Uncle Tom's Website (Tom Sehmel) |
Conspiracies: Fact?
|
Monkey Business: How Old is the Earth?For many, it is a fact that the Earth is some 4.5 to 5 billion years old. Without having been there at the time, or without being able to reproduce it, any claim on how the universe was formed or how old, where man came from, etc., can never be more than a theory. And whichever theory you choose requires a certain amount of faith that it is correct.If we are just evolved from monkeys, and some life form before that in an age-long succession of incremental changes occuring randomly by chance, life has no meaning and it doesn't really matter what we do. If we were created by God, it just might matter what we do. By faith someone rapes another person because it doesn't really matter. And also by faith someone tries to protect the rape victim because their life does matter. Many of us live by faith that what we are told is true, rather than looking into it ourselves. Whether you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist, that is blind faith. The Grand Canyon has been claimed as a bastion of evolution. It is quite magnificent and beautiful. We can all see the many layers put down over millions of years, with millions of years between each layer. And over millions of years the Colorado River has dug a gorge for all of us to see the "undeniable proof" of evolution.
Physical EvidenceLet's look at two photographs. One is of the Grand Canyon in hot Arizona. The second is farther north in rainy Washington at Mount St. Helens. Mount St. Helens last blew its top in 1980 resulting in ash and mudslides. What I find striking about the Grand Canyon is how flat and homogeneous are all the layers. The pictures I took of the canyon a few years ago on vacation are the same as the hundreds of photos I've seen in books and magazines. Why are all the layers flat and homogeneous? What happened to all the soil inbetween each layer? There may be millions of years between two layers. One might think there would be a residual mountain. Or perhaps an old river bed that cut into a previous layer. Or perhaps a fault line that broke the layers below. Should the view on the side of Grand Canyon could be a lot different? The picture of Mount St. Helens also has several layers of mud slides and ash (note the person at the top of the picture). This, too, looks like layers over millions of years. But it's not. It's less than twenty years. Here, there wasn't time for residual soil from mountains, or a river to cut through a lower layer, or a fault to break the lower layers. Within five years the layers had hardened into rock. And yet it looks strikingly similar to the Grand Canyon. Could it be the Grand Canyon wasn't formed over millions of years, but perhaps initially over just a few hundred years, only a few thousand years ago? From the Bookshelf:There are many books that point out the shortcomings of Evolution, and what is taught to us as "facts." What are the reproducable facts, and what are theories? Check it out.
|
|
Hits: {Hits} |