Want Some Answers ???


Robin, I have written to you before. You don’t listen. As the bible says, 'willfully ignorant'. (ie 2 Pe.3:3-6 God created the world and destroyed it with a flood, Nothing seems makes you think. But I'll address your comments.

>>Hi Mark Thank-you for taking the time to tell me off. I would assume your PhD is not in the sciences, but maybe I am wrong. I will address your comments one by one. Willful ignorance’ is something that many Christians choose when it comes to scientific facts. They try to squeeze science within a Biblical paradigm, and it just doesn’t work. <<

But it does work. Don't confuse real science (putting men on the moon) with evolutionary philosophy, they are very different. The bible is supported by true science (knowledge), its the factious stories of millions of years and evolution that conflict. Atheistic evolutionary stories are diametrically opposed to biblical history. We both have the same evidence. You look at the evidence with the wrong glasses, put on biblical glasses. The world is everything a bible believer would expect to find, if God created it prefect (Gen.1:31), sin entered and creation was cursed, and destroyed by a world wide flood.

This fact remains: the Apostle Peter says in the last days there will appear those who are ‘willfully ignorant’ that God destroyed the earth by a flood. This applies to you.

>>Six day creation. Six thousand year old Earth and Universe. Global Flood. There is a dearth of scientific evidence to support these, however there are very strong arguments for Creation, but not as the Bible defines it.<<

I find no reason to reject what it says. God can do anything, including creating just as He said. And He provided a record of what He did. Once you start rejecting that, there is no end to the rejection. If the record is not true at the start, where does the truth start? Modern science says men don't rise from the dead (out that must go).

>> Don’t get me wrong. For a 3,000 year old Creation story, Genesis is actually quite good, but at best much of it is allegorical or analogical. What is important are the concepts. God Created the Universe, Earth, sun, moon, planets, plants, animals, and ultimately man who is given the job of being caretaker and steward of this planet.<<

Don't get Genesis wrong, it is not '
allegorical' but historical. It reads like history and records history. The writer intended the reader to know historical truth. He recorded what God inspired him to write. God was the eyewitness.

Otherwise God is a liar and the bible not true. One believes men rather than God. '
What’s important’ is that you allow the bible its rightful place. Your ‘concept’ is anti-bible.

You are on record as saying the bible "
is full of errors .. contradictions .. not my authority .. all of the Bible cannot be Gods Word". You claim to have discarded it long ago and its not "infallible and inerrant" or "absolute truth". You boast of no "faith" in it. These are not the words of a true Christian. You make up what you believe. So when God inscribes with His own finger,

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day…” (Ex.20:11)

You don’t believe and ignore it because the bible for you is unbelievable and untrustworthy. Yet Genesis 1-11 is history and was always intended to be regarded as such. Jesus accepted a plain meaning of Genesis 1-11 as true history (eg Mt.19:3-6 24:37-39) since you reject this, you reject the teaching of Jesus. In fact, all the Apostles, and the Old Testament prophets & writers accepted Genesis as Jesus.

>> As for a devastating and localized flood, there are plenty of flood legends, although the names and circumstances are different. These would be different oral traditions passed down the generations. The Biblical narrative is one of these traditions.<<

Yes cultures world-wide retain a memory of an ancient flood. Several Nth American tribes have global flood stories. In Hawaii there is a
legend of a great flood and great canoe and all died not on the canoe. Ancient Chinese writings refer to a catastrophe and flood the covered the highest mountains. The Indians of Mexico have a similar story. The Australian aboriginals have another and the epic of Gilgamish has another ancient story. There are many similar flood stories.

They don’t suggest God’s Word can’t be trusted. Wouldn’t a perfect, all powerful God of truth give us the true account? He did. Your God is a bit tricky with the truth. But the God of the bible is different, the bible is His inspired Word He has declared truth.

>> My letters say there is no evidence of a devastating flood that happened here in NZ 4500 years ago. God had no need to flood NZ as NZ was uninhabited by people…. What evidence is there of a flood here in NZ? <<

There is plenty of ‘
evidence’ in NZ. To name a few - Sea shells buried miles inland, on mountains, fragments of dinosaurs discovered. Fossils buried with a mixtures of land and water dwelling creatures – evidence that the rock formation they were in, was formed by a massive flood sweeping across many environments, collecting many living creatures missing them up and dumping them. Coal beds are also found, which is just what we would expect to find. Bent strata formation – these can be seen all over NZ. If the flood was local why did Noah need to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and missed it.

Why did God send the animals to the Ark so they would escape death? There would have been others to reproduce and replace those that died. Why was the Ark big enough to hold all kinds of land vertebrate animals that have ever existed? If only the local animals were aboard, it could have been much smaller. Why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply winged across elsewhere.

How could water rise to 18 meters above the mountains (Gen.7:20)? Water seeks its own level. It couldn’t cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.

And people not living in the vicinity would escape. They escape God’s judgment. If so, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of ‘all’ men (Mat.24:37–39) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah’s day means a partial judgment to come.

And if the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again. So why ignore scripture? 2 Peter 3:3-6 indicates the flood was world-wide, as Gen.6:3,5 “I will destroy all human beings that I have made on earth” (6:7) and ‘all creatures’. Why not believe the bible?

>>To me the Bible contains the Word of God, although ultimately Jesus is the Word of God, and I worship Him as such. I believe many Christians today have almost deified the Bible and commit idolatry in doing so, calling it the Infallible Word of God. This is a title reserved for Jesus. He is Living and Powerful. The Bible is not. The Bible is a collection of writings written by over 40 authors over a 1500 year period. Its authorization comes from the Roman Catholic Church, with the books agreed to by the 300 odd Bishops gathered at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD under Eusebius, bishop to Constantine. I guess as a Dr you already know this. In its defense however, I happily accept the Holy Spirit was still at work in these bishops in selecting which books to include and which to exclude as holy writ.<<

You take no notice of what the bible says. Yet God stands by His Word (Isa.55:11). You say Jesus is ‘
infallible’, but you reject what He said and so reject Him. Why? Because if one yields to the authority of Jesus, they must yield to Christ’s view of Scripture itself. Anyone who claims to be a Christian (a believer under the authority of Christ) MUST hold to the same view Christ did. But you don’t.

Christian faith is faith in scripture as true, reliable and accurate. James writes that anyone who claims to have faith without that which confirms faith, does not have true faith but a 'say so' faith (James 2:17-18).

Jesus never belittled Scripture (as you) or set it aside, criticized contradicted or opposed it. Unlike you, Jesus believed every word of it. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact (Gen.2:24 cf Mt.19:4,5). That scripture was real history, and real people and occurred just as recorded (Lk.11:51 13:28 17:28-32 Mt.12:39-41 24:15, 37-39 Lk.17:26,27 Jn.3:14 8:56-58).

He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration (Mt.19:4 22:31-32, 43 Mk.12:26 Lk.20:31). He believed it is was more powerful than His miracles (Lk.16:29,31). It was the final arbiter in every dispute (Mt.4 Lk.16:29, 31). He quoted it as the basis for His own teaching (Mt.7:12 19:18 Mk.7:9,13 10:19 Lk.18:20). He warned against replacing it with something else, adding or subtracting from it (Mt.5:17 Mk.7:1-12).

So since He referred to scripture as ‘
infallible’ why don’t you? The titles you apply only to Jesus (living and powerful) are just as true of scripture - “For the word of God is living, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword…” (Heb.4:12).

>>The fauna of NZ contradict evidence of a global flood. Flightless birds, non-migratory tuatara, slow moving and flightless giant wetas. I work in soil science, and our volcanic soils of the North Island suggest an ancient history. You can go to Ashpit Road in Rerewhakaiitu near Rotorua and see a road cutting exposing layers of tephra flows and volcanic ash layers and subsequent build up of A horizons (top soils) that go back 25-30000 years. The most recent big one of course was the Taupo eruption which happened some 1900 years ago. This soil type is called the Taupo Ash soil and covers much of the Central Plateau region, where there has been a build up of humus on what is essentially silicon dioxide (glass) over the past 1900 years. If you look in the Ashpit Road cutting, you will see a number of these A horizons that will have all taken several thousand years to build up. <<

What dating method is used to prove
soil is millions of years old? Your imagination!! To know an event occur 1900 years ago is one thing but the further into the past, the more difficult. But billions, millions or even ‘25-30,000’ years ago is impossible to establish unless there is an eyewitness. There is no sound method of dating for vast time periods.

In fact, the low level of topsoil (average of 18-20cm) argues a young age not millions of years. And soil, volcanic ash, glass, layers, plateau’s canyons, etc don’t require millions of years to form. While the study of birds, "
Wetas, Tuatara’s" does not disprove any flood. Krakatoa erupted in 1883 & remained lifeless for years, now there are a surprising variety of creatures there today - Not only worms and insects but birds, lizards, snakes and even mammals. One would not expect all these to cross the sea but they did.

Another example is the ‘Island of Surtsey’ born in 1963. Geologists are now astonished at what they found. Only 4 years later, landscape is mature and beyond belief. There were wide sandy beaches, gravel banks, impressive cliffs, soft undulating land, faultscarps, gullies and channels and round boulders worn by the surf (It only takes stones hours to round). Plant & bird life etc has all arrived as well. And all this despite the island’s extreme youth.

Regarding strata layers: The eruption of Mt St. Helens 1980 put to end the traditional uniformitarian way of thinking that layers are laid down one per-year or season. Up to 400 feet thickness of strata was laid down rapidly. Looking at them today, (and you didn’t know better) you would say they took ‘at least’ millions of years to form.

At St. Helens rapid erosion also took place equally fast. Canyons up to 140 feet deep eroded and were carved out before lunch time. There are records of canyons forming all over the world, without 'millions of years'. And coal deposits?

>>Coal deposits form over millions of years from peat swamps and forests. As a soil scientist I do consultancy work for Glencoal who have opencast mines at Maramarua, Rotowaro (Huntly) and Pirongia. I could meet you there at any of these and you will see that they do not cover huge areas, but are seams within sedimentary layers. The one at Rotowaro was covered by sedimentary clays (not alluvial silts) and very old volcanic ash soils (Hamilton and Mairoa Ash) which are very weathered and around 20,000 years old (10 times more weathered than Taupo Ash). Both the Rotowaro and even more so the Pirongia mine which is near the top of the range near Pirongia as you go over the road to Kawhia are up in the hills, so if they are a result of Noahs flood, how did they get to be high up of hillsides, and then go down to 100 meters depth? I observe what I plainly see in my work here in NZ. I am not familiar with coal mines overseas.

Coal does not need millions of years to form. Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150°C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal. (Organic Geochemistry 6:463–471, 1984) (Diamonds and gems also don’t take millions of years to form. We can make them today in the lab).

Evolutionists claim coal beds accumulate over millions of years in quiet
swamp environments like the Everglades of Florida or beat bogs. There has never been found any bog or swamp where vegetation is slowly transforming into coal.

'Since peat is expected to compact appreciably during burial, there appears to be no modern analogue for the processes which formed thick coal beds, and this seems to challenge the Law of Uniformitarianism.,” (Shearer, Staub. and Moore. 1994. The conundrum of coal bed thickness: a theory for stacked mire sequences. Journal of Geology, 102(5):611-617 (p. 611).

Their locations? Very thick and extensive coal seams have perplexed long age evolutionary geologists for years. The size of coal beds is a testament to the size of the flood.

The Lake DeSmet (US) coal bed is 75m thick in places. The Big George seam extends about 100.km Nth-Sth and about 25km E.W. The amount of coal is estimated to be 1,200 trillion kg.

There are “millions of tons” of coal waiting to be recovered all over the world!!! In USA, Australia, Russia, China, India, Ukraine, Sth Africa, Brazil, Germany, Canada, Indonesia, Thailand etc. Russia has reserves up to “500 years”.

The Lattrobe Valley Australia yields 60,000 tonnes a day. It’s 190 miles long and wide and 100’s ks., under the Ocean floor. A very big '
peat' bog Robin. No, the vegetation identified there does not grow in swamps. They say it has been transported into the area. It rests on a think layer of clay with a knife edge contact between clay and coal. The clay so pure it can be used for pottery, no roots penetrate it. Knife edges between rock formations are not uncommon. The overlayer Coconino sandstone and underlayer shale has 6 million missing years in the Grand Canyon. And bent rock formations, fossil graveyards?

>>I am not certain I understand what you mean by Bent rock formations, but I would think they happen through geological, seismological and volcanic disturbances.<<

What we find is thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. Eg, the Kaibab Upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify. The sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened. This indicates that the sediments were soft and pliable when folded, inconsistent with a long time for their formation. Fracturing would occur with dry strata and earth movement.

Folded, bent and deformed rock layers across the globe testify to catastrophe on an unimaginable scale. And this wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood.

>>As for fossil graveyards, these are exactly what happens in ancient bogs and waterholes, where conditions are right for fossils to form. At Riversleigh in the north Queensland desert there is about 10,000 ha of such a graveyard, and evidence of an ancient peat bog where animals got stuck, their soft tissue decomposed quickly, and their bones got mineralized with other sediments. Certain species also appear at various layers. We don’t find primate bones from Africa mixed in the same layer with dinosaur bones for instance.<<

A fossil forms how? You need rapid burial in mud with the right kind of compounds that turn into rock. Take your fish while it is alive, and quickly bury it. Why? Because normally when a fish dies it floats and is eaten and gone within a few days. Most of the world’s fossils are sea creatures. Huge currants of water would have swept around the world in the flood, burying vegetation and plant life. Fish/birds have been discovered in patterns consistent with sudden burial in a catastrophe. Yes fossil graveyards contain land plants, animal & sea fossils all mixed.

How would you get octopus fossils? (Lebanon 09). They must be buried real fast, and (shock!!) they were found in Limestone (Your millions of years old slow forming rock).

Also Dinosaur bones (T Rex) have been recovered, not mineralized but still have blood cells in them.

Not possible if dino's [T Rex] lived 65 million years old. Such has been found in other dino bones. So evidence for the flood would be millions of fossils buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. Just what we find. I hope to come down to Hamilton on Sunday Oct. 18th and take part at the ‘Hamilton Elim Centre’, 21 Maui Street, Te Rapa, Hamilton (10.00am). On the subject of creation-evolution. I would be happy to meet and discuss with you. Let me know. And fossil grave yards?

>>No issue. That’s why fossil ‘graveyards’ are not universal. They are found at specific locations. If the same fossils were found everywhere all over the world in a uniform layer, then there would be an argument for a global flood. This is not the case. Fossil sites for land animals are relatively rare, although plant and sea creature fossils are a lot more common. Why do we not find land mammals and sea creature fossils at the same locations if they were all caught up in this global catastrophic flood, or were sea creatures excluded from your ‘All Creatures”.<<

There are over 9,000 fossil graveyards ‘universally’ ALL around the world (See p28-29 Studies In Flood Geology J Woodmorappe). He provides numbers of ‘localities’ plotted on maps.

If as the bible says ‘all creatures’ were wiped out in a world-wide flood, we expect them to be buried together. And Polystrate trees?

>>This can be seen in the recent floods in upper Manawatu, where a new alluvial layer 1.5 m deep with tree logs in it has a successive flood with a new layer from a different parent material type soil. Successive different soil layers actually suggest multiple floods, not a single global event. <<

These are also found all around the world (NZ as well). In sandstone, siltstone and coal seams. They must be buried fast. Tree trunks don’t sit around on the earth for your '
20-25,000 years', they rot. Since they are buried through strata, some with thousands of layers of microscopic skeletons of water creatures (even in Central Queensland). That indicates such layers can’t represent an accumulation of vast periods of time, the tree would have rotted long ago. Trees that go through all the Cambrian, Silurian, Permiah, Triassic, Jurassic, and Tertiary layers and their so-called millions of years.

A rock stratum was once mud, from fast running water. There is a wealth of evidence now that strata does not represent vast periods of time. Eg, the huge Coconino sandstone formation in the Grand Canyon is about 100 m thick and extends to some 250,000 km2 in area. The large-scale cross-bedding shows that it was all laid down in deep, fast-flowing water in a matter of days. There are studies of rapid sedimentation and sedimentary rocks at www.creation.com And coal?

>>Before man came to NZ, NZ was largely podocarp forest, with large areas of vegetative bog and swamp. Consider the huge areas of peat in the Waikato which have been burned off in the past 100 years. There are tens of thousands of hectares from Taupiri to Te Awamutu to Morrinsville, and also in the Hauraki Plains south of Ngatea. These peats are obviously only recent, but over millions of years could well have become coal. <<

But peat does not turn into coal. There is no point saying ‘
peat could well turn into coal’ because it hasn’t been shown to occur anywhere. Show me one peat-bog with coal forming under it. Due their immense size of the coal-beds they point to catastrophic deposition on a huge international scale, not slowly over millions of years in local peat bogs. And “Galileo”?

>>Yet the church persecuted them because of their heliocentric model rather than the Biblical concept of the sun going around the Earth. Somewhere in Psalms it even says the sun rushes across the sky to go into its tent at night! I agree that both Copernicus and Galileo believed in God as Creator.<<

And both were young earth creationists. Many historians of science have documented that the first to oppose Galileo was the scientific establishment, not the church. His ‘persecution’ was firstly from the so-called scientific establishment. They believing “…their vested interests threatened, united against him…. strove to cast suspicion on him in the eyes of the ecclesiastical authorities because of [alleged] contradictions between the Copernican theory and scriptures” (p638 New Ency. Britannica. 15th ed. 92).

The Catholic Church leaders allowed themselves to be persuaded by the Aristotelians at the universities, that Galileo was contradicting the bible. That is why they opposed him. The Catholic Church has more in common with your view on creation. So they actually made the same mistake as the churches now, who try to read the modern “scientific” fads of evolution and long ages into the Bible.

And chalk accumulation is not steady state but a highly episodic which is contrary to what you wrote.

>>I have just read this. What this thesis failed to explain was not where the carbonate came from, but where did the calcium come from. Again it is a case of squeezing science to fit within a Biblical paradigm which it dishonest. My letter to Challenge Weekly had my explanation of ‘Limestone is formed principally by the deposit of the skeletons of microscopic marine algae and foraminifers and also from seashells and corals’ excluded from it. Again if we look here in God’s own, there are lots of good sized limestone deposits in Northland, and here in the Waikato there are large deposits in the northern King Country. <<

But the thesis was only to refute your claim of ‘
many centuries’. And it did. The thesis did refer to calcium. I count 7-8 places. Did you read it? If fossil are found in Limestone (and they are) some of it must have deposited fast. How do you explain folded limestone? The Peruvian Andes limestone has been folded, fossilized shells and dino footprints found in it. Tectonic movement during the Genesis flood has pushed these strata up 16,000ft and folded them while wet. Solid hard rock formations don’t bend they fracture.

>>Just go to the Waitomo Caves and look at the amazing stalactites and stalagmites. Some of the larger ones are up to 20,000 years old. So where do these limestone deposits sit. They sit under 50 metres of sandstone, which you would say was deposited by the flood. Well if that’s the case, then the argument from the Creation Technical Journal is void, as they argue that these were formed post flood.<<

No “
stalactites and stalagmites” don’t take 20,000 yrs to form. There is plenty of evidence they can form rapidly under certain conditions. Many factors influence how long they take. The amount of limestone in the water, the flow of water, rain season, its location, the dryness in the air, ground moisture etc.

Eg, Sequoyah Caverns, south of Chattanooga at Valley Head, Alabama has fast-growing formations. Director of the caverns, Clark Byers, cemented a clear plastic panel in front of some stalactites in April, 1977, to prevent tourists from breaking them off. He observed that in less than 10 years the stalactites had grown 25 centimeters. The fact is when grown rates are measured the long age guesses disappear.

>>And what do we find above the sandstone in these Te kUiti limestone deposits. Ancient, highly weathered volcanic ash soils which are about 20-50,000 years old. However, don’t let these facts get in the way of a good story, or put another way…don’t let the dogma wag the tale.<<

Your dates are all based on your own assumptions and big fat guesses. Why not 25,273 years? Or thrown in some extra time to please Darwin make it 134,897. Why not 1.3 million, why not pull a date out of a hat? You don’t let facts get in the way of a good story. The theory of evolution wags Robin.

>>At the end of the day Mark, I seek the truth. It is Young Earth Creationists with all of their dogma that malign mainstream science and are disconnected from the Real World. If you have a genuine PhD, I would not expect you to refer as ‘nonsense’ the things you accuse me of writing, but then your PhD may not be science based. I write this without prejudice and trust your love for and walk with God is sweet and your love for your fellow man is sincere. Mine is, and therefore I fulfill the law of my Saviour, the Living Word of God. Robin Boom<<

At the end of the day Robin, you claim to be a Christian but don’t believe what Jesus said. Jesus said, "I have spoken of earthly things and you do not believe, how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things" (Jn.3:12). You make up what you believe and tell others not to believe the bible.

Young earth creationists have no problem with mainstream science which verifies the bible as true. Its evolutionary based ‘science’ that is against the bible.

The long age belief is anti-Gospel. It destroys the gospel. It makes God to blame for death and suffering. And the shedding of blood for the remission of sin becomes pointless. Death and suffering become ‘God’s will’ not God’s punishment for sin.

And your ‘
concept’ is anti-God. God’s nature of perfection and love is destroyed. God becomes the devil who enjoys suffering and death. He becomes Allah afar off uncaring. It insults His wisdom and power. Your god and the God of the bible are different. Your god has no certain word about the past. The God of the bible creates as He said and sustains a reliable record of His doings.

Answer me this: if Genesis does not mean plainly what is says, but must be interpreted, how do you know the historical account of Jesus life, death and resurrection should not also be reinterpreted? Can we know anything in the bible for sure, it if is so flexible?

Yes the millions of years and evolution (if true) destroy the gospel and faith in the bible. It's against the nature, goodness and wisdom of God. It attacks God's character.

Darwinian evolution needs billions of years for the theory of chance to seem plausible. The billions of years are simply NOT scientific fact. A few books by scientific experts with facts and evidence that refute it -

(1) "Thousand… Not Millions" (Dr D DeYoung –Physics Prof)
(2) "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" (Dr L Vardiman Dr. A Snelling Dr E.F. Chaffin)
(3) "The Great Divide - Christianity or Evolution" (G Berghoff L.Dekoster. A scriptural study showing why millions of years unscriptural)
(4) "It’s a Young World After All – Exciting Evidences for Recent Creation" (Dr P.D Ackerman)
(5) "15 Reasons to Take Genesis as History" (Dr D. Batten Dr J. Sarfati.)
(6) "The Origin of the Universe"(Dr. H.S Slusher)
(7) "Age of the Cosmos" (Dr. H.S Slusher)
(8) "Star Light and Time" (Dr R. Humphreys. Else where mentions 200 scientific evidences for a young earth)
(9)"Dismantling the Big Bang" (A Williams Dr. J.Hartnett)
(10) "Refuting Compromise" (Dr. J Sarfati).
(11) "The Answers Book" ('Creation Ministries' scientists)
(12) "In the Minds of Men" (Dr. I T Taylor)
(13) "Flood Geology" (Dr. J Woodmorappe)
(14) "The Young Earth" (Dr J.D. Morris)
(15) "The Annals of The World" (J. Ussher)
(16) "After The Flood" (B Cooper)
(17) "The Genesis Flood" (Dr. J.C Whitcomb Dr. H. Morris)

Today there’s more evidence than ever the world was created as the bible describes. Evidence for Noah's flood explains what we see better than billions of years. The evidence favors a young earth -

(1) The continents are eroding too quickly.
(2) Not enough helium in the atmosphere.
(3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly,
(4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, don't need such time-spans.
(5) Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
(6) Comets disintegrate too quickly.
(7) Not enough mud on the sea floor.
(8) Not enough sodium in the sea.
(9) The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.
(10) Many strata are too tightly bent.
(11) Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages."
(12) Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.
(13) Helium in the wrong places.
(14) Not enough stone-age skeletons.
(15) Agriculture is too recent.
(16) History is too short.

Why not believe the science? Why would God take billions of years creating a universe before slowly getting around to creating man? Otherwise, out goes the literal historical Creation record, and that becomes pure fiction (a lie).

These “billions of years” destroy the gospel. If death and bloodshed were normal and existed before Adam’s fall (and we date the fossils before that) then death and bloodshed become something God used to create. This undermines the Gospel and the very reason Christ came – to reverse the effects of the Curse. Christ’s death and suffering mean nothing in a world where death and bloodshed are normal and God’s will.

The philosophy of long ages and evolution blames God for evil and this ugly world, [not man's sin]. If not please explain why. For Jesus Christ created a world of death, sufferings, cruelties, extinctions, and catastrophes. Death then is NOT the wages of sin, and sinful behaviour comes from animal ancestry. And God isn't good, perfect, loving, or all-powerful.

Abandoning Genesis as true history leads to heresy and apostasy. For if you don’t believe in the world-wide judgment by water, there is no reason to believe in the one by fire to come. Or why would God restore the world to more death and bloodshed as at the start? This philosophy trashes the authority of God’s Word to embrace man's authority. It undermines the whole biblical message at the start.

The 'millions of years' myth has caused many to rubbish the bible, the Saviour and trash Christianity totally. And become our worst enemies - Lloyd Geering, C.Templeton I.Plimer, R.L Numbers, J.S.Spong R.W.Funk, R.Dawkins, D.Attenborough, Michael Dowd, etc., to name a few.

The philosophy over-throws the doctrine of biblical truth. If truth does not start in Genesis where does it start Robin? Or the bible cannot be trusted and God lies to us. So I accept what it plainly says it makes more sense. Anyone can see the contradiction between evolution’s millions of years and the biblical record.

Kind regards,
Mark Purchase