Saturday, October 22, 2005

Howler Monkeys














Proof That The Earth Is About 6000 Years Old


The title of this post is a reference to the denizens of talk.origins, the moral successors in the fine tradition of Pavlik Morozov. What is seen on talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution is the last vestiges of a fading sort of a freak/geek culture which, prior to the current entry of mainstream America onto the Internet, has dominated net affairs until now. Their little charade is transparent, and they need to take a tumble from their self-exalted position. Believe me, they have it coming. They are neither honest nor scholarly. Dealing with them is like dealing with punks in the sixth grade, except that these punks have a bigger vocabulary. They like to use the "tradesman's lingo" (good words and fair speeches) to bamboozle the simple. (Romans 16:18 "For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.")

Obviously, there is neither space nor time to post all of the relevant information here. So... I have provided links which you can click, and from those sites the choices of available additional pages and links are plentiful and varied. You might want to start with the "Unfossilized... " link below. You will find information about a "25 million year-old" limestone strata that contains human skeletons that look like ours. Enjoy.
Alley Oop!
Articles and Links
Evolutionary Logic
Polystrate Trees
Unfossilized Dinosaur Remains & 25 Million Year-old Humans
Where Fossils Form
Mount St. Helens
  • Enemies of God


  • At the bottom of this post you will see a picture of a "polystrate tree" that extends upright through "several million years" worth of sedimentary rock. These are found all over the world and cannot be explained away in standard "evo theory", as you shall see if you read the material here and on the links posted above. None of the phenomena dealt with here represent a problem for those who believe that God is not a liar.

    The problem (for evolutionists) is that even a thousand years is not enough time for these trees to be covered and fossilize. Of course, they will do a lot of fancy dancing to avoid addressing the real dilemma. Being covered with debris is not enough. How the tree is covered is only half of the problem. The tree must be covered by multiple layers of sediment and survive through many flood events in order to fit the evolution belief. Even if you can satisfy this problem (which you cannot), you still must fossilize the fossil before it rots. Burying a tree upright or horizontally does not prevent it from rotting. The conditions for fossilization must also be present. A buried tree will rot.

    I will give (the evolutionists) the argument that on rare conditions, a tree may miraculously stand 100 years after death, but that does not help the evolution position. But consider the double talk of this argument. For a dead tree to survive for 100 years without rotting, it must be a non-eventful century. Water increases decay and a flood would highly increase the chances of the tree collapsing. However, if there is not major flooding, the tree can't be buried. In this argument is an illusion of facts. The fact that a tree can survive for 100 years after death if conditions are right is presented to prove the trees' survival is possible. Then gradual sedimentation is given to show that a gradual build up is possible. Both are presented as evidence, however, only one or the other can apply. Even so, a hundred years does not fit evolution or creation arguments.

    Any walk in the woods brings this argument into question. Polystate trees have roots in place and fossilized with the tree. Normally the top of a tree rots over a short period of time even if it stands upright. The base of the tree and roots quickly decay. Even when we find trees slowly being covered in sediment, we don't see fossilization, but we do see decay.
    Do we see trees buried in flooding that do not rot?

    Keep in mind that fossils in the geological column date the layers. If we shorten the time frame that these trees are buried, we also must shorten the ages of the fossils found in the layers. The crux of the argument is that the layers represent hundreds of thousands of years and up to millions of years depending on the fossils found. The trees going up through the layers disrupt the neat package that evolutionists are trying to present.

    I will be more than happy to agree with (the evolutionist) that these trees survived for a thousand years while sediment built up if he and other evolutionists will be consistent and date the fossils in the same age range as the trees. If the tree is 1,000 years old, the fossils on the bottom layers can only be 1,000 years older than the fossils in the top layer. We know for a fact that evolutionists cannot agree with this assumption. This leaves a problem. Either the tree is millions of years old and miraculously stood through millions of years of flooding, or the fossils are not millions of years old. As you can see, both disagree with evolution. Therefore, it is necessary to craft any argument to avoid either of these two conclusions. Even so, one or the other must be true.
    However, the real problem is not in how long it takes for layers of sediment to form. The problem is the ages that evolution places on the fossils in the layers of sediment. If the fossils in the lower layers are millions of years older than the fossils in the upper layers and the tree stands through each of these layers, there is no reasonable explanation. Evolutionists claim this is a 'non-problem', but in reality it is a big problem. The only safe position to take is to ignore the facts. Just write it off as a misunderstanding and claim the issue is resolved. Accuse your critics of being "religious wackos".
    (Howler monkey speaking) "Practically everywhere that trees occur and there is significant, ongoing deposition of sediments, it is possible to find examples of them being buried. It is harder to find the data necessary to figure out how long the process is taking, but there are examples where periods of decades or centuries of burial can be documented."

    This is misleading at best. A polystrate tree is a tree that is fossilized through multiple geological layers of strata. This is a solid fossil in solid layers of rock. We do not see this today. We see living trees that have sediment built up around them, but they are not fossils. Nor will they fossilize. As I stated earlier, there is more to creating a fossil than burying a tree. Upright or laying down, the tree will rot unless there are conditions present that cause fossilization. A partially buried living tree is not a polystrate tree. A partially buried or completely buried dead tree is not a polystrate tree. These trees will rot under natural conditions. See this link below for more information.
    Where Fossils Form

    Niagara Falls

    Niagara Falls shows that a cataclysmic flood changed the face of America not that long ago. The Niagara river began falling over its present escarpment recently. Since then, Niagara Falls have been cutting back the cliff face.

    The gorge is now seven miles long. How long did this take? Estimations range between nine, four and seven thousand years. All these dates suggest that Niagara is not millions of years old.

    The Mississippi River Delta

    The Mississippi River Delta can also be used as evidence to support this. The Delta is growing fast and from its growth the age of the Mississippi river can be estimated approximately. Modern geologists have estimated an age of ten million years.

    However, to procure this age they claim the average depth of delta mud must be forty thousand feet, which is "a bit much". The average length of delta mud is not forty thousand feet, but forty feet.

    The Mississippi River is the longest river system in the world. An age of ten million years is ruled out by a simple fact: in ten million years the growing delta would have filled the entire gulf of Mexico with mud.

    Far beneath six hundred miles of river plains there lies a different map of America. Beneath those plains lies an old ocean bed or estuary. Above the old ocean bed are enormous layers of gravel, sand, clay and seashells, deposited by a colossal, catastrophic deluge. These layers DO NOT (!) represent "millions of years" of deposits. They were laid down in a VERY SHORT time span (a little over a year, if you need to know). On top there is the plain itself.

    How did those enormous layers get there? Certainly the river could not have deposited them there, nor could any other water action within our knowledge. It must have been water action beyond our knowledge, an unimaginable flood that refaced America. But how long ago ?

    At the beginning of this century the American Government appointed a team of experts to study the Mississipi River. These geologists used the correct average depth of Delta mud (forty feet) and they estimated the age of the great river system at less than five thousand years.

    The Mississippi and the Niagara Falls give hard and clear evidence that water action on a calamitous scale such as a deluge changed the face of America not that long ago. Evolutionist geology rejects this deluge explanation and gives us the geological column. One need look no further than Mount St. Helens to see how utterly BOGUS the "geological column" is. To the evolutionist, TIME is a magic wand which enables the utterly impossible to happen. The mathematician, on the other hand, realizes that the mathematically impossible could NEVER have happened, and time is irrelevant, even if it was millions or billions of years, which IT WAS NOT. Evolutionists are trapped in a vicious circle of false assumptions and circular reasoning. (The fossils are this old because the rocks are this old, and vice versa.) How old are the hundreds of feet of sediment deposited around Mt. St. Helens? Now imagine not just one "tiny" volcano, but massive WORLDWIDE VOLCANIC UPHEAVAL, coupled with a deluge of water from outer space, and/or from runaway subduction accumulating at an average rate of 6 inches per minute, and you might begin to get the picture.

  • Problems With A Global Flood?

  • There are numerous examples to support the deluge explanation. The Lewis "overthrust" in Montana, the Heart Mountain Thrust in Wyoming, the Empire Mountains in Arizona and, of course, The Grand Canyon.

    Within the Grand Canyon is the best exposure of the fossil column since it breaches the earth's crust to the depth of about one mile. The canyon reveals superb rock strata, sedimentary rocks and thousands of square miles of horizontal strata. The canyon is the clearest convincing case that the world underwent an immense period of floodwater proportional to that of a cataclysmic deluge.

    Let us infer that the deluge did in fact happen, and there is much evidence to support it.

    If this did happen then the geological column must be reinterpreted. It is not, therefore, a record of the process and progression of evolution. Instead, it is a record of the sequence in which creatures were buried in the flood sediments.

    At the bottom of the column are the simple sponges, jellyfish, seafish, seaworms, corrals, shellfish and the trilobites etc. It is logical that they are at the bottom because that is where they lived, and they are heavier than water. They lived at the bottom of the sea and they would have been the first organisms to have been buried by the flood sediments.

    The free swimming fish would have been trapped later, as is evident from the huge concentration of fossilised fish that we find. The amphibians would follow later since they lived even higher up at the level of the land. Therefore, the layers of fossils would record the sequence of burial in the flood sediments.

    After a certain stage of the flood, another factor would then come into operation - streamlining! Simpler animals are streamlined in water. Higher animals are more complex and are not streamlined in the moving floodwaters.

    This hydraulic principle of streamlining would sort out the animals so that the simpler streamlined ones would sink faster and be buried sooner, whilst the complex ones would have sunk more slowly and thus be found higher up the column.

    The third factor would have been the escape factor. The higher animals are more mobile. i.e. the birds, the horses, the apes etc., and of course - man. Being more agile, fleet wing, fleet footed, they could escape the rising flood a little longer and so they would be the last to drown, and would thus be buried at the top of the fossil column. The actual fossil column fits quite well with the deluge explanation.

    In essence, this means that the great sedimentary rocks were deposited very quickly and that the whole fossil column would have been deposited rapidly.; all the living creatures of the world engulfed in sediments and buried during a short period.

    It would mean that the fossils are mostly of creatures that lived on earth during the same period, whether they were trilobites, dinosaurs, mammoths or Neanderthal men etc.

    The discussion, therefore, is moving towards an earth that is not incredibly old, but surprisingly young. In making this statement I am challenging the scientific techniques used to date fossils and rocks. I am challenging radioactive dating. I might appear to be somewhat insubordinate for questioning radioactive dating.

    However, radioactive dating must go under circumstantial scrutiny on several points! Many physicists have disregarded these methods of calculating the ages of rocks and fossils because the techniques themselves rest on dissimilar assumptions from the outset. In order to prove to you that radioactive dating cannot give authentic ages of rocks and fossils, it is necessary at this juncture, to go into some depth on the actual process of dating fossils/rocks.

    If radioactive dating is controvertible then the supposed age of the earth - 4.5 billion years, must be reconsidered. Evolution asserts that man evolved from amoeba through random, purposeless and undirected changes over a vast period of time. If radioactive dating is untrustworthy and these vast time spans are inaccurate then evolution, on another logical point, has no case!

    14 comments:

    Curtis said...

    Hey Craig. What would you do without me? I see I've inspired you once again. You go girl!
    Now I'm going to go back and read your nonsense.

    Curtis said...

    Ok. I've read it and I'm convinced. Where do you get time to do all that vast reseach? And just how old is Earth? Maybe it's only twenty years or so. That would mean we're not so old. Huh? That would be comforting. If it seems like I'm mocking you it's because I am. But with a smile.

    Craig Lowery said...

    Hey, it's only scientific information from the experts. If you can't deal with it, choke on it. I guess it just doesn't fit your evolutionists' blind faith paradigm.
    Here's some stuff guaranteed to give you a bum trip. You already show signs of "bad acid (d-glutamic) toxicity".

    1. Michael Denton's "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis"
    2. Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial"
    3. Alexander Mebane's "Darwin's Creation Myth" A big-picture view of everything which has come unraveled with the theory of evolution (all versions) and presented like a very good executive summary with just enough technical detail to allow a complete understanding of the issues involved.
    4. Walter ReMine's "The Biotic Message"
    5. Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" (Can you say, "irreducible complexity"?
    6. Wendell Bird's two-volume Origin of Species Revisited, Philosophical Library of New York. Evolutionists will be quick to claim that some of the other authors and/or the organizations publishing their works are fundamentalists or Jesus-freaks of one stripe or other; no such claim could conceivably be made about the Philosophical Society/Library of New York.
    7. Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution", which describes the manner in which evolutionists' bogus pet fossil interpretations remain entrenched in textbooks long after they have been thoroughly discredited.

    Curtis said...

    Can you say lunatic fringe? I hope so because you're a member.

    Here's a review of The Origin of Species Revisited:
    http://www.vuletic.com/hume/provine.html

    When are you coming out with your book?

    Here's suggestion for a title.

    "I'm too religious for my shirt" with apologies to Right said Fred

    Craig Lowery said...

    Can you say "obfuscation and dissimulation"? Can you say "Tavistock Method"? Can you say "Alinsky Approach"? Can you say "cultural Marxism"? Can you say "sensitivity training"? Can you say "psychologically controlled environment"? Can you say "re-education"? Can you say "change agent"? Can you say "Stanford Research Institute's Center For The Behavioral Sciences"? Can You say "Sloan School at M.I.T."? Can You Say "National Training Laboratories"? Can you say "T Groups"? Can you say "Essalen Institute"? Can you say N.T.L. Institute of Applied Behavioral Sciences"? Can you say "Western Training Laboratories In Group Development"? Can you say "Delphi Technique"? Can you say "Rand Corporation"? Can you say "predetermined consensus manipulated by the facilitator"? Can you say "U.S. Government's Overt Psychological Warfare Program"? Can you say "The Proper Study Of Mankind by Stuart Chase"? Can you say "Theoretically, a society could be completely made over in something like 15 years, the time it takes to inculcate a new culture into a rising crop of youngsters. Prepare now for a surprising universe"? Can you say "Defense Management Equal Opportunity Institute at Patrick Airforce Base"? Can you say "the target group can be manipulated toward the pre-determined outcome"? Can you say "Have the courage to change"?

    Craig Lowery said...

    I didn't think so. You don't have a clue.

    Curtis said...

    "Theoretically, a society could be completely made over in something like 15 years, the time it takes to inculcate a new culture into a rising crop of youngsters." Sounds a lot like something that's already been attempted in Nazi Germany and we know how well that went.
    Man you need to quit drinking from the "fountains of the great deep ". I don't have a clue? I never claimed to. I rely on conventional science, as opposed to your pseudo-science, to have a clue. You sound like your head is going to explode .
    And if there are so many people visiting this site, why don't they ever make a comment? They sure as hell can't agree with both of us.
    I thought you would like the book review. The reviewer seemed to lean towards your side. At least he thought creationism should be brought up in science class.

    Craig Lowery said...

    My point about the reviewer (faculty member at Cornell University, where I spent 4 years earning my degree) is that I understand EXACTLY the techniques he employs in the classroom. These same techniques have been employed in K-12 for the past 30 years. The goal of the cultural marxists is to win cultural hegemony by destroying the old Judeo-Christian culture of the West. The sociology professor who taught me in a course at Cornell in 1969 or 1970 was taught by Saul Alinsky at Berkeley. Alinsky was a disciple of the Tavistock Method used in Russian "re-education camps". The reason I mentioned all the things I mentioned is that it is all part and parcel of the same ubiquitous network. If you don't understand how it works, it will work on you. The method is being used right now at the U.S. Naval Academy. Few if any of the young officers in the classroom understand what is being done to them. My source of this information is a hard copy of a newsletter I subscribed to, published through a network of active duty and retired Special Forces officers.

    Craig Lowery said...

    My web counter is set up to block my own ip address from counting as a page load. I don't get a LOT of visits, by some standards, but my counter logged 21 visits in the last three hours, while I was away from my computer. Some people may be timid about commenting, or just don't bother. I don't often post comments on blogs I visit, so not commenting is not such a wierd concept to me. Often, a comment will not post until the cycle of word verification, login and publish is done twice. That may be misunderstood by some, or they may think their comments are being deleted. I have never deleted a comment. Ah-h-h... correction... I deleted some that were posted by bots before I enabled word verification.

    rvds.design said...

    HI !

    Craig Lowery said...

    Welcome! All the way from the U.K., eh? I liked Blackhawk Down too, and I appreciate your #1 Book choice! I've never gotten around to doing anything with DreamWeaver, but my 19 year-old son has a solid appreciation for it. I see you're using Firefox 1.0.4 on Windows XP. I'm using the Mac with Tiger 10.4.2 and FireFox 1.0.7 (best for use with Blogger, but I also like Opera, Shiira and Safari 2.0.1 for general browsing. Safari seems to get a lot of errors when I try to load my blog with it. Hope you find the links and posts useful.

    Craig Lowery said...

    That Wacom interactive pen display on your wishlist is pretty cool... I wasn't aware of its existence 'til now. I have an Intuos 2 but (sadly) don't use it much. Is ruan vandersande Dutch or what? Hm-m-m... my word verification sequence is "yckspy"... wierd.

    Rafael said...

    PROSECUTION
    Is there a God? I will not try to say yes or no to this question. Rather, I will make this place a law court. I will ask you to be the judge, and I will be the prosecutor. The work of a judge is to make decisions, to approve or disapprove the truth of statements; the work of a prosecutor is to present all the evidence and arguments that he can possibly gather. Before we proceed, we have to be clear about one fact: all prosecutors are not eyewitnesses of crimes. They are not policemen. A policeman may personally witness an event, whereas a prosecutor obtains his information only indirectly. He places all the charges, evidence, and arguments collected before the judge. In the same way, I shall present before you everything that I can possibly find. If you ask whether I have seen God or not, I would say "no." I am reading or demonstrating what I have gathered. My job is to search for facts and to call for witnesses. You are to arrive at a conclusion yourself.
    THE UNIVERSE
    First, looks at nature, the world that is before our eyes and every phenomenon in it. We all know that scientific knowledge is the rational explanation of natural phenomena. For example, there is an observed drop in the temperature of a patient. The drop in temperature is a phenomenon, and the explanation for it is scientific knowledge. When an apple falls from the tree, it is a phenomenon. Why does an apple not fly into the air? The explanation for this phenomenon constitutes knowledge. A man with knowledge is a man who has the proper explanations.
    ONLY TWO EXPLANATIONS
    The universe displays countless phenomena of diverse forms, colors, shapes, and nature. We cannot fail to notice these phenomena before our eyes. The explanation for all these phenomena is known as knowledge. All thoughtful persons have only two explanations as far as the origin of the universe is concerned; there is no third explanation. You have to take one or the other of them. What are these two explanations? The first says that the universe came into being through natural evolution and self-interaction; the second attributes its origin to a personified being with intellect and purpose. These are the only two explanations presented by all philosophers of the world. There is not a third one. Where did the universe come from? Did it come into existence by itself or through chance? Or was it designed by the One from whom we derive the concept of God?
    CHANCE EVENTS
    What are the characteristics of things that come about by chance? First, we know that they are unorganized. At the most they can be partially integrated. They can never be totally organized. One can achieve a specified goal by chance once, but he can never achieve a specified goal by chance all the time. Anything that comes together by chance can only be integrated partially, never totally. For example, if I throw this chair to the other side of the room, by chance it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I do the same with a second chair, it may also lie neatly beside the first one. But this will not keep on happening with the third and the fourth and so on. Chance can only provide partial organization. It does not guarantee total integration. Furthermore, all random interactions are aimless, disorganized, and purposeless. They are without order and structure; they are loose, formless, disorderly, and not directed toward any meaningful purpose. Briefly, we can say that the characteristics of chance events are disharmony, irregularity, inconsistency, purposelessness, and insignificance.
    CONSISTENCY AND ORGANIZATION
    Now let us compare the things in the universe with these characteristics. Take, for example, the human being. He is carried in his mother's womb for nine months and delivered; he grows up and eventually dies. This cycle is repeated for every single individual. Consistency can be observed. It is not a wild game of chance. Again, look at the sun above your head. It does not exist purposelessly. Rather, it has its purpose and significance. Look at the moon, the stars, and the myriads of galaxies through your telescope. Some stars have their own planets. They all follow definite tracks and patterns. They are all organized. Their manner of motion can be calculated and predicted. The calendar in your hand is derived from them. Even next year's calendar can be printed before this year is past. All these show that the universe is organized, consistent, and purposeful.
    MICROORGANISMS
    Let us turn to the micro-world or quantum mechanics. Take a thin slice of wood. Put it under a microscope and observe its grain and structure, all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and the petal of a flower are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Everything is disciplined and functional. All these things witness one fact to you: the universe, with its macro (the whole universe and galaxies) and micro aspects (quantum), is purposeful and meaningful. Can you say that all these came into existence by chance? Surely you cannot.
    CHANCE OR DESIGN
    The universe has to be created by someone with profound wisdom, vast knowledge, and intricate design. If you cannot accept the concept of random formation of the universe, you have to admit that it was created by such a God. There cannot be a third explanation. The choice is left to you. You have to decide if the universe came by chance or whether it was created by God.
    A DEMAND AND ITS OBJECT
    One witness may not be enough. I will call in another. This time we will consider man's heart. Before doing so, we should also observe one fact: wherever there is a desire, there must first be an object for that desire. For example, an orphan who has never seen his father naturally has a desire for a kind of paternal love. I have asked many people who were orphans, and they all have felt this irrepressible yearning. By this we can see that every desire of the heart arises out of an object in the world. As human beings we have a need for social belonging. We need companionship and mutuality. If you put a boy on a deserted island and he grows up alone, he still has the yearning for companions, for beings like himself, even though he has never seen a human being. This yearning or desire is the very proof that somewhere in the world there is something known as "man." At a certain age, man begins to think about posterity; he starts desiring children and grandchildren. This is not a mere fantasy. This desire stems out of the existence and possibility of offspring. Hence, where there is desire, there is an object for that desire.
    THERE IS GOD IN THE HEART
    Do we have any desires other than social identity and self-propagation? What other cravings do we have? Deep in everyone there is a craving for God. Whether they are highly civilized races, such as those among the Caucasians, or the ancient civilizations, such as the Chinese civilizations, or the African natives and uncultured aborigines, they all have a common craving --God. As long as they are men, they have a yearning for God, no matter what race or nationality. This is a fact. You cannot argue against it. Everyone is seeking after God. Everywhere man is craving for God. This is very clear. By applying the principle that we just mentioned, we can see that since our heart feels the need for a God, there must necessarily be a God in the universe. Since there is a need for God in the heart, there must be the existence of God in the universe. If no God exists, we would never have such a craving in our heart. We all have an appetite for food. In the same way, we all have an appetite for God. It would be impossible to live if there was only an appetite for food but no food. Likewise, it would be impossible to live if there was a capacity for God but no God.
    NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT GOD?
    Once, an atheist rudely rebuked me in a loud voice: "You said that a man has the psychological need for a God. But there is no such thing, and I do not believe in it." I said, "Well, do you mean to say that you never think about God? In fact, even while you were talking, you were thinking about Him. This indicates that you do have a capacity for God. There is no one who has never thought about God. He may try not to think much about Him. Since this thought is in you, there must be such an object outside of you.
    "THE WORDS AND THE HEART”
    A young man once came to me to argue about God. He was vehemently against the existence of God. He gave me one reason after another for saying that there is no God. As he was enumerating the various reasons why God should not exist, I listened to him quietly without saying a word. Then I said, "Although you insist that there is no God and support yourself with so many arguments, you have lost your case already." He said, "What do you mean?" I went on to explain: "Your mouth can say as much as you want about there not being a God, but your heart is on my side." He had to agree with me. Although one can give all sorts of reasons in the head, there is a belief in the heart that no argument can defeat. A stubborn person may give a thousand and one reasons, but you can have the boldness to tell him, "You know better in your heart that there is a God. Why bother to look for evidence outside?"Now what would you say? After looking at nature and the universe, after checking with your inner feeling, it is up to you to decide whether or not there is a God. But you should not be irresponsible; your attitude must be sober because everyone has to meet God soon. One day you will all stand before Him. Everything concerning you will be laid bare. On that day you will know God. But now is the time for you to be prepared. We should all be prepared to meet our God.
    Finally is there is a God. Who is he? Who among the most ancient religions claim to be God’s son?
    As well there must be a written record of God and God’s son. Among all the ancients’ written records is there such a book?

    craig lowery said...

    Thanks, Rafael. Great post! It's really refreshing to hear from a rational human being who has thought these things through, as you have. God bless you, Brother!