AGE OF THE EARTH...

[lamar]

Calm down, Mr. lamar. The word "kind" is the biblical phrase for "specie". If you'll look in Genesis, you will see that during creation, God said, "let each animal reproduce after it's own kind. That is why dogs and cats cannot breed together. They are different species of animal. You Bangers and evolutionists believe that the human species evolved from the ape species. If that were true, humans could reproduce with the apes. But, we cannot do that because we are each of different "kinds".....or species. Horses and Zebras can reproduce together because the Zebra is a subspecies of the Horse species. There was a recent story of a man in northern Alaska who was being charged with illegally killing a bear that was a cross between a Polar Bear and a Grizzly and was considered very rare due to the fact that the two sub species of bears very rarely cohabitate the same territory. They can EASILY breed together because THEY ARE BEARS; subspecies Grizzly and Polar. Different types of dogs can easily (too dang easily ) breed together; such as a Lab and a Shephard; because they are dogs.

To spell it out clearer, "dogs" are a kind, "cats" are a kind, "elephants" are a kind, "humans" are a kind, etc, etc.

Dear Shortstack;
Horses and zebras most certainly cannot produce offspring, my friend. Neither can polar bears and grizzlies produce offspring together. Yes, dogs can, as a species, yet a dog cannot produce offspring with a coyote or a wolf, no matter what the popular legends try to tell us. By the same token a housecat cannot mate with a bobcat and produce offspring, etc.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[mrs.oroblanco]

Let's "assume" the young earth theory/faith/based theory is the same theory.

Even in that context, if you have read your bible, it says that each of God's days are like a thousand of mans. To simplify the point I am trying to get across is - take 10,000 man years, (the young earth theory) multiply that by what a God's day is versus mans, and you have an earth that is 10,000,000 (10 million years old - at least).

Thats not too young, is it?

Then, you can add to that, the fact that, somewhere along the line, even though Noah took 2 of each animal, that there was pathogens and bacteria, and virus' and diseases before the time of Noah, that we STILL to this day, have disease and bacteria, etc. (unless Noah took two of each of those also), but also - the "must have" bacterias, not to mention the symbiotic relationships that we have in many animal species - certain bugs (did Noah take bugs?), need certain animal feces to procreate, some animals need certain algae (not to eat), but to grow on their skin to survive, certain fish need other fish etc., etc.

While I believe that only a supreme being could come up with such a complex intertwined system - I can see with my own eyes that evolution is taking place every day - just look at what a horse used to look like, and how it looks now - and I can go right down the road and SEE mammoths that were buried in mud, I can SEE ocean creatures in the dirt where an ocean used to be, and I can SEE creatures that have gone away since I was born (part of evolution is not just new species coming in, but also other species leaving).

B

 

[Oroblanco]

Hmm - well a horse and a donkey can cross too - they are both members of the Equine family, but the offspring mules are sterile 99.99% of the time. Wouldn't that be a problem for producing a set of subspecies from a parent specie?
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. lamar, you are wrong about horses and zebras, grizzlies and polar bears, dogs and wolves. Horses and zebras have been artificially crossbred in captivity; as well as dogs and wolves. In the wild, wolves usually kill and eat domestic dogs and grizzlies and polar bears are normally in way different territories. That situation in Alaska with the man killing a Grizzly / Polar bear cross is one more fact you can't get a grip on...........but it's true. He did it in self-defense, but the law hasn't been showing any sympathy

Mrs. O,
The scribes who wrote the books that were included in the Bible, used the words, "day" because that is what they were instructed to say. When the biblical person who said that to God 1,000 years; even 10,000 years were "as a day" to God was a statement verifying that God is eternal. God does not experience a day, a week, or a century. He is in the past, present, and the future at once. That is eternity. Remember when Jesus said, "When Abraham was, I am." In other words, as God, eternal, He was, is, and ever shall be. Our finite minds cannot grasp the full concept of "eternity" or "endless". We say we can, but we really cannot.

Before I forget, bacteria and bugs were not killed by the flood. They are not classified as "animals", but are "insects" and biologicals. Fish weren't killed either for that same reason. Of course, you already knew that.

There's a book I downloaded from the internet years ago, titled, Journey Out of Time, that tries to explain the difference between our linear time and eternal time. The best example was the fact that when Jesus suffered for maybe 6 hours in our time, he was also suffering in eternity in Heaven at the same time. Plus, suffering lowly in front of the Heavenly Hosts and God the Father. If you try to graph the timelines for comparison, think of Eternity as the vertical line marked "Y" and the linear time as the horizontal line marked "X". Now, if that vertical line has no end ("top" or "bottom") you can almost see thecomparison when you mark off 6 hours on the horizontal line and darken that space in columnar form and extend it upwards (and downwards) on the vertical line out to infinity, you can almost "see" the period of Jesus' suffering.

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

If what you are saying is true, then, the earth should be even older - or, at best - since it was of God's making, not subject to a date picked by man (ie 10,000 years old).

Also, in order to follow the idea that the animals were brought two by two - and then they turned into other things - like a bear becomes a polar bear, or a black bear or a grizzly - that, by virtue of the very definition - is evolution.

Not all animals will attack other animals - there is a reason why we have coy dogs (coyote/dog cross) and alot of other mixes that some didn't think in the past could happen, yet was not done by man.

In fact - as in what Mr. O was saying, you can cross a donkey and a horse, get a mule, and the mule will, most of the time, be sterile. However, in the last 55 years, that has actually been evolving - it used to be about 99.7% were sterile. Now, that number is down to about 96.8% - that is evolution - and it takes a lot of time to evolve. Funny enough, depending on which is the female and which is the male, (henny) the numbers are different, mostly because there is less crossing in one than the other, therefore, the evolution of that species is slower.

I do not see how a person can use the bible as a reference for an arguement, and then change the wording to suit ones ideas - its an either or, either it is all true, or it all has a hidden meaning, and 6 days wouldn't mean 6 days with the 7th a holy day, right?

B

 

[Zincoln Miner]

hello all.
whew!! what a thread.
I am an old earther even though my d.o.b. is 1972.
a couple of years back I saw those dino pottery/rocks on tv and thought they were modernly cartoonish(now I read about the arrested farmer).I never saw a dino Nasca(sorry spelling?) line,or
cave drawing from france.I do know that certain knowledge or out of frame discoveries are swept
away and not made public.I do beleive there is a lost and hidden human prehistory.I have not beleived
in a dinosaur,human coexistance since I was a little kid watching the Flintstones.

why do some intelligent design theorists,beleivers have a pull a rabbit out of a hat mentallity?I mean
that abbra cadabra wave a magic wand poof taa-daaa.since nature is a creation,why does it not follow
this model today?it is far more impressive to me to see the dynamics of nature and how it evolved.for
example:we share the same fractel geometry in our blood vessels as a tree's growing branches.this poof cheapens things for me.I do beleive that modern humans and apes share a common ancester.

now that said the term "banger" and the big bang theory goes back to that abbra cadabbra poof thinking as well.I beleive at this moment the earth is 4.5 billion years old but I also beleive the truth
is so mind bending in that we are not ment to know at this stage of our physical and spiritual development.

hey shortstack.I cannot see in this thread (just a mention you would not say it for your own reasons)
what you beleive what the age of the earth is.I ask you please sir,that you share with us what you
beleive the age of the earth.if you did,I do not see it,this is what the thread is about.

god bless you all......

 

[lamar]

Mr. lamar, you are wrong about horses and zebras, grizzlies and polar bears, dogs and wolves. Horses and zebras have been artificially crossbred in captivity; as well as dogs and wolves. In the wild, wolves usually kill and eat domestic dogs and grizzlies and polar bears are normally in way different territories. That situation in Alaska with the man killing a Grizzly / Polar bear cross is one more fact you can't get a grip on...........but it's true. He did it in self-defense, but the law hasn't been showing any sympathy

Mrs. O,
The scribes who wrote the books that were included in the Bible, used the words, "day" because that is what they were instructed to say. When the biblical person who said that to God 1,000 years; even 10,000 years were "as a day" to God was a statement verifying that God is eternal. God does not experience a day, a week, or a century. He is in the past, present, and the future at once. That is eternity. Remember when Jesus said, "When Abraham was, I am." In other words, as God, eternal, He was, is, and ever shall be. Our finite minds cannot grasp the full concept of "eternity" or "endless". We say we can, but we really cannot.

Before I forget, bacteria and bugs were not killed by the flood. They are not classified as "animals", but are "insects" and biologicals. Fish weren't killed either for that same reason. Of course, you already knew that.

There's a book I downloaded from the internet years ago, titled, Journey Out of Time, that tries to explain the difference between our linear time and eternal time. The best example was the fact that when Jesus suffered for maybe 6 hours in our time, he was also suffering in eternity in Heaven at the same time. Plus, suffering lowly in front of the Heavenly Hosts and God the Father. If you try to graph the timelines for comparison, think of Eternity as the vertical line marked "Y" and the linear time as the horizontal line marked "X". Now, if that vertical line has no end ("top" or "bottom") you can almost see thecomparison when you mark off 6 hours on the horizontal line and darken that space in columnar form and extend it upwards (and downwards) on the vertical line out to infinity, you can almost "see" the period of Jesus' suffering.

Dear Shortstack;
I am talking about breeding in the wild, not breeding in captivity, my friend. Horses will kill zebras in a wild environment, because of range dominance. And the polar/grizzly cross os the forst one that I've heard about. That's very interesting.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[GL]

Noahs flood? Right there is RELIGION. It didn't happen. Religion STOPS science, it doesn't help it. They are opposed because one requires a willful suspension of belief and the other requires a willful ignoring of fact. They can only exist together when one is put on the shelf.

A large celestial impact killed off the dinosaurs. It is believed by actual scientists to have impacted in the Gulf Of Mexico.

 

[GL]

Again for those who missed my questions. Thanks in advance, I look forward to your answers.

New Earth proponents, how does rock form?

How long does wood last lying in the open or buried underground?

When was the Iron Age compared to the stone age?

Did the stone age exist?

How old are the paintings in Lascaux, France?

There are all sorts of OOPA not just these few. Some depict obvious manmade objects and cannot be reasonably explained using current science. That being true, is it possible that they can be explained scientifically provided we had the missing clues? Maybe after science advances our understanding in say another 100 years or so? In much the same way we no longer believe the Earth is flat or the sky is full of Gods and chariots?

Thanks in advance for the upcoming answers.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Err ah Lamar, ¿¿ I understood that the hammer and wooden haft were encountered in solid granite while cutting it in sections for building blocks

Sigh

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[lamar]

Noahs flood? Right there is RELIGION. It didn't happen. Religion STOPS science, it doesn't help it. They are opposed because one requires a willful suspension of belief and the other requires a willful ignoring of fact. They can only exist together when one is put on the shelf.

A large celestial impact killed off the dinosaurs. It is believed by actual scientists to have impacted in the Gulf Of Mexico.

]Dear GL;
Actually, the Biblical flood DID occur during Noah's time and this has been proven by historical evidence, HOWEVER it did not cover the entire Earth, rather it only flooded a very large portion of the Middle East, which of course would have comprised the entire known world to the early Hebrews, my friend.

In light of this, the Biblical writings are not incorrect, rather they were based on firsthand accounts of the era. In this regard, the Bible is correct, yet viewing the writings from the standpoint of today, the writings would seem to be greatly exaggerated. Again, this is NOT to fault the writers as they only wrote down what they experienced, and when they looked around and saw nothing but water from horizon to horizon, they naturally assumed that the flood covered the entire Earth.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Err ah Lamar, ¿¿ I understood that the hammer and wooden haft were encountered in solid granite while cutting it in sections for building blocks

Sigh

Don Jose de La Mancha

Dear Real de Tayopa;
No, my friend, the iron hammer we are discussing was supposedly encased in a type of sandstone concretation. Perhaps you are thinking of a different hammer?
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[gallileo60]

Mr. lamar, there's a whole lot of "assuming going on" in your comments based on the scientific theories that you choose to ascribe to while I choose to follow alternate scientific theories that support a younger earth. That "mass spread out is still mass ( )" is interesting, but doesn't explain HOW those little bitty, individual spots of "attractions" popped up. What could POSSIBLY have caused those small spots in a huge cloud. That doesn't fit the "bowling ball on a trampoline" illustration given by you or someone else in an earlier post. It appears that we will agree on nothing but disagreement. So be it.
I have no doubt that the tracks in Texas have been eroded, screwed up, and probably vandalized a little to boot. That's sad.
I do want to congratulate you for carrying on a lively, but COURTIOUS debate. Because of this I've taken you off of my "ignore" list......................for the time being.

ROFL @ dinosaurs and humans coexisting. OMG this is hilarious keep going by all means.

Burial pots? Egyptians drew dog headed men but it doesn't mean dog headed men walked the Earth.
Not believing hilarious theories isn't being closed minded. Stop persecuting me and my Occam's Razor, science, accepted fact, common sense, reams of data and general logic OMG.

Mr. GL,
Yep, you are certainly right, the Egyptians did draw pictures of dog headed men and it doesn't necessarily mean dog headed men walked the earth, BUT the Egyptians DID have dogs to look at and men to look at (of course) to make those drawings from. You just helped make my point. Those Nazca folks had living dinosaurs to look at, too. You will notice that the Nazca folks stayed real and just drew real life, not fantasies, such as men with dinosaur heads. Thank you for your support! I appreciate it. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Of all the animals the Nazcans could have drawn, they chose a dinosaur. Why? Those drawings on the burial pots are the only representations of dinosaurs in that country. Why show a domesticated animal they did not have? After all, they had OTHER animals to use in those sketches. The details drawn into those sketches were very accurate; especially the scale structure with the cooling veins.
Your reams of data contain many holes.

Shortstack, people have drawn Dragons also, but that does not mean the ever really saw them....People draw all sorts of things that are not real.....Who know what makes an artist do what they do

 

[gallileo60]

Mr. lamar,
The compressed gas in your automobile has NOTHING to do with the primordial gas clouds spontaneously compressing. Your gas was mechanically compressed, those gas clouds supposedly formed after the Bang, had no mechanical compressors............and that's my whole point. There was NOTHING to cause that gas cloud to compress on its own. The gas cloud's mass would have been spread out over millions and millions of miles, therefore it's mass would have been spread out, TOO. Just like the difference between you walking through three feet deep snow in only street boots or walking using snow shoes. Your mass stays the same. In your street boots, you sink into the snow. With snow shoes, you walk without sinking. The mass of your theoretical gas cloud would have been spread over such a large area that it's effect on the fabric of gravity would have been small and NOT concentrated in small areas to form clumps.

It starts out slowly, one atom attracts another, then another, and so on, and so on, the rate increases as the density increases....Geometric procession, I believe is what it is called...

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. gallileo60:
The word "dinosaur" was coined by a scientist in the 1880s. Before that, those animals were called "dragons" and "monsters". If you'll take notice, there are many old English shields in various collections, that depict a mounted knight fighting a "dragon". If you look closely, you'll note that the "dragons" bear striking resemblances to the smaller "dinosaurs". Can you imagine the fear and surprise felt by the first explorers who "found" the Komono Dragons on their private little island in the south pacific? The reason the Komono survived so long is because on their little island, they had no natural enemies......except for eachother. But, on the European continent, as well as other lands, humans would have been the most powerful enemies of such creatures and eventually killed them into extinction. The story of Beowulf is an excellent example of a historical story that has been turned into a "fairytale" by educated simpletons. Sort of like the story of Troy and the tales from sailors about giant octopi. Yeah; just stories.

Mr. gallileo60: You wrote of how one atom attracts another; then another; then another, etc. Exactly how do you explain that? An atom has a certain atomic weight, but no mass to form a gravity well. If atoms were attracted to eachother, we'd be in a world of hurt by now. And, we could actually be turning lead into gold as Mrs. O was writing about. Just put certain atoms in a container and let nature take its course. Solid state electronics would probably be unattainable, also.

Don Jose:
That hammerhead in a rock that lamar is afraid of was fully encased in that stone with just the end of the broken-off handle showing. The man who found it took a hammer and chisel and cracked the stone apart in 2 pieces, leaving the rock, as shown in my first picture in a previous post. The stone is a Cretaceous rock that is made up of various small fossils and stony particles. Lamar claims the material formed quickly around that hammer during, probably the last century. Now, THAT is real interesting because when I was in high school, we were being told by scientists that stalagmites and stalactites, as seen in many famous caverns, formed over millions of years. That "scientific notation" was pushed well into the end of the 20th century until someone actually took the time to TEST it and found that stalactites and stalagmites could easily form in a matter of a very few years. Depending on the amount of ground water seepage and the amount of minerals in the water and surrounding soils, some very large examples could form in a couple of years. I give this example as just another look at the fallacies of the scientific world. A popular notion becomes "law" if enough scientists will subscribe to that notion. That hammerhead was not encased in a stalagmite type formation. It is in a rock that was formed by sedimentary layering, then weathering.

Mr. GL:
There are stories of a worldwide flood in all cultures and societies in every part of the world. Our southwestern U.S. Native Americans have a version as well as folks in South America and even Australia. For all of these people to have the same story line, but no way to spread that story outside of their own culture, is a very telling situation. Ergo, a worldwide flood of ...........dare I write it?................Biblical Proportions DID occur. Some folks may not like it, but there it is.

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

If you really want to get technical - we are living today, with dinosaurs that are still here.

Birds are considered "living dinosaurs" and, we have a real dinosaur in the horseshoe crab - which is, based on already dated old horseshoe crabs, at LEAST 300 million years old - which puts it OLDER than the big old dinos. Not to mention our favorite dinosaur - the cockroach.
Scientists who were opening a very very old mine in Ohio, found a 3 1/2" cockroach, which was eventually dated to be 300 million years old - and, by the way - the oldest COMPLETE cockroach carcass on record.

So, what does that REALLY make the word "dinosaur" mean?

B

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,

I have a question for our Young Earth theorists - what about the Ice Ages? How do they fit in the history of the world, in the Young Earth version?

The biblical flood is described in apocryphal texts as having covered a "fourth part" of the Earth, which is coincidentally almost exactly the amount of land area lost due to rising sea levels at the end of our last Ice Age. Even within the 'canonical' bible, it says the waters rose "fifteen cubits upward" which would equate to perhaps 23 feet; again this is not so far out of line with what science now says about the ending of our last Ice Age. One last bit too - that idea of animals into the Ark two-by-two, for "clean" animals it is by sevens.

I respectfully disagree that science and religion are really at odds with each other. They are only at odds when we interpret things incorrectly; for instance the argument that the world is flat was once a major debate, with scripture being pointed to as "proof" yet after it was proven round, someone actually noticed that it does say the world is round in a different part of scripture. Lamar is correct that it was written as eyewitness accounts, not from the vantage point of a satellite viewing the Earth. What is the ancient Hebrew word for nature? It is the same word as for God. The laws of science are the laws of nature; the laws of nature are the laws of God; we fall into error and contention when we mis-interpret scripture, and science actually does help prove scripture true fairly often.

I don't see how taking a pair of bears into a boat would result in their being so many different types of bears around today - from Spectacled bears to Polar bears to Panda bears. If they all have a common pair of "bears" that then changed into so many different species, then the flood must have occurred millions of years ago. Their common ancestor is Parictis and lived 38 million years ago - are we now going to say the Ark was built so far back in time? I don't understand how this idea will work - for the Ark to have only "representative" breeding stock from which the many different species we see today then evolved in such a short time.

I am baffled as to how the Young Earth theory explains the disappearance of the Ice Age mega-fauna, like mammoths. Were they killed off in the flood? If so, then how did some (pygmy sized) mammoths survive into historic times? <Pygmy mammoths survived on at least one Arctic island into at least the time of the Pharaohs> According to the Young Earth theory, what happened to the big Ice Age animals? Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Mrs. O:
The word "dinosaur" means "ferocious lizard" (or something similar) which illustrates that the word is thrown around and used inaccurately. Sort of like "Xerox" became the generic term for photocopying. Any animal or insect that is thought to have existed for "millions" of years is referred to as a "dinosaur". Some old fogeys in the human species are referred to as "dinosaurs" for their perceived outdated thinking or dressing. The question there is, "why are the men called dinosaurs and women are referred to as "matriarchs"? or something else nicey-nice.

Mr. O:
Scientists tell us that members of a species change through the needs dictated by local weather conditions, food supplies, etc. The best known example is Darwin's Finches with different size and shaped bills. They are STILL Finches, but are different. The bear species and others could easily be in he same boat. (no pun intended) As a side point, I don't think Pandas are classified as "bears". Seems like I heard that on T.V. once during a program on Pandas.

Concerning the ice age; are you SURE there was such a thing? Are there photos or paintings or drawings by witnesses to the fact? Do you actually believe that there was a sheet of ice over 2 miles high, sitting over Canada and even down to Wisconsin? Animal bodies (and the famous Ice Man) who were found encased in the ice of a glacier or in a section of permafrost does not an Ice Age make. Yes, freezing temperatures have plagued the earth for centuries, but I refuse to believe that a sheet of ice, a couple of miles high once covered the North American continent as far south as Wisconsin and the other northern states; Europe; most of the northern half of Asia; not to mention the southern continents such as Australia; the southern half of South American, etc. Those are more unproven claims by the scientific community. Those long-haired Mammouths were animals who grew long hair for warmth in cold weather. Sort of like dogs, horses, cattle, deer, etc. and those naturally long-haired muskoxen.

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,

Shortstack wrote

Mr. O:
Scientists tell us that members of a species change through the needs dictated by local weather conditions, food supplies, etc. The best known example is Darwin's Finches with different size and shaped bills. They are STILL Finches, but are different. The bear species and others could easily be in he same boat. (no pun intended) As a side point, I don't think Pandas are classified as "bears". Seems like I heard that on T.V. once during a program on Pandas.

Concerning the ice age; are you SURE there was such a thing? Are there photos or paintings or drawings by witnesses to the fact? Do you actually believe that there was a sheet of ice over 2 miles high, sitting over Canada and even down to Wisconsin? Animal bodies (and the famous Ice Man) who were found encased in the ice of a glacier or in a section of permafrost does not an Ice Age make. Yes, freezing temperatures have plagued the earth for centuries, but I refuse to believe that a sheet of ice, a couple of miles high once covered the North American continent as far south as Wisconsin and the other northern states; Europe; most of the northern half of Asia; not to mention the southern continents such as Australia; the southern half of South American, etc. Those are more unproven claims by the scientific community. Those long-haired Mammouths were animals who grew long hair for warmth in cold weather. Sort of like dogs, horses, cattle, deer, etc. and those naturally long-haired muskoxen.

Well I am pretty sure Pandas are still bears. <here is an extract from Wiki>
Bears comprise eight species in three subfamilies: Ailuropodinae (monotypic with the giant panda), Tremarctinae (monotypic with the Spectacled Bear), and Ursinae (containing six species divided into one to three genera, depending upon authority).

...and in the Young Earth theory in which two representative bears were taken aboard an Ark, this would mean that all of our bears today must have sprung forth in just a few thousand years time. There are quite a few differences between the species, especially in their eating habits. Do you accept that all bears come from a representative pair taken on an Ark just a few thousand years ago?

We have done a fair amount of prospecting across Canada and Alaska, and from at least Ontario out to the Northwest Territories there is what geologists call the "Canadian Shield" which shows all the signs of having been scraped away by a tremendously huge ice sheet, so YES, I do believe there have been Ice Ages, a whole series of them over the ages. The glaciers we see in high mountains today, are remnants of the giant glaciers that covered vast areas during the ice ages. The retreating glaciers left behind piles of rubble from the rocks they ground up too. If a Young Earth theory denies there were Ice Ages, then how does it explain the Canadian Shield? What about the eskers and terminal moraines left by glaciers? Doesn't the wooly mammoth tell us that the climate was notably colder than now? As an aside here, not all mammoths were wooly; the huge Columbian mammoths found right here in Dakota were not wooly, for instance.

I guess I have problems with the Young Earth theory. What about the cave paintings mentioned earlier? How old are they, under the Young Earth theory? That hammer found inside of rock, if it were sandstone, doesn't that indicate that it must be millions of years old at the least? How long does it take for sandstone to form? Check out this photo <if this works>

...it is sandstone, hundreds of layers of sand that has been compressed and solidified into stone. How long does it take for a layer of sand to be deposited by a river? Each year leaves only a very thin layer. These thin layers pile up over time, and at least to my logic, it would take a tremendous amount of time for sandstone to form like we see in this photo - millions of years at least. I don't see how such stone could be formed in a matter of a few thousand years, not to any appreciable thickness anyway.

Thank you in advance,
Oroblanco

 

[Shortstack]

Mr. O,
Areas of the earth that have scraped clean automatically means glacier action? Consider that the world flood washed those area's clean of soil. Sort of like a flooding river in the Rockies can wash the bedrock clean of overburden. Also, the destructive action of the oceans on the beaches of the world when a hurricane decides to come calling. Visualize the water action that cleaned out the open pockets of soil and other detrious material, leaving those large potholes in the bedrock we call the Great Lakes.
Don't you find it just a little bit suspicious that the common excuse for saltwater fossils found on the slopes of extremely high mountains is that those seashells were leftover from when the mountains were flatlands covered by the sea?? Were those mountains formed at the same time that those gigantic mountain ranges beneath the oceans were formed? There are undersea mountain ranges that make the Himalayas look like foothills.

Mr. O, here's some information about how fast sedimentary deposits can be formed:

In The Creation-Evolution Controversy author R.L. Wysong wrote about an unusual polystrate tree, &#147;This polystrate tree penetrates a visible distance of ten feet through volcanic sandstone of the Clarno formation in Oregon. Potassium-Argon dating of the nearby John Day formation suggest that 1,000 feet of rock was deposited over a period of about seven million years, or, in other words, at the rate of the thickness of this page annually! However, catastrophic burial must have formed the rock and caused the fossilization, otherwise, the tree would have rotted and collapsed.&#148;[2]


Evolutionist William Fritz documented that &#147eposits of recent mud flows on Mount St. Helens demonstrate conclusively that stumps can be transported and deposited upright. These observations support that some vertical trees in the Yellowstone &#147;fossil forests&#148; were transported in a geologic situation directly comparable to that of Mount St. Helens.&#148;