(1)  See page 12 in Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, April 1988. As Hawking puts it: "Unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other - they cannot both be correct." (Sort of sounds like the elephant variously described by the blind men who felt different parts of it, as: "... a water hose! - "No., it’s a great architectural column" - "No, it’s a piece of rope!" - "No, its a massive leathery ball" , depending on what part of the elephant they were touching, doesn’t it? ) Also see page 165: "But can there really be such a unified theory? Or are we perhaps just chasing a mirage?" (Well, they are not following the right clues.)  Note that Hawking relies on what the "archaeologists tell us" (p. 7), as if that were some exact, reliable, and unchangeable index of anything. That is just one of several assumption deficiencies undermining his work. A bad foundation ruins a building, and so do enough bad parts. Some of the mistaken assumptions which render his model an untenable structure are discussed in the over 200 articles in the Impact Article Collection from the Institute for Creation Research, referenced below.

A video entitled Stephen Hawkings Universe evinces more of what might be called ‘wizard mystery- worship’ than desirable, but discusses some of the conflicts implicit in modern astronomical theory, mentioning the "Instant-On" universe.

Compare the Holy Bible, Book of Genesis, Chapter One, particularly, in context, verses 3, and 14-19, using good reference sources like Henry Morris’ The Genesis Record . When you consider everything the Bible has to say about the nature of man, you can understand, if not feel very good about, why the astronomers and the press behave the way they do.

- - -

(2)  From 1854 into the 1920’s it seemed all very fine to scientists to think, according to the famous Helmholz hypothesis, that the shrinkage of the sun under its own gravitational attraction sets free the energy which appears as the sun’s radiation. But that was before the claim was spread far and wide that the universe was billions of years old. When people came along saying the universe was billions of years old, astronomers just did a mental flip-flop, and with no direct evidence from the sun itself to change their outlook, but on the basis of just a few misunderstood radioactive rocks on the earth’s surface, alone (a misunderstanding which the videos referred to herein clears up), they completely altered their thinking about what the sun must be made of, to accomodate the new aggressive opinion that the sun was so old. (See Sir James Jeans, Astronomy and Cosmogony, Dover Publications, 1961, top of page 110, where we read: "The radioactive contents of rocks provide what must apparently be accepted as quite conclusive evidence that the earth’s crust has been solid for at least 1500 million years. The age of the sun must, then, be greater than this." That kind of specious reasoning ought to embarass all astronomers. He proceeded to rebuild astronomy, not on the basis of anything which had been learned about the stars, but all around some fallible ideas about some rocks here on earth whose history was not known, rocks which, it turns out, were entirely misread, because being formed in water, they were subject to leaching of their radioactive salts, which makes them look older than they really are -- and that is not even to mention the fact that nobody could have possibly known anything at all about the original state, size, or constitution of those rocks, assuming (which we do not know) that they were not formed within the last few thousand years (volcanic rocks formed in the last 200 years have been dated at 2 Billion years old.. So it is obvious, since James’ work, to which we are referring, was foundational to all subsequent astronomy, that the astronomers have been doing nothing at all based on measurements of the stars, but only useless extrapolations combining bad assumptions they make here, about rocks here, with their high-falutin’ imaginations about what ‘might’ be going on ‘out there’. And now we get the direct observations from Hubble, covered below in note (4), which utterly destroys every idea they have ever thought was worthwhile, over the last hundred years, concerning how the universe was formed -- it destroys their entire gradual-coalescence model of the universe -- since Hubble has just shown that ‘all the stars all came on at once, as if all the chandeliers went on at once in a dark mansion on a moonless night’, just as we read in Genesis One, verses 14-19, in particular, 16. ). Astronomers will no doubt continue to preach their baseless speculations, even though it is obvious that they are so compromised by assumptions of the age of the universe derived from extraneous factors, and by little direct observations (I mean, they did not even know, before this month, as Newsweek reported on November 3, 1997, that the stars had all come on at once), that they cannot be figured to know anything for sure. They have what "is believed", by them, what their "beliefs" are (which is ultimately their religion).. And what they "believe" is a matter of speculation(s) from all sorts of extraneous factors, not direct "go there and measure it" observations.

It was "believed" until the Hubble revelation of the "Instant-Lights-On" universe that the stars had only gradually come on one by one, over hundreds of millions of years. But now they see that they really came on all at once. How things change. What they believe today they do not believe tomorrow. In his 1929 book Astronomy and Cosmogony, Sir James Jeans put it (on page 115) that: ".. study of molecular physics in the sun might disclose molecular mechanisms for storing energy, as so also of course mass, which are unknown to terrestrial physics." Unknown is the key word. He also wrote that: "Whatever the source of stellar energy may be, we wish to know in what way the liberation takes place .. " The key word remains "unknown".

An article in the Impact Article Collection from the Institute for Creation Research, located at http://www.icr.org  points out that at the rate the sun is losing it’s mass (using figures gathered over the last 4 centuries), a rate of 1/10 % per century, or 1% in a thousand years, the sun would have been 10% larger just 10,000 years ago, and 20% larger 20,000 years ago. If the sun would have been 30% larger, would the earth have been livable at all? And at 50% larger, just 50,000 years ago, would the sun’s 50% higher heat output have turned the earth into a cinder? How about 100,000 years ago, with the sun 100% larger than its current size? (That is not even taking into account that each 1 % per thousand years is a larger amount as the sun was larger and larger, going back into the past.)

How about 200,000 years ago ? (Since each % is getting bigger, and at 100% larger, or twice as large, each 1% growth is now twice as large as when the sun was 1/2 the size, it follows that from 100,000 years on, the sun has been growing (we are back-tracking shrinkage, reversing it) at 1% of a 200% today’s mass, or 2% of the original mass, per thousand years. So at the end of the second 100,000 years (leaving out the geometric increase factor for each year during the century), the sun is not 100% +100% larger, or 200% larger, but 100%+200% larger, or 300% today’s size. What impact would that have had on Life on earth?

And more than 300,000 years ago? Well, if the sun was 300% today’s size at 200,000 years, and still growing (we are going backwards, back-tracking shrinkage), then 1% of 300% today’s size is 3% today’s size, so having hit the 200,000 year-going back point, the sun was larger by 3% per 1,000 years, or 30% every 10,000 years, or 300% (before the geometric increase factor) in the third 100,000 years. That means that in the third 100,000 years, going back (and leaving out most of the geometric increase factor), the sun would have been triple the size it was at 200,000 years, which was 300% as large as it is today, so that makes it 900%, or 9 times as large as it is today (and that leaves out alot of the geometric increase factor). Not too much living there, I’d venture.

If those figures of loss of solar mass at 1 percent per thousand years are correct, then even if the earth has only been around for 10,000 years, with at 10% larger sun overhead, the earth sure could have used a thicker, more protective, greenhouse blanket of vapors surrounding its atmosphere. And maybe we had such a thing, from the beginning, until the Cataclysm. That is what Genesis Chapter 1, verses 6-7 say we had.

---

(3)  Newsweek, November 3, 1997, p. 36 reports the Hubble telescope’s discovery that we live in an ‘Instant-Lights-On’ universe, in which ‘all the lights, like all the chandeliers in a mansion, flicked on at once’.

Read Genesis Chapter 1.  God did not make the seed with the tree in it, "each according to its kind"; He made the tree, the whole tree, with the seed in it, "each according to its kind".  He made light the same way, for the earth, reaching the earth on the day it was made.  The astronomers myths of non-existent matter making itself, and taking many years for light to get here is just that, a myth.  God made light for the earth, reaching the earth the very day He made it.  "Like great trees of light, whose trunks lie on the night (whole, tall, mature trees of light, created that way, long-rayed from the beginning, to reach and serve the earth for the Creator's purposes); instant-on, they keep shining away." 

Don't believe the astronomers who just use up tax money like abundant water.  They don't have any idea what they are guessing about, or any idea of all the errors they incorporate with their many mistaken assumptions. "The man who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool - shun him."  The astronomers are pushing their own auto-generated myth and fantasy whenever they get beyond what they can experimentally verify  And they cannot verify any part of their 'millions of years' scenario --- because they never were there.

---

(4) The press often under-reports implications of experimental results which contradict current theories. The way Newsweek reported Hubble’s recent revelations is a case in point, for it certainly made the least of a giant situation. (Of course, the press regards its popular allegedly "scientific" theorizers as great and sensational story sources, so it treats them with kid gloves -- the reporter who got the call this time wants to be the one to get the call the next time . Thus the public only sees a manipulated version of scientific developments, one produced by a press industry not independent enough to do thorough analysis and reporting of all sides of any given claim.) Consider this example.

Newsweek reported (Nov. 3, 1997, p. 36) that the "Instant-On" universe detected by the Hubble telescope contradicted an "astronomer’s hunch" concerning when and how starlight began. But the reality was that astronomers entire concept of the origin of the universe was struck down. Astronomers had theorized for the last 100 years and more that stars had only begun to shine at different times and rates after they separately gathered, individually coalesced, and then began to burn at their assumed different times, and places, and rates. But what the Hubble revealed is that all, or virtually all, starlight began at the same time. That left astronomers stunned, perplexed, asking themselves (and anyone else within earshot) how all the universe’s lights could have "turned on in one great burst"? None of their conceptions had embraced that possibility. They were so committed throughout their entire spectrum of theories to the conventional idea that gradual processes such as we see around us had formed everything, that they had refused to consider the possibility that what the Bible said was right: that "God said, ‘Let there be Light.’ And there was Light." They have been particularly uncomprehending of the idea that God made the "lights", luminescenses, or "shinings" to be visible on the earth from the very day they were made -- "to be for seasons, and days, and years" on the earth (Genesis 1:14, 15, 16-19) from the very day they were made.

Now, their very model of the origin of stars, of the universe, has been shattered. This presents a problem for them so huge that it staggers the imagination. It utterly wipes away - destroys - everything they thought they understood. Their former ideas were premised on certain ideas about chemistry and gradual processes, subjects with which they were somewhat familiar (obviously not familiar enough). The discovery of the Instant-On light of the universe shows they cannot use that approach of assuming what they know about chemistry has anything to do with how the universe originated. If taken to heart, this has to utterly revolutionize their work. But it might render any further work on the Origin of things impossible -- what can anyone say when confronted by an Instant-On universe? About the only thing left to do (one can hardly proceed with any knowledge beyond the sudden appearance of "all the chandeliers coming on at one time") is stand back speechless. And that much, so far, most of them are pretty well doing.

But never count on the tenured professor devoted to speculating on Origins to conclude he is out of a job. Some are now suggesting they might understand it with further speculations, such as the story that ‘the universe was smaller then", and "maybe protogalaxies were smashing into each other, and producing that appearance of all the lights come on at once" -- storybook speculations of ‘protogalaxies’ built upon speculations about how ‘big’ the universe ‘was’ -- as if they knew. One might well ask whether they are playing science, or Hansel and Gretel. As Robert M. Hazen reported in Why Aren’t Black Holes Black? (page 137),

"Every successful scientist becomes adept at inventing explanations -- making up stories -- to account for every possible observation."

It is hard to see how they will get beyond this. It really seems to smash everything they had preached to the public (as if they knew what they were talking about) for over a hundred years. They ought to be saying good-bye to their chief, key, pet theory of the origin of the universe, the idea that the stars gradually lit up as they allegedly coalesced, one by one, over multiplied millions of years. They also ought to be tossing overboard the methods by which those false conclusions were derived: all their speculations in terms of current chemical processes. Which all amounts to the wreckage of far more than a "hunch". It was their entire "gradual coalescence model" which "all the chandeliers of the universe" suddenly blasted.

And while they had thought they knew right where they stood, it looks as if Jesus was right after all. He has always said that the greater majority of human beings (ignorant of the Word of God and the Power of God) were lost, meaning, at least in part, it would seem, that (1) they did not know where they came from (the astronomers surely didn’t), (2) they did not know where they really stood in the great woods of the universe (the astronomers surely didn’t), (3) they did not know where they were headed (the astronomers surely didn’t), and (4) did not know how to get to whereever it is that it would really be best for them to go (the astronomers don’t even have an idea if there is any such place).

There is a bright side, of course, as there often is in learning that something has upset your applecart. They have, if they would realize it, learned a little bit about where they really are. If the stars all came on at once, as Hubble indicates, so might everything else have been produced basically at once, including the earth, and all the reproductive living things on the earth - an entire possibility-set has opened up before them, entirely different from anything they had ever thought eligible for consideration, before. Who among them had ever imagined that all the lights in the universe had come on at once?

The Hubble discovery of the Instant-On universe, completely unanticipated and totally unexpected by "ancient age concept of the universe" promoters, alters, smashes, and shatters everything they have ever thought, and every method by which they thought it. It insists that science go back to observation - abandon methods dependent on using speculative extrapolations of current chemical processes - since that method has been shown to be so in error. They might even begin to notice the fact that just as typical material processes with which they are familiar did not originate the stars, so also matter does not have the properties to originate the Range of Polymers, in their Arrangements, of which Reproductive Living Things are composed, i.e., that matter did not originate Life, which means that Life had to have an Architect capable of sub-molecular-scale irreducibly-complex systems production, a Creator of molecular machines made of molecular machines, all of whose parts had to be in place for any of them to work.  See note (3).  They might even learn that the Creator made them in Kinds, unique types, independent of each other, not related by genetics or by descent:

"each according to its Kind, with seed in them, each according to its Kind" --- Genesis One

What the Hubble revealed, that the universe’s lights "turned on in one great burst", has rendered unsupportable the former ideas and models which assumed that dust and gas in space only gathered together gradually in different times and places, and got denser, and denser, under gravity, until the dense agglomerations began to burn at different times and rates and places. Hubble says "No, it was Instant-On". Hubble reveals a universe entirely different than what they ever imagined, which they describe thusly: "All the lights went on at once". It was:

"as if every chandelier in a mansion were flicked on simultaneously on a moonless night."

Since that is not the kind of thing which is happening now, they are faced with a big problem they never wanted to have to face. They are now unable to assume that what is going on now was going on at the origin of things. Things were obviously very different at the origin of things -- so, if they reflect on it, they no can no longer have any excuse for extrapolating backwards from present processes, because they have seen that "there was no ‘then, like now’, there."

What is a poor scientist to do when it comes to dealing with the beginning of things, IF the beginning of things was nothing at all like what is going on today?

Working from the processes they see around them has proven to be "Garbage-In, Garbage-Out.". But what else do they have to draw on than the kind of processes with which they are familiar? That’s out, now. Some of them realize that they cannot use the ordinary processes with which they were familiar, anymore, which leaves them somewhat in the dark. Or Light, depending on how you look at it. When they did not know better, they were very comfortable assuming that everything had always been like all that they see around them appeared, but now "all the lights have come on at once" -- a whole new world is opened up to them. How do they explain it - take God’s Word for it? Hmmm ... Well, now that you mention it, nothing in the nature of matter ever did suggest that matter had any property to produce the Range of Polymers, in their Arrangements, of which Living Things consist. See note (4).   Hmmm ... And the Word of God does say that God had called Light into being all at once, with the words "Let there be Light", right? Hmmm...

Well, our friends in astronomy-dom may not have reached all these conclusions yet - we may have to give them time (some, more than their lifetimes?). After all, they have just lost "billions of years", so they could be short of time. They have just seen all those years which they thought it took stars to form vanish - that those years never did exist - so they should be experiencing an extreme state of time-contraction. Some of them may even come to the right conclusions about all this (some help could be had from following the leads in this paper.)

But some of them are just now looking for help in finding the door at ‘stage left’, and a substantial portion of the press is sure to want to help them find it. The materialist segment of the press will chat ideas around between the various materialist astronomers and help them come up with a new story. That press is no less eager than some of the astronomers are to see the uniformitarianist materialism which they have been preaching through their newspapers for now over one hundred years, dethroned, exposed for the falsefood it is.

Uniformitarianist materialism is a combination of two belief systems: uniformitarianism and materialism: those are (1) Uniformitarianism: the belief, just dissolved in the acid bath of Hubble reality, that long, long periods of ongoing current processes can be extrapolated backward into the beginning of things to explain where everything came from, and (2) Materialism: the belief that some property of matter Originated Life (anyone who will look into the documentation in endnote (4) will learn that matter cannot produce the Range of Polymers, in their Arrangements, of which Living Things are composed, so materialism, although preached far and wide by the press and the evolutionist industries, has long been known by serious researchers to be completely untrue. Neither press nor academe nor government research group however, is particularly eager to acknowledge that matter could never have originated Life -- for then what would they be paid to speculate about? Neither are they particularly eager to learn that "the heavens declare the glory of" the God Whose Molecular Architectural Activity was required to originate Reproductive Life (same reason).

---

(5)  After all, the pretending astronomers can only guess in terms of what they have seen on earth when it comes to what their indicators mean (and as some of the other footnotes explain, their guesses do not fit even those guesses together very well).  A little reading of the right books will show how a quick presto-change/o revision of their assumptions (without verification) has drastically altered their outlook (all without verification) more than they want to admit. Do you think they know all the variety of possibilities in the universe to explain a certain meter reading?  No way !
     How can they correctly interpret what their meters collect, when they do not have a comprehensive idea of every possibility that could explain such phenomena?  Do you think they lost the Shuttle because they correctly anticipated the possibilities?  No, of course not.  Rather, because they did NOT correctly anticipate what to expect.     
     And they never can and never will have that comprehensive knowledge.  They like you to think they know something, even everything, about what they are talking about, but they don't.  They want you to think they know the universe, which is wanting you to think they are like God, but that has been man's temptation from the beginning, to want to "be as gods" (Genesis 3:5), and/or to have others think of them that way "Oh, you're so smart", they want us to say (and throw money at programs in which they can play with their assumptions!).  They are pretenders, knowing little or nothing, only what they have seen on earth, with no way to test or verify what they guess about that which is beyond their earthly experience.
     Also see footnote (2).

---

(6)  The Bible has always been far more sophisticated and advanced than anything any mere man could ever put into as few words: there is a genetic code in each fundamental type of living thing ("with seed in it, each according to its kind --- Genesis Chapter 1, stated 10 times --- allowing frogs to reproduce only frogs, horses only horses, pigs only pigs, people only people, etc, with no "Kind" to vary outside its "Kind".)  Even if matter left to itself did not just lie there, unproductive, left to itself (i.e., without God's creative architectural arrangement), which is all it does, even if it could by happenstance form the slightest significant micro-portion of any structure which even had the slightest potential to be useful within the architecture of any living thing (which it cannot), it would all be for nothing, as not even complete (let alone, "sub-component parts of") living things never reproduce apart from the simultaneously interdependent existence of the genetic code and all the architected systems involved in its implementation within each complete living thing.  And any living thing without perfectly functioning complete mobility systems does not live long enough to reproduce even when it has a complete reproductive system.  For more, see, inter alia (i.e., among other references):

(a) Creation: Facts of Life, by Gary Parker, Master Books, 1994, Chapter 1, especially pages 18, and following, in which Gary Parker, Phi Beta Kappa scholar, National Science Foundation Fellowship participant, and instructor in DNA explains that matter is chemically bound (prevented) from falling into place to form the Range of Polymers, in their Arrangements, of which Reproductive Living Things are composed, since the kinds of reactions required are self-neutralizing and destructive to such formation..

(b) The following books explain that ordinary (non-living) matter such as soils, minerals, liquids, and gasses are made up of different types of molecules than the Range of Polymers, in their Arrangements, of which Reproductive Living Things are composed. These books contain the data showing that matter just never produces that Range of Polymers, in those Arrangements, of which Life is composed. So wherever Life came from, Life did not come from any combination of unaided matter.

Why Aren’t Black Holes Black? by Robert M. Hazen, Anchor Books, 1997, page 165, testifies that Unaided, non-living matter never even comes close to forming the Range of Polymers, in their Exquisite Arrangements, of which Living Things are so Intricately Composed.

Giant Molecules (Life Science Library), Time, Inc. 1996, pages 11, 13, 35, 56, 73, 99, 103, 175-177 makes it clear that there are great differences between living and non-living molecules. Scientists who for a long time understood the non-living were not even close to understanding the living.

(c) Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, Free Press, 1996 explains that even at the sub-microscopic molecular level, we are made of irreducibly complex systems constituting machines made of molecules. But unaided Matter is not an Irreducibly Complex Systems, Molecular Machine Designer, nor even capable of mankind’s primitive level of polymer design chemistry, so where did the irreducibly-complex molecular machine design systems come from?

(d) Jesus affirmed Moses (who taught that each "Kind" was given "Seed, each according to its Kind") in His reference to the fact that man and woman were made for each other from the beginning, "male and female", a reference to Moses' Genesis Chapter 1 & 2; and His acceptance of Genesis is further demonstrated by His factual references to the Cataclysm Noah survived (many citations could be listed), to Abraham, to Lot, etc. His Testimony was that He came "not to undo or do away with, but to complete and fulfill" the Law (i.e., the writings of Moses, meaning the First Five Books of the Bible, starting with Genesis), and the Prophets" --- Matthew 5:16-17.

---

(7)   Evolution: the Fossils Still Say No!, by Duane Gish, Institute of Creation Research, 1995.

Creation: Facts of Life, by Gary Parker, Master Books, 1994.

What Is Creation Science? (suitable for public schools), by Henry M. Morris and Gary Parker, Master Book Publishers, 1982.

The Impart Article Collection of more than 200 articles on different relevant parts of the picture

All these materials are available from the Institute for Creation Research, at 1-619-448-0900. The author of this work is not affiliated with either organization, and does not derive any benefit, apart from seeing you improve in understanding, and seeing the world becoming a better place, if you study those videos and other materials.

---

(8)  At least five available videos together discuss some immensely new critical discoveries which affect interpretation of the Cataclysmic Sedimentary Flows which Sorted into Superimposed Distinguishable Sedimentary Banks:

Evolution: Fact or Belief?
The Young Age of the Earth
Evidences: the Record and the Flood
The Great Dinosaur Mystery
The Genesis Solution

These videos are available from either the Institute for Creation Research at 1-619-448-0900 or Answers in Genesis at 1-606-727-2222. I am not affiliated with either organization (just an enthusiastic fan). I would also recommend you see The Genesis Solution, concerning the dimensions and sufficiency of the Ark which carried Noah et cetera, along with The Great Dinosaur Mystery, which is about mankind's experience with the Giants of the Earth (Genesis 6:4; Job 40, 41), the Dino-Creatures, also available..

---

(9)  Mount St. Helens erupted on Sunday, May 18, 1980 at 8:23 A.M., with a reported force equal to 500 atomic bombs. It was heard more than 300 miles away, blasting more than 1 cubic mile of rock away from the top of the mountain (more than 1 ton of rock for every person on earth). It filled the air with enough dust and ash to cover all of Manhattan Island to a depth of 400 feet, flattened 200 square miles of forest, killing 175,000 animals, and 59 people. It lasted just days.

There are some 500 active (but not violently erupting) volcanoes, out of thousands overall, in our oceans today. Thousands of volcanoes were recently counted on just one state-sized portion of the Pacific floor.  How many were there in Noah’s time? Did the whole Atlantic expansion joint running from pole to pole constitute one huge "fountain of the Greap Deep"?  I think so.  But what would even 500 volcanoes erupting continually in our oceans do today? Just imagine Mt. St. Helens X 500 ( Mt. St. Helens 500 times over) erupting under the oceans, continuing for months. What would that do to the earth? What would 1000 do? 2000? At Mt. St. Helens, just one volcano (high above sea-level) formed immense, separate, sorted, superimposed deep banks of sediment within hours. And a canyon 1/40th the scale of the Grand Canyon was soon afterwards cut through them by subsequent pyroclastic flows.

The recorders of the Bible ( the descendants of those who survived the event), tell us in Genesis 6-8 that in the Mabbul (the Hebrew word), or Cataclysm (the Greek word), all the volcanoes and sub-sea-floor water channels (all the fountains) of the great deep (oceans) began erupting at one time, and the net changes thereafter kept raising the sediment-bearing sea level (relative to the elevation of the possibly falling former lands) for months, until all those former lands were covered: over-flowed, as II Peter (a book in the Bible) puts it. Some or all of those former lands, previously supported from below by core materials which flowed out in the volcanic eruptions, beset now from above by the pressure of the rising sediment-laden waters, may have sunk into the earth (subsided to a net lower elevation relative to the rising sea level),. thus making it easy for the rising sediment-laden waters to overflow them and blanket them over a period of months with sedimentary flows. The net result is that we were left with continentally-distributed, sorted and superimposed sedimentary banks full of the bones of billions of dead things which have since become fossils.

Engineers have learned that transported sediments form rapidly into simultaneously-superimposed sedimentary banks, as the videos referred to herein reveal.

As the earth settled down after that event, our continents emerged, and the mountains were formed, cascading sediments off them as they rose (as well as afterwards, as they were subjected to weather and geological events.) Meanwhile, those sedimentary banks which were not disturbed by mountain-building effects and weather on the continents dried out and hardened, with their fossils in them.

During the Mabbul, or Cataclysm, massive glaciated ice had formed on the poles, binding water up in the ice, so our lands were surrounded by a lower sea-level when they first emerged - at its lowest then, just after the event. The sea-level has been rising, with the melt-back of the ice on the poles, over the several thousand years since. Our sea-level is not just starting to rise now, due to industrial effects: it has been rising for thousands of years from the melt-back of the glaciers since the Cataclysm, the Mabbul, of Noah’s time.

---

(10)  See the videos Evolution: Fact or Belief? and Evidences: The Record and The Flood, already mentioned, from  http://www.icr.org or http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org .

---

(11)  The phrase "all kith and kin" refers to both small and large living things, including the giant fossilized bodies of Dino-Creatures mentioned in the Bible at Genesis 1:21 (see translations well-reflecting the Hebrew, as well as in depth studies like Morris, The Genesis Record), Genesis 6:4 (giants, a substantive, referring to giant things), and Job 40 and 41 (describing Behemoth and Leviathan, with tails like cedar trees, too terrible to approach, which shook the ground, and dwelt in the covert of the reeds).

---

(12)  Cooper, Bill, After The Flood : The Early Post-Flood History of Europe traced back to Noah , New Wine Press, 1995.

---

Go to the Creation Files Index Page

For Your-Gain.com

Email me