Scientists Can't Even INTELLIGENTLY Create Life!

Example of a portion of DNA.

      Life, according to Neo-Darwinist theories of evolution, appeared by accident out of non-living matter, yet mankind with all of its wonderful technology, scientific understanding and dedicated hard work can’t create life in a heavily controlled laboratory environment no matter how hard we try. This is a major quandary for evolutionists because life is supposed to have spontaneously arisen without any direction or planning at least once in the past 4.6 billion years of earth’s (supposed) existence.

      Mankind is an incredibly intelligent (though not exactly wise) and creative being. Mankind has the entire human genome mapped. We can build super computers and world-spanning communication grids for telephone, television, radio, wi-fi, GPS systems and so much more. We can manipulate the genes of living creatures through breeding and scientific experimentation. We can build huge cruise ships, airplanes, cars, tanks, even space ships, and yet in a hundred years of incredible modern science, we can’t create life from non-life, something the universe supposedly did by random chance.

      We KNOW a ton about how life does what it does! We understand bacteria, cellular biology, proteins and DNA like never before, but with all this amazing scientific knowledge and technology we still can’t build life out of non-living matter. Blind laws of physics and accidental combinations of atoms and molecules are supposed to have randomly generated life itself and yet with all our modern intelligence and efforts, we still can’t get anywhere close to building life from scratch. Life is special! God designed it, formed it, breathed it into existence, and planted it here on earth, a planet made specially for His living creation. The reason life is so incredible and impossible to build is because it can’t “just happen” by chance. It was designed, planned, intelligently developed, and brought into existence by God.

      Even IF scientists finally figure out how to amazingly build aspects of life, take atoms and build the right amino acids, proteins, DNA (genes), and all the rest that even a tiny cell requires for life, then put it all together into a functional living life form, it STILL wouldn’t prove that life can begin by random chance. Why? Because it will have been generated by planned and controlled careful directed intelligence. By us! But for now, creating life is still an extremely improbable mystery that completely baffles the world’s best scientists.

      Life is no accident of physics, because even intelligently directed physics (our very best efforts) can’t create it. We can manipulate it and change it, but we can’t create it, start it from non-living matter. That’s the great perplexity of life. How do non-living atoms and molecules possibly come together to become alive? We can’t figure it out. So how on earth could nature possibly do it by accident!? And to say, “It must have, because it exists,” is a supremely classic copout!

Science, I Dare You!

      Come on science! I dare you! Make life from non-living molecules! Create a living cell from millions of the twenty different amino acid molecules essential for life! Create a protein (made of at least 400 amino acids in a specific sequence) from the ground up! Create hundreds of them! Create DNA without using other DNA or life to build it! Create RNA! Can’t build a functional living cell like nature did by accident? And you call yourself a scientist! Nature isn’t even a scientist and doesn’t have an intelligent brain, yet IT did it!… So you claim.

      How about something a little easier then? Change the genetic code of an already living organism and transform a cat into a wonderful living flying breathing bird! Can’t do it? I’m getting VERY disappointed here.

      Ok, how about this. Bring the dead back to life. Take a person that’s been dead for a few days (or even hours) and resuscitate him/her. ALL the building blocks of a functional living being are already present, so you don’t have to build or create ANYTHING for yourself. Simply zap the person back to life like in the Frankenstein story and proclaim, “It’s Alive!!!”… STILL can’t do it!?

      Scientists, you must not be trying hard enough. Physics supposedly did it without even having to try or intend it, and yet mankind’s intelligence and technology can’t come anywhere remotely close to comparing.

      Evolution, you’re a complete disaster of scientific evidence and proof. And you call yourself “science”. *shakes head in dismay*

Carbon Dating Fails

      Carbon Dating, like all radiometric dating, depends on measuring an unstable isotope (in this case, Carbon 14) against what it decays into over time (regular Carbon). Like all radiometric dating, this method of trying to calculate the age of something based on the decay rate of a particular isotope is overflowing with shaky assumptions and unknowable variables. (See my previous write up for more on these problematic assumptions, “Is Radiometric (Carbon) Dating Reliable?”.).

      Carbon dating can’t date things older than 50,000 to 100,000 years old because after that, there should be no detectable amounts of carbon 14 left in the sample. So palaeontologists don’t bother carbon dating anything they believe to be older than 50,000 years old, which includes most fossils such as dinosaur fossils, since dinosaurs are believed to have all died out millions of years ago (a lot more than 100 thousand years).

      Because scientists have already determined that fossils are very old based on the layer of strata that they’re found in, they either don’t bother carbon dating fossils or they don’t trust the results when those results don’t match what they already believe to be the “likely age”. You could run a million carbon dating tests on a million different fossil samples and find carbon 14 in all of them, however scientists would consider it all “contaminated” and “unreliable”. Why? Because they already “know” (believe) that the fossils are millions of years old, not thousands, so even though the existence of carbon 14 in the samples being tested suggest they’re thousands of years old (not millions), scientists will ignore the tests because they’ve already decided it can’t be trusted beyond 50,000 years. Convenient, eh?

      Imagine you’re a palaeontologist and you’ve just discovered a well preserved fossil in a deep layer of strata. You automatically assume that the fossil is many millions of years old, because of its position in the geological column (which you learned in school), and so instead of bothering to carbon date the fossil, you instead look at what layer of strata you found the fossil in. When asked how old the fossil is, you confidently announce the age of the surrounding rocks as being the age of the fossil. But you haven’t actually carbon dated the fossil itself OR the sedimentary rock the fossil was found in! You’ve simply looked at your handy chart of the Geological Column and it’s matching Evolution of Life counterpart chart and pinned down a rough date based on what has already been established by other scientists. The fossil is of a certain type found in a certain rock layer, so that means it must be about THIS old (based on the charts). If someone were to take your fossil samples and send them for carbon dating and got a result that was completely different than what you already believe to be the real age, you’d simply laugh and say, “The fossil was contaminated and can’t be trusted.”

      The truth is that carbon dating has returned tons of “bad results” so often that scientists don’t believe it is at all reliable for dating fossils unless they’re no older than about 10,000 years (50,000 years maximum). The fact that many supposedly millions of years old fossils and samples have had measurable amounts of Carbon 14 in them, when they shouldn’t have any, is explained away as contamination. Yet we’re supposed to trust that contamination is very rare with regards to other forms of radiometric dating…

      Actually, when you really get down to it, these methods of dating rocks and fossils are simply being used to pin down what evolutionists already believe to be the estimated date of their samples and fossils. If the dates don’t match what they believe, then the sample is contaminated and the date given by the test is wrong. If it does match, then everyone agrees, and that’s how old the sample is, and everyone’s happy.

      But what happens if radiometric dating is completely unreliable as a way to date rocks and fossils? The system is, after all, based on many major assumptions that must be perfectly constant and exact for the whole thing to have any chance of being truly accurate… The truth is, if you toss radiometric dating out the window, then you’re once again left with ONLY the assumptions and guess estimates of geologists and palaeontologists that base their entire system of age dating on the belief that the world is ancient and that all life evolved from a single-celled organism (which evolved from non-living molecules). In other words, when scientists tell you the age of a fossil or sample of rock that they weren’t there to see get buried or made, they’re mostly making it all up, or following the created charts of scientists before them who also made it all up. And this is all because of their preconceived belief system, believing in an ancient earth and that all life evolved to what it is now over hundreds of millions of years of time. No real historical or proven dates were ever used.

Is Radiometric (Carbon) Dating Reliable?

      Radiometric dating (carbon dating and other similar methods) are considered by many to be the silver bullet in the issue of whether or not our planet is as old as most scientists believe it is. To them, radiometric dating is one of the biggest and best evidences for a very ancient planet. However, as you’re about to see, radiometric dating is not anywhere near as certain as scientists would like you to believe. Considering that this is “one of the best evidences for a billions of years old planet”, it better be a pretty solid irrefutable fact, right? Well, it isn’t anywhere close.

How Radiometric Dating Works

      Radiometric dating works by measuring the ratio between an unstable isotope of an atom against the version of the atom that the unstable isotope eventually turns into. Scientists do this by observing how long it takes for a particular unstable atom to “decay” into a different stable atom. Unstable atoms of a particular type decay at a measurable but slow rate and by comparing the ratio of stable verses unstable isotopes of a particular kind, scientists believe they can calculate how long it has been since that rock (or material) formed. The “parent” isotope is the unstable isotope of an atom and the “child” is what it turns into as it “decays” over time. By comparing the amount of these two atoms within the material being tested, scientists believe they can calculate its age.

      But there are some very serious problems with this reasoning because the entire processes is based upon major assumptions that if at all inaccurate, make the entire process useless as a means of dating something.

The Problem:  Based On Uncertain Assumptions

      For radiometric dating to be reliable, a number of major assumptions must be constantly true or else the whole process of using it as a method to date materials completely falls apart.

Assumption 1: Original Content of the Rock

      The people running the tests have to assume how much of the parent and child isotopes existed in the rock when it first became solid. If there were actually more or less parent isotopes in the rock than the scientists assume, or more or less child isotopes in the rock than the scientists assume, then their calculations to determine the age of the rock are going to end up wrong.

      Imagine you had a jar full of small coloured balls (some red, some blue) and every five minutes you removed one red ball and replaced it with a blue one. If you did this consistently until most of the red balls were replaced by blue ones, then calculated how much time it took for this to happen, you could come up with a pretty good estimate of how long the whole process took based on the number of red balls compared to blue ones. But if you tossed a random amount of red and blue balls into the jar at the beginning and didn’t bother to count them beforehand, your calculations would be completely inaccurate because you had no idea what the original ratio of blue to red balls was before you began the experiment.

      This is one of the problems scientists have when trying to date materials with radiometric dating. They can’t possibly know the exact contents and ratios of isotopes and atoms within a rock when it first formed unless they were there at its formation and measured it then and compared it to now. Measuring it hundreds of thousands (or as they believe, hundreds of millions, even billions, of years later), they can’t know the original condition or contents of that rock when it was formed, so their entire basis for calculating the age of the rock based on what they believe to have been the original contents is very flawed. They can’t be at all certain what the original ratio was when the rock first solidified.

Assumption 2: Constant Decay Rate

      It is believed that the rate of decay from a parent isotope to a child isotope is constant and does not change, however this is proving to be a false assumption. In recent years it has been discovered that the decay rate of unstable isotopes is NOT as constant as scientists used to think it was. Because of this, scientists have had to adjust their calculations and dates a number of times over the past few decades. The adjustments in the calculation have not been very large, but it can mean a different date of hundreds of millions of years when all is said and done. It has also been found that the activity of our sun has an impact on decay rates, making them slightly faster or slower depending on how calm or chaotic our star is behaving. Though again, the changes are very minor (mere fractions of a percent), it shows that the assumption that decay rates are constant and a reliable form of measurement is wrong.

      Scientists have been studying the decay rates of unstable isotopes for a little less than one hundred years. In that time they’ve had to make numerous adjustments to their calculations as they’ve found that the numbers they thought were accurate have turned out to be wrong or not as constant as they once thought. This is only about a hundred years worth of observation by modern science. With one hundred years of observation and despite having to change the values numerous times during that short time period, scientists assume that their calculations are accurate enough to calculate rocks across hundreds of millions, even billions, of years. That means that in all that time, the decay rates of unstable atoms cannot have ever been different than what scientists calculate the decay rate as today. Yet even in the last hundred years they’ve had to make many adjustments as they’ve realized that their calculations were flawed, sometimes resulting in hundreds of millions of years being taken off the age of previously dated materials. To then assume that the decay rate has matched what we observe today throughout billions of years of history is extremely problematic and very likely a bad and inaccurate assumption of the reality.

Assumption 3: No Contamination

      Scientists believe that once a rock has turned solid (usually lava that has cooled and solidified), that nothing can change the make up of that rock. This assumption states that the rock has not been contaminated by an outside source since it became solid. Yet laughably, when a rock is dated and comes up with a date very different than what scientists expect (based on the rock’s location in rock layers), scientists quickly fall onto the assumption that the rock must have been contaminated. Think about that for a moment. The assumption is that a rock is very unlikely to be contaminated across hundreds of millions of years of time by its surrounding environment, so that we can accurately calculate the ratio of parent and child isotopes, thus dating the rock. Yet when the date turns out different than expected, they assume (this is the second of two assumptions now) that the rock, as unlikely as they believe it is, must have been contaminated. Essentially this means, “Contamination is extremely rare and unlikely, but we blame bad dates on it anyway. We trust the dates we agree with, usually, and don’t trust the dates we disagree with.”

Big Problems With Bad Dates

      Many rock samples have been taken from lava flows that have been observed by mankind and when radiometric dated, have given very inaccurate dates. This automatically suggests that the assumptions that radiometric dating are based upon are severely flawed. When a lava flow has been observed by eye witnesses and dated as having happened in a particular year, and then radiometric dating says that the lava flow is actually hundreds of thousands (or even millions of years) older than it actually is, something is very wrong with this dating method. Lava that formed and was witnessed forming in 1986 at Mount Saint Helens was radiometric dated in 1996 and returned a date of 350,000 years, when in fact it was only 10 years old. Similar problems with lava flows that had eyewitnesses from New Zealand, Hawaii, and other places on the planet over the last few hundred years have also been radiometric dated and come up with very different dates from when they were observed to have actually formed. These are only a FEW examples of “bad radiometric dates”. There are also many instances of two samples from the same set being given completely different dates despite very clearly belonging to the exact same material (artefact).

      Coal and diamonds present another big problem for radiometric dating because the assumed age of these deposits in the earth do not work at all with radiometric dating. Scientists then assume that to radiometricly date these materials is a waste of time. Essentially this is an example of “the dates don’t match what we believe, so we’re going to ignore the radiometric data in favour of what we already believe and assume to be true”.

      The problem arises because Carbon 14, an unstable isotope of Carbon, has a decay rate that is quite fast compared to many other unstable isotopes. Because of this fast decay rate, no amount of Carbon 14 should be detectable in any sample older than 250 thousand years. Yet coal and diamonds HAVE detectable amounts of Carbon 14 within them. This should be impossible because most coal deposits are believed to be hundreds of millions of years old, and diamonds are believed to be some of the oldest substances on the planet, being billions of years old. They should have NO Carbon 14 in them at all because it should have all decayed away a very long time ago, but it hasn’t. So scientists assume that the radiometric dates are wrong for these materials, for one reason or another, since they don’t match what they expect/assume to be true.

      That these problematic examples of radiometric dating exist at all is a testament to the fact that the method and assumptions it is based around are wrong. We can definitely know the current decay rate of unstable isotopes through modern observations, but we cannot adequately know that our assumptions about the factors involved in this dating method have been true for all of history. Errors such as the few (of many) listed above show that we can’t possibly know enough about the variables and factors that contribute to the current conditions or contents of a sample sent for radiometric dating. There are far too many complete unknowns that can easily cloud or destroy the accuracy of using radiometric dating as a reliable way to date materials.

Conclusion

      If ANY of the multiple assumptions that radiometric dating is based upon are at all flawed (inaccurate), then the dates calculated will be wrong. Because of the number of assumptions this process must adhere to and “trust” based on a very limited amount of available information, using radiometric dating as a method to date material beyond a short amount of time is extremely unreliable. Scientists essentially have to trust that they know what the original contents of the rock were when it first solidified, they have to trust that the decay rate of unstable isotopes within that rock has not changed across hundreds of millions of years, and they also have to trust that the rock has not been contaminated by outside sources in all of that time. These are massive assumptions that simply cannot be adequately verified! In fact, these assumptions have been proven wrong and required adjustment so many times in only the last hundred years that to still trust them as even “mostly accurate” is unbelievably optimistic. If even ONE of the many assumptions is slightly off (wrong) with regards to a sample being tested, then the calculated date is also going to be wrong.

(In a write up I’m still working on, I’ll explore the origins of the very ancient age of the earth touted by modern science and show you that radiometric dating didn’t enter the picture until well after scientists had already decided that the planet was probably billions of years old. In other words, radiometric dating matched nicely with what they mostly already believed, so it became the “proof” that their assumptions must be true.)

Rock Layers Don't Play Fair

A chart of major layers of strata (sedimentary rock) at the Grand Canyon.

If you’re a secular scientist who believes that our planet is billions of years old, earth’s layers of rock don’t play fair.

If you know anything about geology, you’ve probably heard of the Geological Column. It is a non-existent extrapolation of all the rock layers of earth from top to bottom based on how geologists believe they fit together. Nowhere on the planet can all these layers be found together one on top of the other. Scientists have put the Geological Column together by analyzing different layers of rock all over the earth and fitting them into a hypothetical Geological Column where they seem to fit best. They do this based on the type of rock a particular layer is made of, what kind of rock the layers above and below it are, what kinds of fossils they tend to find in those rock layers, and if all else fails, they date it with radiometric dating. But trusting this extrapolated column of “earth’s geological history” presents a major problem when you look at what’s between these layers of rock.

Secular Science Says

Rock layers are believed to form over a long period of time one on top of the other with each layer usually representing hundreds of millions of years. As already mentioned, nowhere on earth can all of the layers in the Geological Column shown in textbooks actually be found. Scientists believe and state that this is because of erosion washing the missing layers away.

This is a difficult issue though, because it means that erosion has to be very particular about what rock layers it completely erodes away and what layers it leaves behind. You can visit two different locations within miles of each other and find millions of years worth of sediment completely missing in one place and present in another. It’s as if nature neatly carved away millions of years of accumulated rock in one small section and missed the same sediment formation just a few miles away.

The Grand Canyon is a great example of this. There is about 250 millions years worth of sediment completely missing from where it should be, according to the Geological Column. The layers of earth are stacked up one on top of the other and yet in the very middle of this, expected layers simply aren’t there. Evolutionists and uniformitarianists (people who believe the earth is billions of years old and that all these layers of rock represent ages of the earth and hundreds of millions of years of time) blame this on erosion. It might be better to call it “selective erosion” because it had to have wiped out millions of years worth of sediment in some locations and left it entirely untouched in others. This is extremely inconvenient and also not very likely, especially across short distances where this phenomenon is very clearly noticeable.

Making matters that much worse for geologists is that many of the rock layers they study have extremely smooth lines between them, as if someone piled the different sediments up and neatly flattened them together without any erosion at all taking place between them. All across the planet, layers of sediment can be found neatly laid down with a clean straight line between them. This should NOT be the case if you believe in millions of years of time having laid these sediments down. Erosion and time should have made the tops of each layer very messy and wavy, not clean and straight like they are.

Unconformities

In geology, there are names for how the layers of rock meet up with each other. Think of these lines in the layers of earth like a border between one rock layer and another one. Some of these lines are messy, indicating that erosion ate away at the top layer of rock before another layer covered it, and some are very clean, indicating that no erosion took place before it was covered by the next layer of sediment. When the top of a rock layer (which has since been covered by another layer of rock) has been noticeably eroded, the border between the rock layers is called an Unconformity.

If you look at the graph of the Grand Canyon rock layers at the start of this write up, you’ll see that some borders between layers are messy and wavy while many others are not. Those messy borders are Unconformities. Many of the rock layers at the Grand Canyon, however, are NOT messy but instead show no signs of erosion at all. This is true all over the planet where many layers of sediment have a border line between them that is neatly horizontal and does not show signs of age or erosion.

When there are no signs of erosion between layers of sediment, it causes a major problem for geologists who adhere to the official Geological Column found in textbooks (but not found on earth). Millions of years of time is supposed to have passed as each layer of sediment was laid down, and yet there are tons of layers all over the earth that show absolutely no sign of erosion taking place between these rock layers, something that should be very easily noticeable!

Making matters worse is when geologists find very neat border lines in areas where entire layers of the Geological Column are completely missing! To explain these situations, geologists have to assume that erosion must have entirely stripped the missing layers away and left behind little or no sign of it having happened. To explain this, geologists call on the term “Paraconformity”. A Paraconformity is when two layers of sediment rock show no signs of erosion between them, but where geologists assume there must have been MAJOR erosion despite the lack of evidence, because rock layers that SHOULD be there are not. Paraconformities are also called Unconformities, NOT because the layers themselves show evidence of erosion (which an Unconformity is), but because layers of rock that are supposed to be there are not.

The Flood Explanation

Geologists who believe in the Biblical Genesis flood that covered the whole earth with water can mostly easily explain these mysterious layers of sediment without having to invent “Paraconformities” in order to explain away the lack of erosion evidence. Geologists who believe in the global flood attribute most layers of sediment to the work of ocean currents and massive scale erosion as water rose, covered the land, mixed it up and laid down tons and tons of soft sediment all across the planet before the water finally receded into the ocean basins we have today. The processes of the water rising then subsiding would have moved vast quantities of sediment very large distances, resulting in layers of sediment that can be found covering large swaths of land. To see this sort of thing in action, just look at examples of massive floods in our world today, and you’ll see that they can very quickly lay down thick layers of fresh sediment, even multiple layers, depending on the types of sediment the flood waters ripped up and how the flood moved through an area.

So when a geologist who believes in the flood looks at the layers of sediment, he doesn’t see millions of years of time, he sees a stage of the cataclysmic flood described in the Bible book of Genesis. And when a geologist who believes in the Biblical flood sees a “Paraconformity”, it doesn’t baffle him at all. Instead, the geologist sees such Paraconformities as being evidence that these layers of sediment were laid down very fast one on top of the other. There are no signs of erosion because there WAS no erosion or millions of years between sediment layers. In the places where there are REAL Unconformities (erosion between layers), that simply shows that there WAS erosion between one layer and the next, just like the evidence shows.

Flood geologists do not have to have an invented “Paraconformity” that has little or no evidence of existing, because they believe exactly what the signs and evidence show us, without having to make up excuses for why the layers of sediment don’t fit a preconceived idea of geological time.

Dinosaur "Death Pose" Caused By Water

The best dinosaur fossils that include the entire skeleton of the dinosaur, though rare, have one very strange thing in common. They all have a weird "death pose" where the tail and neck arch very awkwardly back and up as if the dinosaur were doing a contortionist impersonation when it died. A new study by scientists has figured out what the likely cause of this strange pose is. Surprise surprise! It's WATER!

Scientists recently tried a number of methods to get dead birds to take this shape upon death (placing them in warm sand, etc.) but the only method that created the same "death pose" as found in dinosaur fossils was dunking the dead birds in water. By doing this, the backs and necks of the birds instantly arched exactly like the poses fully intact dinosaur fossils have.

Wikipedia: Dinosaur Death Pose

Alicia Cutler and colleagues from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, think it all comes down to a dip in the wet stuff. Cutler placed plucked chickens – both fresh and frozen – on a bed of sand for three months to see if desiccation would lead to muscle contractions that pulled the neck upwards – a previously suggested explanation for the death pose. The chickens decayed without contorting. When seven other chickens were placed into cool, fresh water, however, their necks arched and their heads were thrown back within seconds. Sustained immersion of the birds for up to a month slightly increased the severity of the pose, but the major movement of the head occurred almost immediately.

 Add another point to the global Genesis flood being the cause of such dinosaur fossils.


NewScientist: Water Is the Secret of The Dinosaur Death Pose  (Requires subscription to see more than first couple paragraphs.) 

Answers In Genesis: Dunking dead chickens delivers dinosaur death secret.

A Gay "Christmas" Tree: Condoms ARE Included

Gay Club’s Condom-Decorated ‘Christmas’ Tree Causes Outrage At Penn. College

(http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gay-clubs-condom-decorated-christmas-tree-causes-outrage-at-penn-college/)

 

Here is an excellent example of exactly what homosexuality is all about. Never mind the whole politically correct agenda, anti-bullying campaigns, gay marriage laws and battles in court, homosexual couples adopting children, or whatever else you can think of with regards to the issue of homosexuality. The “Gay Christmas Tree” on display at Penn. College, like so many other public examples of “gay-dom” (ie. Gay Pride Parades, etc.) shows homosexuality exactly for what it is. It’s all about the sex. All the rest is just cover for the real heart of what it means to be gay. Unnatural disease spreading casual and publicly advertised deviant sex.

Merry Christmas! Let’s decorate our gay affirming Christmas tree to celebrate homosexuality… Cover it in condoms! This should surprise absolutely no one, at least if you haven’t been hoodwinked by the constant campaign to normalize this type of sex-obsessed behaviour.

Instead of a star on the top, there’s an unwrapped condom pulled over the top of the tree. A sign next to the tree says, “Take a free condom!” A couple things about this made me laugh, despite its disgusting nature. One, I don’t know how wise it is to trust condoms that have decorated a “Christmas Tree” covered in pine needles. Might bring a whole new misery to your gay sex life in more ways than one. Pine tree needles… Ouch! And have a “holy holiday condom for Christmas”, literally. The gay agenda’s gift to you, condoms with holes in them. Merry Christmas!

Another thing that made me laugh was the picture of the tree with the condoms on it. The condoms are labelled “Lifestyle”. Yup, we “gay hating bigots” have been saying it for years. Homosexuality is a lifestyle.

So the next time you hear anything about homosexuality in the news, just remember what the true meaning of homosexuality is really all about. Sex, sex, and more gay sex.

GENETICS: All Creatures From Noah's Ark?

Evolutionist Argument:  You believe that all animal life on earth died out in a giant global flood except for a male and female of each “kind” that were saved on a big boat. Now, a few thousand years later, you believe that ALL living creatures came from those few that were saved on Noah’s Ark… Seriously? All dogs, all cats, all reptiles, all bugs, EVERYTHING, from one large floating zoo? Crazy!

Animals Entering the Ark – from the movie Evan Almighty.

Any Evolutionist or atheist that makes such an argument as the one written above has made a monumental mistake of judgement and logic. Noah’s ark has no problem explaining how life survived the flood and became as it is today, while Evolutionists have a massively worse problem trying to explain ALL forms of life (all plants, birds, bugs, reptiles, mammals, bacteria, etc.).

Those of us that believe in Noah’s Ark believe that Noah, with the help of God, managed to collect and care for a male and female of every KIND of creature on the ark. Though we might not know what exactly constitutes a “kind” in every situation, we do know that if you only had to take one male and one female dog onto the Ark, and if you took them on as cubs, they’d be able to generate all the varied dog species we have today, given a cycle of many generations and natural breeding. As dogs spread all over the world, natural selection easily explains how the dog population can change into all different kinds of dogs over time, especially if they all originated from a pair of dogs with an immensely more diverse set of genetics. Such a situation is completely plausible, realistic, and adheres perfectly to our scientific understanding of how genetics and breeding works. But note that all dogs are still dogs, all cats are still cats, all monkeys are still monkeys, and all people are still people. No where does any of these surviving creatures “evolve” into different kinds of creature.

So we, as Bible believing Christians, have no problem explaining all kinds of living creatures today because we simply state that they have ALWAYS existed (since God’s Creation of Earth). Sure, they’ve changed and become much more diverse over many years, but they truly have all descended from one male and one female of their kind.

 

The Biblical Story of Noah’s Ark Fits The Science of Genetics

Biology and genetics are an incredible complex and wondrous field of science, but Neo Darwinism (evolution from molecules to single celled organism to all life on earth) actually goes in the opposite direction that science tells us it should, and does. The story of Noah’s Ark, however, and all living creatures that exist today since that time (about 4000 years ago), fit perfectly into the scientific understanding of genetics.

The Bible says that God created everything in a perfect condition, like a book without a single misprint or flaw. That being said, from the time of Creation to the Flood, is estimated to have been around 2000 years. 

Since we’re playing in the realm of genetics and reproduction here, what would happen if you had two dogs (a male and female) that contained the entire “dog” genetic library within their genes? The genes of those dogs would contain ALL the genetic possibilities and variability that God had “programmed” into them. Over time with each successive generation, new species of dogs would arise as different variations of those genes became dominant and/or lost. Mankind, throughout its existence, has bred all kinds of species for all types of different creatures (horses, dogs, livestock, chickens, cats, sheep, etc.). That’s all done through selective breeding, which is something Evolutionists AND Creationists completely agree on. It’s a proven well documented and heavily verified science. Dogs over time breed different kinds of dogs. That same principle works across all other forms of life on our planet both in the past and today.

 

Neo Darwinism Is In WAY More Trouble Than Noah’s Ark

What if we compare the Creationist explanation of modern day life to the Darwinist explanation? Not surprisingly, you find that the Darwinist is in WAY more trouble trying to explain the existence of all life (not just air breathing life) than Creationists are.

The argument against Noah’s Ark that exists at the start of this blog post states that believing all present day dogs (or any other kind of creature) descended from a common biological ancestor, is preposterous… But that’s exactly what Darwinists believe!!! That ALL living things on earth of ALL kinds (not just air breathing creatures) descended from common ancestors. Not just all dogs from dogs, but ALL things (plants, bugs, bacteria, mammals, fish, etc.) from a specific limited set of ancestor life forms! Mammals all evolved from the same thing, according to Darwinists. Cats, dogs, monkeys, bears, deer, gophers, rabbits, horses, cows, elephants and even humans! We ALL supposedly descend from the SAME common ancestors…

Tell me now. WHO is the crazy one? If all dogs cannot have descended from a single pair of dogs, then all mammals could most definitely not have “evolved” from a couple “almost mammals”, and absolutely NOT from a single celled organism, which itself evolved from a pile of chemical goo, so the Evolutionist believes.

An example of the Evolutionary “Tree of Life”. All life from a single celled organism. But they still can’t explain where that “single celled organism” came from.

 The Evolution Of Life Runs Backwards

Neo Darwinism (the modern theory of evolution) actually claims that life runs in the OPPOSITE direction from what history and science tells us it does. 

Genetics shows us that a small group of creatures have to be very similar genetically in order to breed together. Even many different species of dogs, or horses, or cats, or whatever else of the same kind, cannot properly breed with their own kind because over time their genes have become too different to properly and successfully “pair up”. Why? Because the genetic library (DNA) is finite, limited, and it digresses (falls apart and shrinks) over time. It does NOT expand or grow and develop brand new sets of genetic information and advancement. This is why if you take twelve similar dogs and breed them over and over and over again (performing no intelligent natural selection of your own, simply letting them breed on their own) you’ll eventually end up with a pile of very genetically weak and sickly dogs.

A couple years ago I visited a zoo and one of the scientists there briefly mentioned that there are so few cheetahs left in the wild now that they will never again be a strong vibrant species. Why is this? Because the genetic library of the world’s living cheetahs has shrunk so much over time that they can no longer produce an adequate supply of genetically healthy offspring. Their genetics are handicapped, forever, because there’s not enough genetic variability between them all anymore. This very same principle works within the population of mankind. Lock a set of people onto an island and don’t allow anyone from outside to join their population, and within a short number of generations you’ll end up with a very genetically weak and damaged population group. The babies that survive birth will be overflowing with tons of genetic defects resulting in all manner of physical and mental handicaps because their DNA is so polluted with copied and duplicated errors. This is why we can’t marry and have babies with our siblings, and why we shouldn’t even make babies with cousins. Because the genetic flaws in our own DNA are going to be very similar to a lot of the same genetic flaws in our near relatives, resulting in children born with genetics that ONLY contain the errors and have no alternate set of genes without the errors to make up for the genetic damage.

This is scientific fact! Genetics and DNA is a library of variability, but over time that library becomes polluted with countless copying errors that degenerate that library, making it inferior and weak. To combat this major problem, mankind even has laws in place to prevent people from marrying and having children with near relatives. Look at all the diseases and handicaps both physical and mental that exist throughout our population today. A good number of these (most of them, actually) have a genetic origin. They are caused by weak error-riddled DNA. Mankind’s population and genetic library is massive, yet it’s still so heavily damaged that we’re producing tons and tons of genetically damaged children. Copy errors in the genetic code are HARMFUL, NOT beneficial, like evolutionists so badly want to believe. Science shows us that the exact opposite of Neo Darwinism happens to DNA over time. It degrades and loses information. It does NOT gain it.

Creationists have NO problem explaining why this happens. We believe that God created a perfect genome, a perfect set of DNA for all life on earth (a perfect set of dog DNA, a perfect set of Turtle DNA, a perfect set of Human DNA, etc.) and that when mankind sinned and brought corruption into the world, that perfect world began to break down. So instead of a perfectly preserved genome existing in all kinds of life all over the planet, life is now running on borrowed time with a genetic library that is gradually falling apart collecting more and more copy errors with each new generation. There still exists a vast quantity of genetic variability in life and that variability results in all the different appearances and structures of life all around us today, but change within the DNA of life over time is degrading that DNA, NOT improving it, like Evolutionists believe. The funny thing is that Evolutionists know this and admit this, because it’s hard and proven science, but they blindly and wishfully believe that these laws of entropy don’t apply when it comes to their theory of Evolution, because it CAN’T have applied for their beliefs to have worked, or happened.

Non-Life Into Life

Making matters even worse for Neo Darwinists is that they still can’t explain how life actually began. They’ve been trying ever since Darwin first put forth his theories about the origins of life on earth, but they’ve never been able to make non-life become alive, despite our massive and impressive amounts of technology and scientific understanding. The problem is that life doesn’t just happen. It doesn’t appear out of no where. The only way to make life is to make it with more life. You can’t build life from the ground up no matter how hard you try. The “basics” of life are way too complex and intricate for that to ever work randomly or naturally. But Evolutionists believe that this must have happened at least once eons ago in the past because we’re surrounded by life today, despite the fact that science shows us this is impossible.

You cannot take all the basic components of a computer broken down into their simplest molecules, toss them into a box, mix it up and have a fully functional computer appear by random out of the mess. It’s impossible. The EXACT same problem exists when trying to explain life today. Evolutionists try to get around this by calling the molecules that make up life “organic”, but that simply means that the set of molecules they’re looking at are what life is made of. I can say the same sort of thing about the molecules that make up a computer (these are “computer molecules”), but it still won’t change the fact that mixing them together at random won’t ever produce a functional computer.

Life is very special, very complex, and even our vast intelligence and modern technology combined with our scientific understanding can’t do half of what life does constantly all around us every day. Life is no accident of nature. Life is an intentional creation, intelligently designed and supernaturally strung together and jolted into existence by Almighty God.

Conclusion

Evolutionists say that ALL life came from a single celled organism and a pile of mixed up chemical goo… And to them, this is realistic and plausible, despite science significantly showing otherwise.

Don’t ever let an Evolutionist tell you that all animals coming from Noah’s Ark is ridiculous, when they themselves argue that all life, period, came from non-life, by accident. That makes it pretty obvious which of the two parties in this debate have to have monumental amounts of blind faith. The Bible believing Christian’s understanding of the world and life matches perfectly with what science tells us about it, however the Neo Darwinist believes in the exact opposite of what science shows us in order to believe that all life evolved from non-life. Christianity has no problem with the real and observable scientific facts of genetics. Evolution does.

All air breathing creatures today came from all the creatures saved on Noah’s ark.

Canada Considering Backing Out of Kyoto

(Time for something a little different than Bible apologetics. This post is about Environmentalism, Canada, and Politics.)

Canada May Miss $6.7 Billion Carbon Offset Bill

(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-02/canada-may-escape-6-7-billion-bill-by-exiting-kyoto-protocol.html)

The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change was signed in 1998 and was a big political push to seriously limit the amount of fossil fuels the developed nations in the world would produce and burn. Canada was one of the first to sign the treaty (under the Federal Liberals), whereas the United States never signed it.

Canada is looking at having to pay the United Nations (or the international committee that manages the systems within the Kyoto Protocol) $6.7 billion next year for failing to meet the limits expected. Canada's output of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has supposedly increased by one third since the 1990s, which according to the treaty, is bad. The whole thing is based on the belief the CO2 is harmful to the environment, a belief that is facing very serious questions over the past decade as more and more science is emerging that has strongly suggested that the "science of man-caused climate change" is a partial or total myth.

The way the systems within the "carbon cap" protocol work is that any country that increases its carbon output from when the treaty was signed has to pay money (as a penalty) into an international fund. That fund is then used to pay for things in third world countries, as a kind of "good will tax". The idea is that you're harming the planet and mankind by producing Carbon Dioxide, so you have to make up for it by paying a sort of "compensation". It would be like a judge ordering that a crooked banker must give millions of dollars to charity to make up for the millions of dollars he swindled out of his customers.

What's interesting to note in all this, is that "developing countries" such as China and India, by far the world's biggest produces of Carbon Dioxide (besides the United States) are exempt from these rules because they are considered "developing", in the process of modernizing. That means that those countries are not bound by international law to reduce or maintain a minimum standard of CO2 emissions. They don't have to pay penalties for what they pump into the atmosphere, despite putting far more into the atmosphere than Canada and most other European countries that are already "developed" (modern). The idea is that one day, eventually, when those countries have reached a certain threshold for standards of living and modernization, they too will have to seriously cut back on emissions. Whether or not they will is still a giant question mark that only time will tell.

Also of note is the fact that 60% of Canada's power is supplied by Hydro Power, which is a very "green" (environmentally friendly) source of energy compared to carbon fuels, yet we STILL can't meet the limits of what environmentalists and government officials decided (back in the 1990s) was a reasonable and much needed limit. Why is this? Despite tons of systems having been created and improved to prevent pollution, encourage recycling, encourage "green technology", and despite having a little more than half our energy needs supplied by Hydro Power (a "green" source of energy), Canada still can't manage to produce less or equal amounts of Carbon Dioxide compared to the 1990s (when Canada's population was 6 million less). That should be no surprise to any realists who know something about economies, technology, society today, and the nature of Carbon Dioxide itself (you realize that every human being on the planet breaths out CO2 every time they exhale, and that plants "breath" CO2, requiring it to grow).

The problem is really the mindset of the people involved in heavily promoting all things "green". They are the super-environmentalist types who believe that mankind is essentially a parasite on planet earth, that mankind's population must be reduced to reduce our impact on the environment, that all fossil fuel burning, production and use is bad, that the answer to everyone's energy needs can be found in Hydro, Wind and Solar power (which can't come anywhere close), and would generally like us all to return to the "good old days" of tribalism when mankind lived in harmony with nature (so long as you ignore the hunting of animals to extinction, human sacrifices, and all that fun stuff). The problem comes down to the environmentalist world-view of an ideal "green" perfect harmony between the natural world and mankind.

The mindset envisions us having almost no impact on our world, on the environment, and they crave this because they believe that we are destroying our planet. But they largely ignore the fact that most of the wonders of modern technology, medicine, science, education, economy and pretty much everything else in modern society and our day-to-day lives has come as a direct result of carbon fuels and the push to progress through use of the natural resources in our world. If these people had existed back a couple hundred years ago, we would have never even HAD an industrial revolution or enjoy most (or any) of the modern marvels we benefit from today. In that case, we'd all still by dying by age 40, 1 in 3 babies would not survive birth (1 in 6 mothers would not), and we'd all generally be spending most of our time working our hands to the bone just to survive (feed and clothe ourselves and our families).

CO2 is NOT pollution! It's plant food! Energy is NOT evil. It's a necessity of life! Modern technology is NOT evil. It's what enables us to live as well as we do. The super-environmentalists ideal world is pretty much a world without humans. Heavily catering to that worldview means the end of modern society and progress as we know it, or better yet (in their minds, apparently), the end of modern mankind.

Sedimentary Layers Caused By Water

(A picture of the Grand Canyon I took when I visited the incredible natural wonder of the world in spring 2007. It really is an astonishing mind-blowing place! Note the clean horizontal layering in the sediment in both the near by section and the distance sections of the canyon. This is an extremely common effect when flood waters lay down fresh sediment and does NOT happen over millions of years because too much erosion and change happens in that time to allow for such neat smooth layering.)

Intro

      I’m about to let you in on a “deep dark secret” of geology. Secular scientists insist that the Genesis Flood described in the Bible book of Genesis is absolutely ridiculous. No such world-wide flood has ever occurred, as far as they are concerned. The countless cultural references across numerous unique cultures all over the planet that recount legends of a world-wide flood survived by a limited number of people on a great boat (like Noah and his family described in the Bible), means nothing, they believe, and insist. But you may be surprised to realize that even scientists attribute much of the strata (Sedimentary Rock) laid down across the surface of our planet to have been formed by large bodies of water! These very same layers of Sedimentary Rock (formed mostly by water) also contain almost ALL fossils of once living organisms that were buried when the soft sediment was being laid down. These sediment layers and the fossils formed within them are EXACTLY what you would expect if a world-wide cataclysmic flood like the one described in Genesis were to take place.

      Surprised!? I was. Secular scientists and Creationists agree on a lot of the same processes that formed the many layers of strata (soft sediments and hard sedimentary rock) across our planet, but most people have absolutely NO idea just how well the Biblical Genesis Flood explains these layers of the earth. The biggest difference between secular scientists and creationists when it comes to describing the laying down of strata across the surface of the planet is simply a matter of time. Secular scientists say it took hundreds of millions of slow gradual processes while creationists say that the vast majority of it happened very fast, all within the last 4000 years or so (much less than hundreds of millions of years). Ultimately the big issue here is the world-view (or bias) of the scientist. Secular scientists believe in a billions of years old earth while creationists believe in an earth that probably isn’t much older than 6000 to 10,000 years (at most). Because of the bias of each group, they pre-determine (before even considering much of the evidence) that the many layers of strata took a short or long amount of time to form.

      The shocking thing is that while secular scientists say that these sedimentary layers were formed over hundreds of millions of years, they attribute these layers mostly to having been formed by water, exactly as the creationists also believe, but with completely different time scales in mind.

Sediment

      There are two very important things to understand about the earth’s layers of strata (sediment) before we continuing.

      Sediment is usually caused by soft earth (mud, sand, etc.) being laid down through physical and chemical erosion. Wind and temperature changes of rock cause weathering, but the most common way to form sediment is by way of water. Water erodes the ground and carries bits of sediment long distances and lays it down in neat smooth layers, most commonly at the edges of lakes and oceans where rivers carrying the sediment end. Beaches and shorelines are also prime candidates for forming sediment because of all the minerals and sediment particles in the water there. Sediment is laid down as many small bits of earth (like sand) collected and piled on top of each other. When the water moves across the sediment, it smoothes it out and mixes it up, since it is still soft. When the water evaporates, calms, or goes elsewhere, the soft sediment hardens and becomes solid sedimentary rock, preserving anything buried within that sediment (fossils).

      Almost all fossils are found exclusively in the many layers of sediment across the world. As we already know, sediment is laid down mostly by water. Fossils can only form when a living organism is buried very quickly after death or even while it is alive because if it is NOT buried immediately, the chemicals within it start breaking down the organism and destroying it (it rots away). Because of this, unless a special condition exists (such as an organism being entombed in soft mud or sand), a living organism will not form a fossil. It must be buried in soft sediment within a few hours of death, at most. That’s right! A fossil can’t form unless the organism is buried immediately in loose wet sediment! Fossils are very rare, however, because the conditions to make them are very precise. People who believe in a world-wide cataclysmic flood fully expect that the many layers of sedimentary rock all over the planet would contain thousands and thousands of fossils because these creatures were all buried and drowned in a massive devastating flood. Secular scientists, on the other hand, believe that most of these same fossils and the sediments that encase them were formed by sudden small events across millions and millions of years, usually involving water.

      Sediment, water, drowned and buried living organisms, fossils… Both creation scientists and secular scientists agree on these processes but both disagree strongly on the time scale involved.

The Grand Canyon

      The Grand Canyon is one of the best examples of this debate between secular science and Bible-believing scientists because all of the big pieces and evidences in the debate can be found there. The Grand Canyon is also one of the most amazing geological formations on our planet! What makes the Grand Canyon so great for studying geology and the layers of sediment is that the canyon runs straight through many different layers of earth all the way down to very hard metamorphic and igneous rock beneath (the bottom thickest and hardest layers of the earth’s crust). It’s as if nature carved this giant canyon out to give geologists a perfect natural playground.

(The blue layers are all flat horizontal layers of sedimentary rock. Bible-believing geologists believe that almost all of these "blue" layers {in the graph} were laid down during and just after the Genesis Flood and do NOT represent hundreds of millions of years each. Note that many of these layers are completely flat and even on top of each other, showing absolutely NO sign of ANY erosion having taken place between them being laid down despite supposedly millions of years between each layer {according to secular geologists}. That's just not possible.)

So Much Water!

      Fossils of seashells are found everywhere on the planet throughout most layers of sediment. This is not surprising since seashells are very hard and ideal for becoming fossilized. But it’s interesting to note that no matter where you go on the planet, even up to the tops of the highest mountains, you can find fossils of seashells, as if at one time the entire planet were covered in ocean! Secular scientists actually agree that at one time all land was covered in water, seas and oceans, so they too have a good (and watery) explanation for such a strange occurrence. Of course they believe such things happened over millions of years whereas Bible-believing scientists believe most of it happened over a short period of time, during the great world-wide flood and the few thousand years since.

      The Grand Canyon also contains tons of fossils that belong to sea-dwelling creatures such as clams, shellfish, fish and amphibians (turtles, toads, etc. that like both land and water). To everyone this is very good evidence that the layers of sediment all around (and at) the Grand Canyon were formed mostly by water carrying vast quantities of soft sediment from place to place. Many of the layers of sediment found at the Grand Canyon stretch across much of the North American continent to different levels of depth. Because of this, scientists on both sides of the debate agree that the sediment had to have been laid down by vast seas that spanned much of the continent (or more, in the case of a global flood). These great seas, especially in shallower areas, buried and fossilized many sea creatures for us to dig up thousands (or hundreds of millions) of years later.

      Let’s take a look at what general science tells us about the formation of the Grand Canyon’s sedimentary layers. Below is a long list of instances where the geological explanations for how the sediments and rock layers of the Grand Canyon formed CONSTANTLY mention seas, shorelines, and water. This is because most sediments are formed thanks to water eroding and transporting the material.

Wikipedia: Geology of the Grand Canyon Area

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area)

“The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old. Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas and near ancient, long-gone sea shores in western North America.”

“Eventually, this sunken region of Laurentia was flooded with a shallow seaway that extended from at least present-day Lake Superior to Glacier National Park in Montana to the Grand Canyon and the Uinta Mountains. The resulting Grand Canyon Supergroup of sedimentary units is composed of nine varied geologic formations that were laid down from 1.2 billion and 740 million years ago in this sea.”

“The oldest section of the supergroup is the Unkar Group. It was laid down in an offshore environment. The first formation to be laid down in the Unkar Group was the Bass Limestone. A wave-eroded gravel that later lithified into a basal conglomerate is known as the Hotauta Member of the Bass Limestone.^[12] The Bass Limestone was deposited in a shallow sea near the coast as a mix of limestone, sandstone, and shale.”

“Nankoweap Formation is around 1050 million years old and is not part of a group.^[16] This rock unit is made of coarse-grained sandstone, and was deposited in a shallow sea on top of the eroded surface of the Cardenas Lava.”

“All formations in the Chuar Group were deposited in coastal and shallow sea environments about 1000 to 700 million years ago.”

“An ocean started to return to the Grand Canyon area from the west about 550 million years ago.^[9] As its shoreline moved east, the ocean began to concurrently deposit the three formations of the Tonto Group.”

“Tapeats Sandstone averages 525 million years old and is made of cliff-derived medium- to coarse-grained sand and conglomerate that was deposited on an ancient shore (see 3a in figure 1).^[10] Ripple marks are common in the upper members of this dark brown thin-bedded layer.”

“Bright Angel Shale… was mostly deposited as mud just offshore…”

“Streams were the likely cause but marine scour may be to blame. Either way, these depressions were filled with freshwater limestone about 385 million years ago in the Middle Devonian in a formation that geologists call the Temple Butte Limestone (see 4a in figure 1).”

“Fossils of animals with backbones are found in this formation; bony plates from freshwater fish in the eastern part and numerous marine fish fossils in the western part.”

“Redwall… was laid down in a retreating shallow tropical sea near the equator during 40 million years of the early-to-middle Mississippian.^[36] Many fossilized crinoids, brachiopods, bryozoans, horn corals, nautiloids, and sponges, along with other marine organisms such as large and complex trilobites have been found in the Redwall.”

“Supai Group was deposited in late Mississippian, through the Pennsylvanian and into the early Permian time, some 320 million to 270 million years ago.^[38] Both marine and non-marine deposits of mud, silt, sand and calcareous sediments were laid down on a broad coastal plain similar to the Texas Gulf Coast of today.”

“Next in the geologic column is the 200-foot (60 m)-thick Toroweap Formation (see 6c in figure 1).^[40] It consists of red and yellow sandstone and shaly gray limestone interbedded with gypsum.^[40] The formation was deposited in a warm, shallow sea as the shoreline transgressed (invaded) and regressed (retreated) over the land.”

A Matter Of Time

      As you can see, most of the sedimentary layers in the Grand Canyon region are believed to have been formed by the work of water completely or partially covering massive swaths of the area, often times the entire mid-western United States. Secular geologists believe that these seas, oceans, lakes, swamps, deltas and rivers came and went repeatedly over hundreds of millions of years, resulting in the layers of sediment we see today being laid down one and a time on top of each other. This same process is used to explain the vast majority of sediment all over our planet! In other words, the entire planet was repeatedly covered in vast quantities of water, but all at different times and never enough to be considered a “global flood”. Again, it comes down to time scale.

      Bible-believing geologists believe that most sediment was laid down by the cataclysmic fossil-creating flood described in Genesis and the processes of a post-flood world. Secular scientists believe that large bodies of water DID lay down these very same sediments, but that they happened very slowly over millions and millions of years. The flood provides a good explanation for the sudden burial and drowning of tons of living organisms whereas the secular theories have to suggest many isolated landslide and flood events to account for those same fossils.

      Secular scientists will tell you that the Grand Canyon is a prime example of an ancient earth because it took hundreds of millions of years for all those layers of sediment to form. Bible-believing geologists believe that much of those same sedimentary layers formed within the short time frame of the Genesis flood, about a year or two. The science works for both because both groups pretty much believe that the very same processes created the sediment and the fossils they hold. The only significant difference is the debate over how long it all took to form.

      Large floods have been proven to move massive quantities of sediment great distances in a very short amount of time, so to speculate that such an event on a global scale could lay down the majority of today’s sedimentary layers is not a far stretch of the imagination. Water also very easily creates a “layer cake” formation of different types of sediment, the waves and currents shifting the sediments enough to make very neat (clean) layers form one on top of the other. However, to believe that all these layers were laid down so perfectly and neatly horizontally without any (or very few) signs of erosion between them across hundreds of millions of years is very implausible.