Some of the massive, colossal graveyards found all over the global did not suffer just a swift burial of plant debris and animal carcasses. Many, buried at a greater depth, were beneficiaries of humongous compression and great pressures and temperatures coupled with other "proper" conditions, including de-oxidation, which led to the vast coal, natural gas and oil fields of our day. Plants account for the coal beds; animals formed the oil fields (ordinarily). This again re-emphasizes the shear magnitude of the amount of vegetation on this planet before the flood, and the number of animals that roamed at the time. A rock hitting the earth could not and did not kill that much vegetation, or, all those creatures.
Side Bar
A thin section of coal, viewed under a microscope will reveal "...mass of plant debris, pieces of bark, wood, leaves, cells, spores and algae all floating in a black jelly." (end of side bar)
"700 trillion tons of vegetation are buried in the world's coal beds" found in every continent, Antarctica included, along with all of those massive graveyards of bones already mentioned. As with the bone yards, so likewise the evidence shows that graveyards of peat and the several grades of coal were begun as gargantuan depositories, with massive piles of trees, all stacked on top of each other-as if by some great catastrophe (the one to which you rightly appeal, Mr. Loy!)-then covered quickly by an unimaginable tonnage of sedimentary rock, which through enormous compression, squeezed out oxygen and moisture, thereby preventing decomposition, while prompting and promoting a chemical transformation; which in turn left coal in its wake. Similarly, the crude deposits around the world are the byproduct of giant graveyards of animal carcasses buried at a much greater depth, and thereby subjected to much greater pressure and heat than the bone yards. Whatever the depth of either end product, be it coal or crude, the initial pile of debris had to have been many times greater (a 10' coal seam, may have begun with a pile of dead plants 3 or 4 times higher.). It was this stifling pressure, absent of oxygen and other life gases (hydrogen and carbon), along with heat that set in motion the cogwheels of a chemical transformation that has given us our present day coal (plant debris; almost pure carbon, only 6% hydrogen) and oil preserves (animal fat; 10% to 50% hydrogen). Natural gas and petroleum deposits are, like crude, 10% to 50% hydrogen but, formed almost exclusively from deposits of marine life.
Accounting for the presence of all this debris is absolutely critical. How did it ever come to be? How did all of these mounds of plants and animals ever form? Decomposition and decay factors quite preclude the slightest possibility that all of this animal and plant carnage simply walked to its point of death and/or fell into place over unfathomable periods of time. As shown already, there is no other way these huge, tangled wreckages of jumbled deposits could ever have been formed, world-wide-layers upon layers as they were-apart from a calamitous event such as the Bible's flood, by means of which every tree and carcass was lifted into place, where they could settle and be buried in limestone, mud, and sand, as the water receded. The neat thin geological layers, free from any hint of trauma, as envisioned by evolutionary doubters and Bible flood-scoffers, simply do not and have not ever existed. They are nothing more than fabrications of over zealous, incredulous minds and, therefore lies.
The process needed to produce this coal and crude did not require vast periods of time (millions of years), as has been suggested by evolutionary geologists.
Conclusion
Thus, my friends, the ill-informed and poorly reasoned assumptions you proffer are soundly and roundly refuted, relative to geology and the practicality of a Bible-based flood. You say or you infer that man's "fallibility" inherently makes anything he says or writes wrong, or, prone to error. In that the geologist/paleontologist by his own work (and, increasingly by his words) has indeed proven himself wrong, world without end, and the Bible right, explain then how the Bible, having been penned exactly as it states-by men under the inspiration of God-must therefore be wrong! To the degree that his knowledge and work confirms the Bible, shows up and settles your ignorance in the process, explain then as well how you-having spoken so eloquently, albeit, ex-cathedra!-are therefore less subject to the mantle of fallibility than either the Bible writers or the modern geologists and paleontologists!
The biblical flood did occur. The ancient animals, dinosaurs and plants were not destroyed by any supposed meteor strike, nor was there any supposed shortage of food for the super large among the animal kingdom. The earth was in fact teeming with life, as evinced by the presence in our day of bountiful evidences in the form of undeniable, irrefutable grave or bone yards, coal beds, crude/petroleum/natural gas deposits-all scattered all around the world, on all seven continents in staggering numbers, in the same basic strata. All of this ancient life was destroyed by a magnificent flood, per the Bible's prescription, at the same time, otherwise rot and decay would have prevented the formation of those vast coal, crude, and natural gas preserves.
The Bible in light of modern Archaeology
Now let us consider the Bible from a purely historical point of view (in terms of people), in light of the physical science of modern archaeology. Some say, on highly questionable authority (if on any authority at all), that it is a book of fables, Jewish folk-lore, having no basis historically. If this be true then, would it not negate this assertion (and similar commentary) excerpted and quoted from an otherwise authoritative, highly respected, non-religious, knowledgeable, objective and unbiased news and history reporting-source like the periodical "U. S. News & World Report"? Consider:
· "A wave of archaeological discoveries is altering old ideas about the roots of Christianity and Judaism-and affirming that the Bible is more historically accurate than many scholars thought."
· "Even on the critics' own terms-historical fact-the Scriptures seem more acceptable now than they did when the rationalists began the attack."
Time Magazine, 12/30/74
That said, we could here and now wrap up this segment of discussion and, go home. After all, who among minor league scoffers is even remotely prepared to be at loggerheads with even the least of the researchers, reporters and contributors to the likes of these two magazines (versed as they are in theses geological and archaeological genres as well as the Bible-in which they yet don't believe either)? Nevertheless, we press on.
It is said that Napolean's invasion of Egypt in 1798 provided the basis for the official launch of archaeology as we know it. Actual digging did not begin, however, until fifty years later with Botta in 1842 and Layard in 1845, in Mesopotamia. Ira M. Price, in his Monuments and the Old Testament (1899), has written that 100 years prior, there was no other source by which might be known the certainty of the ages past. There was no other representation of the millennial years leading up to the advent of the Greeks and the Romans, apart from the Bible.
On the other hand, archaeology, per R. K. Harrison, paints "...a reasonably precise picture" of all the Bible's claims. According to one Nelson Gleuck, one of the greatest authorities in Biblical archaeology, "As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference." Entire periods of Old Testament history, previously unknown otherwise to generations of scholars, can now be reconstructed, thanks to this scientific study of ancient cultures (all of which then begs the question, in what sense is your feeble "analysis" scientific? Why would any geologist or historian be obliged to take notice of thereof, to say noting of ordering his life and/or work around it?). Hence, far from disproving the Book of books, archaeology (basis and chief cornerstone to all informed and reasoned criticism) has established itself, therefore, as "...the Bible's best supporting witness".
Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=A._Mitchell
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar