volcanic activity filled the surface with water and the atmosphere with aerosols causing a "nuclear winter". Note, there are still many aquifers that exist today, and there are over 50,000 dormant sea mounts found throughout the oceans of the world.
The fossil record has been hijacked by the Darwinians, but is the real record of this great catastrophe. Billions of dead things laid down in rock layers all over the earth. The sediments that precipitated out of the Flood waters buried all things rapidly, preserving them in a most beautiful state, from scavengers and oxidization.
But when the waters receded, when the land masses were lifted up, the waters went down to the place God prepared for them in the oceans of the world, miles of sedimentary layers were left behind, still pliable, but eventually solidified into the miles thick water born sedimentary layers all over the earth which now bear the fossil record.
Now, we have oceans that are tremendously warmer than they are now, We have an atmosphere full of aerosols. It would not be hard to imagine how this could produce tremendous amounts of snowfall in the northern and southern latitudes. Summers would not be warm enough to melt the snow packs and would build up until an equilibrium was met, when the oceans were cooled off. This was the real cause of the ice age. Much of the waters would be trapped now in miles thick of ice sheets, an Ice Age, that I believe we are still coming out of, to some degree (contrary to the climate change farce, just one more reason for the elite to tax us to death). With lower ocean levels due to much of the water trapped in the miles thick ice sheets, land bridges would have been formed, say over the Bering Straight, which would have allowed for travel to the remotest parts of the earth from the Middle East.
As things began to warm up, the snow packs would have started to melt, in many cases, forming great inland lakes, which some, having breached their ridges, rapidly cut canyons through the sedimentary strata, such as the Grand Canyon, revealing their strata with fossils. There is evidence that strata, as you probably well know, which can be formed in hours and days, not over millions of years. When I observe the geology around the world, the canyons, the scablands, the "dry falls" etc, I see this as remnants of a great global Flood and Ice age that followed it.
This is all, of course over simplified, but more technical data can be found in creationist scientist writings such as, An Ice age Caused by the Flood", or "Seafloor sediments and the Flood" etc. To me it fits perfectly with what I see in this young earth. Evolutionists do not believe in a young earth and a world wide Flood, they believe in an uninterrupted continuum since the time of the Big Bang. God has spoken to this well, listen: "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (2 Peter 3:3-6)
This recent theory of uniformitarianism, this continuation, that is "the present is the key to the past" theory, God said would arise in the last days, and men would scoff with their alternative view of the universe, trying to throw their Maker in the trash can. But God interrupted this continuum, His creation, because of the wickedness of man, in the Days of Noah, with a worldwide mountain covering Flood.
Psalm 2 seems so pertinent to the days in which we are living. "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision." (Psalm 2:1-4, read whole Psalm for context and end result).
Thanks Noel. There are preserved glacial sediments (tillites, varved sediments, dropstones, etc) at several intervals in the geologic section suggesting that the Earth has experienced widescale glaciation again and again. I have not read John Morris' book but watched his lecture "The Young Earth" which I found disappointed in that more supporting evidence was not given. His opening pronouncement that evolutionists use time as a cure all or magic wand to get where they want to go is cute given that creationists have their own'divine' magic wand. It was interesting to learn that there is some discrepancy as to the age of the Earth between various biblical texts ranging from 6000-10,000 years. His 'bending' of the Tapeats sandstone looks to be simple ductile deformation to me and its very large areal coverage is not surprising given that in Cambrian times that area (now western US and Canada) was a continental shelf extending from an eroding Laurentia under the Panthalassic Ocean. His problem with radiometric dating (ie radio dates older than historical dates) may be explained if we knew what mineral was actually dated. Some minerals crystallize in the magma chamber well before actual eruption. I still think if two independent and different isotopic pairs (U-Pb, Ar-Ar) deliver the same date within 1% then it is highly probable that they are reliable. 1% of 250 million years is only 2.5 million which may also be a function of magma fractionation processes (zircon vs sanidine crystallization). I am enjoying this exchange. Unfortunately I was born with only one brain and find it very difficult to jump between an objective, evidence-based decision-making process which allows me to do my job and function day to day and a blind faith in something that I cannot see, hear or make any contact with. I have been to many places mentioned in the Bible (Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Sinai, Mt Ararat, Jordan River, Mt Nebo, etc) so appreciate the geographic and historical context in which it was written. I also know that humans seem to have an innate need to explain what they see and experience. We see that in every culture, old and new. Distinctive landmarks in the Outback were, according to Aboriginal Australians, put there by the 'rainbow serpent'. The sun was delivered to the sky by a huge bird, according to Northwest native tribes. A hammer caused lightning and thunder, according to the Norse. Pre-Christian European and Middle-eastern cultures all had their own explanations for what they observed in the physical world. I see Genesis as another similar attempt. We have very little information on the credibility, motives or sobriety of the writer or writers. And using one passage in the Bible to verify or confirm another passage is a bit like having a defense lawyer also serve as the trial judge. At least evolution-doubters are not treated as harshly as Bible-doubters have been in the past. One further thought. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing including how things began and how they will end, what is the point of it all? I have enjoyed our discussion.
How do we reconcile with a "young earth" the layering in the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland which, by coring, we see annual layers extending back to 800,000 years? Or varved sediments which have annual depositional layers that extend back over 50,000 years? As for gaps in the fossil record, what about "gaps" in the biblical record such as: how did we come about when Adam and Eve had only sons?
Hi Ian, Good questions. Ice layer dating is largely based on one's interpretation of the data, and evolutionists, having been duped by the greatest hoax this world has ever known, are forced by their uniformitarian schooling to force the data into their mindset. It would be better if they would dump their theory altogether and face the facts.
Some assumptions that are taken is that snowfall rates have been the same in the past as they are today. Which, from a Biblical perspective, would have been much higher after the Flood, which was the main cause of the Ice Age. Also, they have counted each layer as an annual layer rather than a multiple of layers laid down each year by each successive snow storm.
Then there is the bombers that were abandon on the Greenland Ice Shelf during WWII and found 50 years later under 250 feet of ice, which translates to about 5 feet of ice per year. The Ice sheet on Greenland is about 3000 meters thick, and simple division would make the Ice Sheet only about 1000 years old. But it is not quite that simple, and there are technical details that are too long to post here, but you can read a few Creation Scientists reviews here: www.icr.org/article/120/390 www.icr.org/article/355/390
The argument against varved layers is similar to the assumptions taken in the ice core uniformitarian interpretation of the data. Read here for a more detailed answer: www.icr.org/article/refuting-biologos-do-japanese-lake
Not sure where you get your data on the offspring of Adam and Eve. They had many sons and daughters. "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4).
There has been good correlation and agreement between ice core dates and interbedded volcanic ash layers which have been dated by other (radiometric) methods. Quite a coincidence. Many of your references which describe problems with radiometric dating are several decades old. Much has been done to perfect the technique in recent years. For example, recent dating of the Siberian traps (251 million years) and the Deccan traps (65My) by both U-Pb and Ar-Ar methods agree within 1%. Again quite a coincidence if one assumes isotope half lives have not been constant over time. My problem with the Bible is that it is its own authority. What do we really know about the credibility of who actually wrote it. I would like to see some non-Biblical hard evidence that supports a 6000 year age for the earth. And oops! Thanks for the reference to Adam and Eve having daughters as well. Hmmmm!
When looking at the physical universe, we find that there are two models for our existence. The evolutionary model, where nothing created everything, and the Creation model, where an intelligent Designer created all things. Both take faith to believe, as none living today were there in the beginning to see what really happened. The Bible claims, that an Almighty Creator God created. "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3) Uniformitarianism postulates that all things continue as they were from the beginning, ever since the "Big Bang". In my experience, "Big Bangs" do not create life, they destroy it. You need great faith to believe otherwise.
Any radiometric dating method is based on assumptions. It is not real science. Even the two dates you mention that are "only 1% off from each other" is still over 20 million years. Do you know how long that is. They may agree within 1%, you might as well say they both agree to be wrong. And a few years from now, as time has shown within evolutionary postulations, they will have come up with "new and improved" theories, saying that the old were outdated and incorrect. Read "Icons of Evolution" to see how much stuff fills the garbage can every year from the evolutionary "facts".
Now you may be worried about the authority of the Bible, why not Darwin? At least the Bible, where it can be shown, is 100% accurate concerning people, places, events, archaeology, scientific insights, and all of history. The only thing that unbelievers question is the origins mentioned in the first few chapters of Genesis. Now you may want to believe fallible men who make mistakes every day, but God claims in the Bible that He would preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6-7). He may have used fallible men, but stated, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20-21) So the prophet could say, "The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." (2 Samuel 23:2)
We are told, all Scripture is given by inspiration from God (2 Timothy 3:16). And at the same time, Peter would say, "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Peter 1:16) Luke began his gospel saying, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order" (Luke 1:1-3)
These were eye witnesses and recorded with Divine direction, that which would make up the 66 books of the Bible. Ultimately, for me anyway, is the infallible prophetic nature of the Scripture where God says, "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" (Isaiah 46:9-10)
Might I add, you do not have any "hard evidence" that a Big explosion, that came out of who knows where, and was caused by who know what, billions of years ago, and that "it" created all the intricacies of this finely tuned universe, that "appear" to be wonderfully designed, as evidenced by its laws, dna blueprints, symbiosis, etc, etc. But if you are really wanting "evidence" for the age of the earth, look up "The Young Earth" by geologist J. D. Morris, for dozens of methods of dating (which still use assumptions like radiometric dating), that show the earth as being young.
How can people even trick themselves into believing this nonsensical madness? Generations of the future will be taught evolution and know that anyone who claims that the earth was made in 24 hours and is just 6000 years old is utterly misguided. Soon, everyone will realize the truth and leave behind this garbage.