Main page | Jari's writings

Slowly or quickly is the idea of millions of years true?



Nature programs often tell about processes over millions of years. However, several facts are against millions of years



The study of evolution does not always rely heavily upon evidence; important conclusions are sometimes based upon very limited data. We can look at the study of human fossils for an illustration of this point. Consider the conclusions that were drawn from studies of the Heidelberg Man and the Nebraska Man.


 - The Heidelberg Man, who should be a Homo Erectus, was “created” and “built” based on one jawbone only, i.e., a theory of the whole human race was produced on the grounds of one piece of bone, although many thought that this jawbone resembled that of a modern man!


 - The Nebraska Man was used as a “convincing” piece of evidence of the evolution of man in the famous so-called ape trial in the 1920s. It was “created” based on one tooth. Several double page pictures about this man and his life were published in order to leave no doubt as to how he had lived and from whence he came. The only unfortunate thing was that when this so-called evidence was examined later, it was found that the tooth of Nebraska Man belonged to an extinct pig and not to a man at all!


Let’s consider another excerpt. The text helps us see that people sometimes use limited data to support major conclusions and describe the past.  An average person might only ask how such data was obtained. When such a person looks at ground soil or fossils, he or she cannot deduce anything about what happened 430 million or 65 million years ago, or what the climate was like back then. Yet, many scientists claim they know what happened; they believe that they know exactly what happened based on the very limited data they have gathered.


The Permian age was the last of the Palaeozoic era. At that time, the continents were combined into a single super continent called Pangaea. The climate was dry and cold in the beginning of this era but started to warm midway through the period. Drought was overwhelming, particularly in the middle parts of the continent. Early reptilians became more common on ground. Corals and Bryozoans flourished in the low seas. Trilobites started to disappear from the oceans around this time. On land, ferns made room for conifers. Cycads and ginkgo became more common. (1)


We will study the basic teachings of evolution in this writing. The plan is to find out whether the processes on the earth have been fast or slow. Did these processes take millions of years, or thousands, or decades, or even days? Let’s start with mineral coal.


Mammoths and the Carboniferous period. Mammoths were elephant-like large animals that are commonly thought to have become extinct around 10,000 years ago. Many traces of mammoths can still be found in the permafrost of Siberia, etc. The bones have been used as a raw material in the ivory industry.

   This chapter is about what mammoths have to do with mineral coal and oil. The quotes below are about how traces of these large animals have been found in the middle of mineral coal and oil deposits and also buried in amber.

   These findings are important because it has been thought that mammoths lived on the earth only a couple of thousand years ago but mineral coal, oil and amber are usually dated as dozens or hundreds of millions of years old. One can ask: how are such findings possible? How can there be mammoths in layers that are commonly thought to be ancient? Why are such findings made? There is a clear contradiction. Such findings should be impossible.

   Or, could it be that the development of mineral coal, oil and amber are fairly recent, and that no long-term processes were needed for creation of these materials? This is the most reasonable conclusion one can draw based on the findings available.

   Another, even more interesting fact suggesting that carbon, oil and amber are not ancient is the fact that the remains of humans (!) have been found in the same strata, as have a huge number of vertebrate and invertebrate remains. One such finding was in California:


Mammoth remains are far from rare. Over the centuries, such remains have been found on four continents in a variety of locations: in the frozen plains of Siberia and Alaska, the tar pits of Los Angeles, the bottom sediment of the North Sea, gravel pits, caves and mineral coal mines. The condition of the remains has been highly varied – some have been almost complete individuals with even their fur, hide, meat, blood and internal organs intact whereas others have been mere pieces of teeth and bones.

   (...) Mammoth remains have also been found in California, in the middle of the current Los Angeles downtown area. The famous tar pits of Rancho la Brea are located on a cross street of Wilshire Boulevard (brea is Spanish for tar). The tar pits have been known for centuries, and they were previously used to get natural asphalt. Thousands of tonnes of the asphalt were raised from the pits until it was found in 1875 that there were fossils buried in the tar.

   More than a hundred tonnes of fossils have been obtained after that time: 1.5 million of vertebrates and 2.5 million of invertebrates. In many cases, the individual animals have been mixed into a single compact mass. Insects, birds and giant land-living sloths have been found there. A total of 17 elephant-like animals – mastodons and Columbian mammoths – have been found. Most of these were found in pit no. 9 that was dug in 1914. It is the deepest stratum containing bones. Most of the fossils are between the ages of 40,000 and 10,000 years but the only humanoid finding – a female – is around 9,000 years old.
   (...) No intact soft tissue has been found at La Brea. Soft tissues have been retained intact under some conditions inside raw oil, however. The ground in Starunia in Western Ukraine is full of kerosene veins. The area is known particularly for its rhino findings but a mammoth was also found in 1907 at a depth of 43 metres. The body had partially decayed before the tissue became embalmed but the mammoth was still “flesh and blood”. It had been preserved in oil surrounded by amber like a sardine in a can. The skeleton was in good condition and the skin was still flexible but the hairs had stuck to the ground surrounding the mammoth. It is the only mammoth found outside the permafrost zone with intact soft tissue. (2)


Dinosaurs and the Carboniferous period. Dinosaurs were large animals, just like the mammoths. The consensus is that they lived a couple of hundred million years after the Carboniferous period and became extinct around 65 million years ago. It is not considered possible that dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time as mammoths; they are thought to have roamed the earth millions of years before mammoths.

   Still, findings similar to the mammoth findings have been made in the case of dinosaurs. The condition of the fossils is often just as good as that of the mammoth fossils, and traces of blood cells, intact soft tissue, non-petrified bone and skin have been found. It is not believed that blood cells could be retained for a period of 50,000 years and yet such findings have been made.

   The next quote is about the connection between dinosaurs and carbon. Remains of mammoths and humans have also been found in carbon strata. Such findings prove that the geological time scale cannot be accurate.


A very peculiar place to find footprints of ancient giant animals is a carbon mine. Footprints of dinosaurs have been found on the ceilings of carbon mines in Utah and Colorado. How could the dinosaurs have walked on the inner ceiling of a mine?

   Let’s take a torch and go into one such mine to see!

   The tunnels in the mountain were naturally made when mineral coal was being excavated. There are mineral coal layers several metres thick. The miners excavated mineral coal from this layer. They sometimes dug several kilometres into the mountain. There is sandstone on top of the mineral coal that becomes the ceiling of the tunnel when the mineral coal is removed. (...) When the mineral coal that contains traces of plants was removed from the mine, the giant footprints appeared. (3)


Does it take a long time for carbon to be formed? The consensus on the creation of mineral coal is that it takes a process of millions of years. People think that thick layers of peat were accumulated over millions of years and the peat slowly started to change into mineral coal because of the pressure. People believe this theory even though nothing similar has been observed in the modern world. Thus, they consider mineral coal and oil to be non-renewable natural resources. Such materials have not been observed to form even in a tropical climate even though the conditions there should be favorable. We find quite the opposite: plants rot quickly in such places, and no mineral coal or oil is generated.

   Mineral coal need not have taken a long time to form. One piece of evidence that supports this is that wood and other materials rich in cellulose have been changed into mineral coal or a substance reminiscent of mineral coal in a matter of hours. This strongly suggests that if the conditions are right, such materials can be formed very quickly. It does not require millions of years. Only our own pro-evolution prejudice blinds us from seeing that development did not require millions of years. The following example suggests that mineral coal can be formed in a short period of time, in only a couple of weeks. The author proves that such events could have occurred quickly, in connection with the Flood.


Scientists in the Argonne National Laboratory (in the US) have proven that top-class black carbon can be obtained utilising the following method: take some lignin (an essential ingredient in wood) and mix it with some acidic clay and water. Heat the mixture in an oxygen-free closed quartz container at 150 ºC without increasing the pressure. This is not a high temperature from the geological viewpoint – actually, there is nothing exceptional or “unnatural” about the ingredients, either. Neither does the process take millions of years – it only takes 4–36 weeks!

   (...) Famous Australian geologist Sir Edgeworth David described in his report of 1,907 still-standing charred tree trunks that were found in between layers of black carbon in Newcastle (Australia). The bottom parts of the trunks had been buried deep into the carbon stratum, and then the trunks went right through the strata above, finally ending up in the carbon stratum on top!

   To think that people try to explain these issues with slow processes taking place in two separate swamps, interspersed by long periods of time. It is clear that the prejudice of “slow, gradual development” has prevented the more obvious explanation of the origin of the carbon, i.e., a huge mass of water caused by an act of God quickly buried the uprooted trees.

   Moving water can quickly cause major geological changes – particularly if there is lots of water. Most people think that such changes must occur over a period of millions of years. (…)

   Some geologists (including many of those who believe in the processes of “millions of years”) now say that the Grand Canyon was formed in the same manner – in a catastrophe – instead of being formed over a period of millions of years because of erosion caused by the Colorado River.

   The Flood lasted for one year, covered mountains, caused global upheaval and rent the earth when water (and inevitably also magma) gushed up for months (”the fountains of the great deep broken up”, Gen 7:11). Such a frightening catastrophe would cause an incredible amount of geological changes. (4)


Another fact suggesting that mineral coal was generated quickly rather than slowly over millions of years is that fossilized trees found inside mineral coal deposits transecting several strata. An old photograph of a mineral coal quarry in Saint-Etienne, France, shows five tree trunks, each crossing about ten strata. Such fossils could not exist if the mineral coal strata were formed over millions of years.

   The quote below addresses this point.  It supports the statement that the formation of mineral coal strata cannot be the result of a slow change from peat into mineral coal. The layers must have been formed quickly, because in them are found a mixture of fossilised tree trunks, and fossils of animals and plants. Such findings can only be explained by assuming that they were buried quickly, and at the same time.


The mineral coal strata consist of large heaps with all surface plants from peat to large trees all mixed up. There are also traces of all kinds of life forms from water animals to birds and from reptilians to mammals in the mix. All of these are mixed up, willy-nilly. Large petrified trees are often found as large heaps with their roots pointing up or entangled. Thick trunks that have remained in an upright position pierce through dozens of meters of soil, indicating how quickly everything has happened. The strata cannot be a result of slow formation of peat, as the supporters of evolution claim. (5)


Water and the generation of mineral coal. Most scientists admit that water plays a part in the generation of mineral coal. This was also stated in the earlier description of the human manufacture of mineral coal from materials including wood, acid-rich clay and water. This process only took 4- to 36 weeks. In the same way, we find references in textbooks that state that formation of mineral coal occurred when forests were buried in water and silt. It is believed that this took place during the so-called “Carbon era” or the Carboniferous period, millions of years ago.


When forests were for some reason buried in silt, mineral coal strata were generated. Our current machine culture is partially based on these strata. (Mattila Rauno, Teuvo Nyberg & Olavi Vestelin, Koulun biologia 9, p. 91)


The most significant mineral carbon deposits of the Earth were formed approximately 300 million years ago. This time is called the Carboniferous period. During this period, the climate was warm and damp. Vegetation was more luxuriant than ever in history, at least in low swamp areas. It is assumed that the atmosphere contained more carbon dioxide than nowadays. Treelike ferns, horsetails, and club mosses grew into forests. Mineral coal was formed when these forests – as the climate sometimes became warmer and the ice sheets melted – were buried by water and silt. (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 176, 177)


The next quotes make the same point. They support the statement that we find fossils from the sea mixed into layers of mineral coal and that these layers were stacked on top of each other by the force of water. The existence of marine fossils and fish in the strata proves that such strata could not have formed slowly in a specific marshland. A better explanation is that water carried the plants to the places where mineral coal was generated. Water uprooted the plants and trees, piled them up into large heaps and also introduced marine animals with the land-living plants. Such an occurrence could only have been a major crisis, such as the Flood.


“Under and above the mineral coal seams there are, as has been said, regular layers of clay stone, and from their structure we can see that they have been stratified from water."(6)


The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that mineral coal was generated quickly when large forests were destroyed, layered and then quickly buried. There are huge lignite strata in Yallourn, Victoria (Australia) that contain plenty of pine tree trunks – trees that do not currently grow on marsh land.

   The sorted, thick strata that contain up to 50% of pure pollen and that are spread over a huge area clearly prove that the lignite strata were formed by water. (7)


Children are taught at school that mineral coal is slowly generated from peat even though such generation cannot be seen anywhere in the modern world. With evidence such as the extensive mineral coal fields, the different types of plants and the multilayered tree trunks in upright position, it seems that the mineral coal strata have been generated from huge drifting masses of plants during a very large flood. Plenty of burrows made by marine life forms can also be found inside these carbonized plant fossils. Fossils of marine animals have also been found in mineral coal strata (“A note on the Occurrence of Marine Animal Remains in a Lancashire Carbon Ball”, Geological Magazine, 118:307,1981) (...) Major strata of marine animal shells and fossils of the sea creature Spirorbis have also been found in the mineral coal strata. (Weir, J., ”Recent Studies of Shells of the Carbon Measures”, Science Progress, 38:445, 1950). (8) 


Prof. Price presents cases where 50- to100 mineral coal layers are one top of each other and between them there are layers including fossils from deep sea. He deems this piece of evidence so strong and convincing that he has never tried to explain these facts on grounds of Lyell’s uniformity theory. (9)


What is the age of the mineral coal deposits? It has been assumed that the mineral coal deposits are at least 250- to 300 million years old. People believe that mineral coal was formed during the Carboniferous period when vegetation on the earth was much lusher. However, this belief is not supported by radiocarbon dating. Since the half life of radiocarbon is only around 5,730 years, there should be none of it left after 100,000 or 200,000 years. It is impossible.

   Still, radiocarbon is often found in mineral coal, peat, crude oil and natural gas deposits and even in fossils of the Cambrian period (the Cambrian period is thought to have started 600 million years ago). This proves that the strata and fossils cannot be even 100,000 years old. R. Gentry came to the same conclusion when studying radio halos. The layers must be thousands of years old, not millions.


In the early years of the invention, it was believed that all the preconditions needed to make accurate age measurements were now present. Researchers gathered all kinds of things to measure: items from the tombs of pharaohs and Neanderthals, teeth of sabre-tooth tigers and mammoths, fossils, crude oil, etc. Radiocarbon was found in all of them. These observations regarding age were published in Radiocarbon magazine. Many of the samples had previously been dated as being millions of years old.  (10)


The age of mineral coal strata has been estimated by examining radio halos, and there are signs suggesting that such strata are only a couple of thousand years old. (Gentry, R.V. et al., “Radio halos in Carbonified Wood”, Science, 194:315, 1976) (11)


R. Gentry studied the halos in the mineral coal from the Devonian and Jurassic periods. He found several halos generated by 210 Po and uranium. Gentry deduced based on the presence of the Po halos that uranium and its daughter isotopes (214 Po, 210 Po, etc.) ended up in the wood matter before becoming carbonised and the carbonisation took place quickly (in the course of less than 50 years). (...) Gentry has stated that the maximum age of the carbon in the Jurassic strata is 280,000 years. This is at least 270 times less than the age stated in the geological time scale. He considers the carbon in the Devonian strata to be at least a thousand times younger than the age noted in the geological time scale. If the Devonian strata are less than 330,000 years old, all the strata above them must be young.

   Radioactive carbon (14 C) has been found in several fossils and in some mineral coal, peat, crude oil and natural gas deposits that are believed to be several thousand or several million years old. Their estimated age should be lowered to less than 50,000 years. (12)


Oil is a similar non-renewable natural resource as mineral coal. Oil has not been observed being generated under any current conditions in any part of the world, not even in tropical areas where there is plenty of vegetation.

   What about the speed at which oil is formed? Its formation need not have taken long, either. A piece of evidence supporting this comes from a modern laboratory: a barrel of oil was manufactured from one tonne of organic waste in only 20 minutes (Machine Design, 14 May 1970). It is a fast process. This ability to manufacture oil was mastered during WWII. Finnish geologist Pentti Eskola wrote decades ago about Germans manufacturing oil from mineral coal and lignite.


Oil can now be manufactured from mineral coal or lignite. Germany used this method during WWII and was very able to overcome the problem. (13)


What about the age of oil deposits? The high pressure in the soil strata places limitations on their age. If the deposits were millions of years old, their internal pressure would have dissipated ages ago. Yet, oil often gushes out of a hole in the ground. This demonstrates the presence of high pressure. This is why it has been assumed that oil deposits are at most 10,000 years old (chapters 12 and 13 in Prehistory and Earth Models by Melvin A. Cook, Max Parrish and Company, 1966). Another way we can see that oil deposits are not millions of years old but, instead, thousands of years is by measuring the radiocarbon found in them (see the quote above). The half life of radiocarbon is only 5,730 years; thus, all would be gone after 100,000 or 200,000 years.


Why is it that no new mineral coal strata or petrifactions are being generated? It is for the same reason that crude oil was generated and why it is no longer generated. Mineral coal, natural gas and crude oil deposits are not part of the renewable resources of our earth. The pressure inside the soil strata that causes the energy to rise up a drilled hole have been measured in natural gas and crude oil deposits. If the deposits were hundreds or millions of years old, there would be no pressure in the strata. This is a well-known fact among experts. (14)


FAST OR SLOW PROCESSES? We discussed the generation of mineral coal and oil above, and we noted that they may have been generated through fast processes only a couple of thousand years ago. The only reason we believe these processes took a long time is that we believe – and are prejudiced by – the geological time scale that measures development over millions of years. In fact, evidence strongly supports something else.

   The formation of several other natural features previously thought to require long periods of time could actually have taken only a couple of decades, or even a couple of weeks/days. Below are some examples.


Glaciers. The consensus has been that the glaciers in Greenland and other parts of the world were generated over a period of hundreds of thousands years. This consensus was based on the assumption that layers of ice can be aged according to their layers of sediment, just as the age of trees can be measured by observing their growth rings. In glaciers, such sediment layers are called “varves”.

   A better explanation for varves is that they were generated by changing weather conditions (such as changes in winter temperatures or snowfalls). The same phenomenon can be observed by anyone who sees the inside of snow banks that get dissected by snow ploughs. You can clearly see the stripes that show weather conditions changed. Over the course of one winter several such layers might form.


Several researchers of the field have lately questioned the assumption that the Ice Age varves were always annual. Some varves in Denmark have been interpreted to have formed during a single day, and the varves in many parts of Europe and America seem to be weather varves that were generated during a period that is clearly shorter than 12 months. It has been noted that the layers of the classical varve area in Sweden may not always be annual. This makes the time scale based on varves clearly shorter. (15)


We can also see in practice that the current climate in the arctic areas is not necessarily from ancient times. Airplanes that were left in Greenland during the Second World War have been covered with ice to a depth of 40 to 100 meters (43 to 107 yards) in less than 60 years. This means almost 1 to 2 meters (1 to 2 yards) per year. Also, a 17-meter antenna in the Antarctic has been covered with ice over a period of 30 years, which is quite fast.

  As far as the current levels of rainfall are concerned, they are enough to explain the formation of an ice field in quite a short time. Greenland gets around 400 mm (15.7 inch) of rain per year, which will be even more when it turns into snow, even if part of it were to melt. The current rainfall is enough to create an ice field in a very short time, not over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.


American Fighters Defrosted in Greenland


Aviator-journalist Dieter Herrmann of Berlin is planning to thaw five rare P-38 Lightning fighter planes from the depths of the eternal ice cover over Greenland. If everything goes as Mr. Herrmann plans, these historical war fighters will be lifted up next summer by an international expedition consisting of more than 300 people.

   The American fighters desired by the expedition have been buried in eastern Greenland near Tasiilaq since 1942. Nowadays, these planes that were lost by the Allied forces during the war are covered by almost one hundred meters of eternal snow and ice.

   (…) In practice, the expedition will be able to reach the American planes inside the glacier by thawing a 100-meter vertical shaft in the snow and ice cover.

   (…) The Americans already used the thawing method to lift one fighter up in 1992. At that time, the plane was under an ice layer 80 meters thick. Now the P-38 in question has been restored and is used in aviation shows all around the world under the name Glacier Girl. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 14 January 2007)


Petrifaction. Petrified (fossilised) wood and other petrifactions can be found all over the world. They are generally considered to be several millions of years old, and it is assumed that it has taken a long time for them to come into being.

   This idea is easy to question, however. It has been general knowledge for a long time that petrifactions can happen during a short period of time. For example, there is a petrified hat in a mining museum in New Zealand. Other man-made objects that have been petrified under suitable conditions have also been found.

   Petrifactions can also be artificially generated. Petrified wood can be manufactured in a couple of days using a solution containing silicon compounds at 80°C (Tieteen kuvalehti 4/93, p. 19). This proves that petrifaction does not take a long period of time.


That is why tourists, coming across the ‘petrified waterwheel’ in Western Australia gawk in amazement. ‘It only took sixty years to cover this thing in solid rock?’ Sixty years, with water carrying dissolved limestone dripping night and day onto an object, is actually an incredibly long time. It is our culture, soaked in the myth of ‘deep time’, that has indoctrinated us into the belief that a million years (an unimaginable time period, in reality) is only like ‘yesterday’. (16)


Wood can be petrified in a short period of time. Researchers sank a freshly felled log into a hot well containing plenty of minerals in Yellowstone Park. The tree was partially petrified in the course of a single year. This proves that quartz layers rich in minerals that are caused by a volcanic eruption can petrify buried trees in a very short time. Petrified wood is now industrially produced using a very fast process. It does not take millions of years. (17)


Many other specialities in nature are also such that do not take a long time even though people have thought so. Here are some examples:


- Stalactites can be generated in a couple of decades. There is a mine in northwest Queensland, Australia, with long stalactites. The mine was not opened until the 1920s so the stalactites must have been formed after that. It did not take a long time. (18)


- Opals are excavated from the ground. They are assumed to be tens of millions of years old and it is believed that it took a long time for them to be created. However, people have been able to grow opals at home in a matter of months. It does not take thousands or millions of years, or even pressure and heat. Grown opals cannot be distinguished from those excavated from the ground, not even with an electron microscope. (19)


- Diamonds have been thought to be millions of years old but a laboratory of high repute has dated diamonds (using the C-14) method at 58,000 years. (20)


WERE THE STRATA FORMED SLOWLY? One of the underlying basic assumptions in geological dating is that the strata were generated slowly over the course of hundreds of millions of years. People assume that the layers were gathered one on top of the next so that the lowermost strata can be tens or hundreds of millions of years older than the more recent ones on top.

   This view is based on thoughts of British geologist Charles Lyell voiced out in his books Principles of Geology (1833) and Element of Geology (1838). In these books, he describes his well-known principle of the present being a key to interpret the past. His principle states that strata have always been formed in the same way as now, as the result of slow processes. Thus, we can deduce what has happened in the past by studying the current geological processes. According to Lyell, there have occurred no major cataclysms in nature.

   But were the strata formed slowly? Several pieces of evidence contradict Charles Lyell’s idea that the layers were generated by slow processes. Below are some examples.


Long trunk fossils in strata contradict the notion that strata were formed slowly over a period of millions of years. Fossils of tree trunks extending through several strata have been found in different parts of the world.  An old photo taken at Saint-Etienne carbon mine (in France) shows how each of five separate fossilized trunks go through approximately ten strata or even more. Furthermore, a 24-metre tree trunk was found close to Edinburgh. It penetrates around a dozen layers, suggesting that the trunk was suddenly put into place. According to the evolutionary view, the strata should be millions of years old, yet all the trunks extend through them.

   The examples below point out just how problematic the old view of slow settling is. The trees must have been buried quickly or their fossils would no longer exist.


Thick trunks that have remained in an upright position pierce through dozens of meters of soil, indicating how quickly everything has happened. The strata cannot be a result of slow formation of peat, as the supporters of evolution claim. (21)


Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea, gives some examples of multi-layer fossil tree trunks in his book.

   “If we estimate that the total thickness of the British Carbon Measures mineral coal stratum is 1000 meters and if we assume that it was buried over the course of around ten million years, it would have taken 100,000 years for the ten-meter tall tree to be completely buried, assuming that the deposition took place at a constant speed. This is ludicrous.

   Alternatively, if the ten-metre tree was buried in the course of ten years, it would mean 1,000 kilometers in a million years or 10,000 kilometers in ten million years. This is just as ludicrous, and we cannot avoid the conclusion that the deposition sometimes took place very quickly... (22)


Fossils in strata. One of the most glaring pieces of evidence of a fast stratification of the strata is provided by the fossils found inside the layers of soil. The fossils found inside the strata can only have been generated by mud and silt slides that buried animals or plants very quickly. This also holds true for all tree trunk fossils.

   Actually, the presence of fossils indicates that a rapid burial has taken place; these plants and animals were buried under silt and soil, and then soon transformed into a fossil. If the plants or animals had not been buried quickly, then they would have decayed or been eaten by other animals.

   Thus, the fossils found these days only show that the stratum in which they were found must have formed over a short period of time – perhaps days or weeks -- not over millions of years. They were rapidly buried; otherwise, they could not have been fossilized. The process would not have been aided by the passage of millions of years.

   Many researchers now acknowledge that strata and fossils can only be formed through sudden catastrophes. They cannot be formed in any other way. The best explanation for the existence of strata formation that suddenly buries plants and animals is the Flood, as described in the Bible. The idea that the layers were gathered on top of each other over the course of a long time should be rejected.

   The comments below refer to this fast layering of the strata that leads to formation of fossils.


Vertebrate animals such as fishes, reptiles etc. decompose when their soft parts are removed. They must be buried quickly after death in order to avoid decay and being eaten by other animals. (James Dana, Manual of Geology, p. 141)


It is apparent that if the formation of strata were to take place at such a slow tempo, no fossils could be preserved, since they would not be buried under soil before being decomposed by water acids, or before being destroyed and broken into pieces by rubbing and hitting against the bottom of a shallow sea. They can be covered in sediment only in an accident in which they are buried quickly. (Geochronology or the Age of the Earth on grounds of Sediments and Life, Bulletin of the National Research Council No. 80, Washington D. C., 1931, p. 14)


A quote from a book called Maailman luonto refers to the same subject. The quote describes how the remains of large animals such as mammoths have been found in the ground in Siberia and Alaska, for example, all mixed together with different kinds of plants. It is difficult to explain such discoveries based on the slow processes Lyell taught us about. However, a global flood such as that described in the Bible, would be a good explanation. Large burial grounds of dinosaurs and horses as well as concentrations of millions of fish fossils are also well known. Such fossils cannot be formed under normal conditions; they can only occur if the animals are quickly buried in silt.


Of particular interest here is the fact that the permafrost in Alaska and in Siberia can include noticeable amounts of bones and meat, and half-rotted vegetation and other remains of the organic world. In some places, these add up to a notable part of the soil. A considerable part of the remains are from large animals, such as hairy rhinoceroses, giant lions, beavers, buffaloes, musk oxen, mammoths, and hairy elephants, which have become extinct. (...) That is why it is clear that the climate in Alaska was much warmer before it became frozen.


Human fossils and man-made items. We noted above that humanoid fossils have been found inside rock and in mineral coal strata (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115–116; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, pp. 36–39). Man-made items such as pots have also been found in strata classified as mineral coal. This proves that the layers cannot be tens- or hundreds of millions years old: they must have been generated in the recent past in terms of the geological time scale. Uuras Saarnivaara gives more examples:


Bones of humans that very closely resembled the modern man were found around 55 kilometres (34 miles) southeast of Moab, Utah. They were buried around 5 metres (16 feet) below the ground level. Around 1,5 meter (five feet) of the soil on top of them was hard rock. The stratum in which the bones were found was estimated to be at least 100 million years old. Scientists of the University of Utah studied the finding.

   (...) Human and mastodon bones were found around 7 metres (23 feet) deep near Menlo Park around 45 kilometres (28 miles) south of San Francisco in a stratum that has been classified as a late Miocenic or around two to three million years old.

   Two human skeletons were found in a copper mine about 57 kilometres (35 miles) from Moab, Utah, also in a stratum classified as Cretaceous.

   Human footprints were found in Antelope Springs, Utah, in a stratum of trilobites. Trilobites were crustaceans that, according to the theory of evolution, became extinct during the Palaeozoic Permian period more than 200 million years ago.

   (...) A gold chain was found in a mineral coal stratum in Morrisville, Illinois. The stratum was classified as Carboniferous, i.e. as 300 million years old.

   (...) A slate wall with unknown but probably alphabetic writing on it was found in a mineral coal mine in Hammondsville, Ohio. It was classified as Carboniferous, i.e. as 300 million years old. (23)


Thickness of the strata. One assumption is that the time required for a geological stratum to be generated is directly comparable with the maximum thickness of strata. Total thickness of all the strata calculated was around 80 kilometers (48 miles) in 1913, 130 kilometers (81 miles) in 1937 and 140 kilometers (87 miles) in 1955. It has been estimated that it took hundreds of millions of years for these layers to be accumulated.

   Darwin also stumbled across the idea of thick strata and their slow accumulation on top of each other. He wrote in his book The Origin of Species about what he thought of Lyell’s theories (p. 422): “He who can read Sir Charles Lyell's grand work on the Principles of Geology, which the future historian will recognise as having produced a revolution in natural science, yet does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this my volume.” Darwin also wrote in the Origin of Species about the thickness of the strata (p. 426). He mentioned the following about strata in Britain that are almost 22 kilometres (14 miles) thick:


Professor Ramsay has given me the following information - mostly being based on real measurements - about maximum thickness of formations, which are one on top of the other in different parts of Great Britain; and this is the result:
Palaeozoic strata (not including igneous beds) 57,154 feet

Secondary strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     13,190     ”

Tertiary strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       2,140     ”

making altogether 72,584 feet; that is, very nearly thirteen and three-quarters British miles [almost 22 kilometres].


The question is: how can we know of strata that are almost 100 kilometres (62 miles) thick or even the strata of almost 22 kilometres (14 miles) thick that Darwin mentioned? These figures are not based on any practical observations that could be visually detected; they are based on theoretical calculations and the thought of millions of years. The highly theoretical nature of these calculations is proven by the fact that the deepest hole drilled in 1909 was 2240 meters (7,349 feet) (Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 140), only a little over a tenth of the figure mentioned by Darwin. The deepest holes drilled in 1964 were only around 7,5 kilometers (4.7 miles) and the deepest hole in the late 1990s around 12 kilometers (7.5 miles). These are far from the figure mentioned by Darwin, not to mention the depth of more than 100 kilometers (62 miles).


No erosion. The fact that no erosion can be observed between the strata suggests that millions of years could not have been involved. This is because no signs of erosion have been found in global studies of different strata, not in the famous Grand Canyon or anywhere else. Quite the opposite: it seems that the layers are fairly uniform and they have gathered on top of each other without any pauses in between. The interfaces between strata should be more ragged and uneven if erosion had influenced them over a long period of time. This is not the case, however. For example, one rainstorm alone can make deep lines on the surface of stratum, not to mention being exposed to erosion for millions of years.

   The best explanation on how the strata were formed is that water influenced their generation in a short period of time. For example, a sandstone stratum of around one meter (three feet) can be formed in 30- to 60 minutes. Geologists themselves admit that floods and bodies of water are the best vehicles in forming strata.


But a particular area of interest for Dr Roth is the existence of ‘flat gaps’ or ‘paraconformities’ in the fossil record. What on earth (literally) are they? Consider the geological column in many text books, where many rock layers are supposed to have formed over billions of years. Dr Roth explains that in many places:

   ‘First, there are major gaps in the layers; rock layers that should be present are missing at these localities. Second, the layers below and above the gaps are flat.

   (…) So why is this a problem? First, he explains what we would expect if there really were millions of years between the two layers:

    ‘An outstanding feature of erosion is the highly irregular surface (topography) it creates as streams and rivers keep cutting deeper gullies, canyons, and valleys into the landscape. Even Australia, which tends to be very flat, has a lot of irregular topography in many areas. Erosion tends to produce highly irregular surfaces over most of our continents.’

   (…) But what do we find instead?

    ‘The problem these flat gaps especially pose for the long geologic ages is the lack of erosion of the underlayer expected at these gaps. Over the many millions of years postulated for these gaps, you would expect pronounced irregular erosion, and the gaps should not at all be flat.

  (…) Dr Roth explains further as:

    ‘The striking contrast between the flat pattern of the layers, especially the tops of the underlayers of the many paraconforities, compared to the eroded highly irregular topography of the present surface of the region, illustrates the problem these gaps pose for the long geologic ages. If the many millions of years had actually occurred, why are not the tops of the underlayers highly irregular as is the case for the present topography of the region? It looks like the millions of years suggested for the geologic column never occurred. Furthermore, if geologic time is missing in one locality, then it is missing around the whole earth.’ (24)


Quick formation of strata. Some practical observations in which layers were formed quickly contradict Charles Lyell’s idea that the strata have been generated slowly over the course of millions of years. For example, when Mount St. Helena erupted in 1980, a stratum that is almost 200 metres (670 feet) thick was formed in the space of only a couple of weeks. This did not take millions of years: layers of different types gathered on top of each other in just a matter of days. What is most peculiar is that a canyon in which water started to flow was formed in the same area later. This process did not take millions of years either, like the believers in the theory of evolution would assume: it took only a couple of weeks. One can assume that the Grand Canyon and other major natural formations have been generated by similar, fast processes.

   The island called Surtsey is another similar case. The island was formed when an underwater volcano erupted in 1963. New Scientist magazine described in January 2006 how canyons, ravines and other ground features appeared on the island in less than ten years. This did not take millions or even thousands of years:


“The canyons, ravines and other forms of the ground, which usually take tens of thousands or millions of years to form, have amazed geological researchers because they were created in less than ten years.” (25)


WHAT DO THE STRATA TELL US? The basic idea of geology is that strata stack one on top of another in a slow process. Geologists believe that this process takes millions of years, as was taught by Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin embraced Lyell’s ideas.

   The geological time scale depicting different eras, geological strata, and fossils found in each stratum, was based on the assumption that this slow formation of layers was true, as was the theory of evolution. The geological time scale and its index fossils play an important part in geological dating. [Index fossils: Forms of life which existed during limited periods of geologic time and thus are used as guides to the age of the rocks in which they are preserved.]

   But what do strata and the fossils held within them tell us? Evolution theorists believe that development and processes took place over the course of millions of years. We should not believe this because (1) we have evidence that such strata can be quickly formed, and (2) several renowned palaeontologists have admitted that fossil data proves that macroevolution is imaginary. Although no evidence to support it has been found, some people still want to believe that it is a fact.

   Some of the conclusions we can make based on what we now know about from strata and fossils are found below.


Deficiency of the strata. One observation one can make about all the strata around the world is that they are defective. The Geologic Time Scale (GTS) describes 12 (or 13) periods (layers). However, rarely do we find even three or four layers.

   The Grand Canyon is often used to illustrate the layers/periods of geological time. However, in the Grand Canyon we can find only five of the twelve most important strata (periods) described by the Geological Time Scale.  In regards to the Grand Canyon and other places around the world, the geological time scale is meaningless.


Strata in the wrong order. In addition to the number of layers being defective they are often found in the wrong order with old layers on top – even on mountain slopes. The example below, taken from a Finnish geology textbook, describes how old layers (the Triassic era “250–210 million years ago” and the Palaeozoic era “600–250 million years ago”) were found on Alpine slopes. According to the geological time scale, these layers should be found kilometers (miles) below the ground level, but this is not the case. This proves that the geologic time scale rests on a very shaky foundation. The writer describes fossils of marine animals and is using the geological time scale to determine the age of the fossils.


There is reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in the mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. If we were to scale the steep slopes of some mountain or peak – if we had the energy to climb up there – we would find fossilized remains of marine creatures. They are often badly damaged, but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them are spiral twisted ammonites and many bivalves. (…) The fossils in most strata of the Northern Lime Alps are those that are known to have lived during the early of the middle periods of life, i.e. during the Triassic period. (…) There are also strata older than the Triassic, i.e. Palaeozoic strata in the Alpine mountains. They are mostly beach strata, such as quartzite and pudding rock formed from sandstones. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (26)


One or several catastrophes? When reading literature about evolution, one often encounters the idea of destruction. The authors admit that the Earth has been ravished by a catastrophe or several catastrophes. The quote below is about how people believe the catastrophes took place.


Around 30 million years before the dinosaurs, life on the Earth had almost died out. The facts and numbers of the mass destruction that took place at the end of the Permic period are simply astounding. The extent of destruction makes the catastrophe that eradicated the dinosaurs 185 millions later seem like a tiny ripple in the pond. A total of 95% of all life on Earth was destroyed. Ecosystems were destroyed, and complete species, such as giant frogs and predatory reptiles, disappeared. There were even fewer insects. The devastation was even worse in the sea. Ancient sea lily and coral communities were wiped away, and the trilobites – which had flourished in the oceans of the world for millions of years – were destroyed.

   The problem faced by scientists trying to interpret this event is finding out what could have destroyed such a huge quantity of flora and fauna, both on land and in the water. (27)


The best explanation for the devastation described above is that a single event caused all of it. Since scientists interpret everything based on the geological time scale, they believe that the different species lived and were destroyed at different times. However, if the time scale is wrong (as it is), there is no reason to believe that several major catastrophes took place. All the species that were destroyed could have lived simultaneously on earth and thus also be simultaneously destroyed by a catastrophe. This is the most reasonable explanation.

   Furthermore, the most reasonable approach is to believe that the catastrophe in question was the Flood. There are plenty of signs about it in nature, but we will not go very deep into it in this writing. Instead, we will only study the subject by considering a few quotes. The first is from the “father of geology”, J. Hutton, who writes in his book about traces of marine fossils in layers of earth:


We have to conclude that all the layers of earth (...) were formed by sand and gravel that piled up on the seabed, crustacean shells and coral matter, soil and clay. (J. Hutton, The Theory of the Earth l, 26. 1785)


Another quote from 1938 is about petrified fish found on top of Mount Everest (the previous quote was about marine fossils that were found in the Alps):


There are bones of oxen and horses in the Himalayan glaciers. An ice slide starting at a glacier at the altitude of 5,000 metres (three miles) brought such bones with it.

   A large British expedition that almost reached the peak of Mount Everest found petrified fish lying on the mountain. (28)


The next quotes are about the Grand Canyon. The consensus is that it formed slowly over the course of millions of years. A more likely explanation, however, is that water formed the layers seen in the canyon. This is because there are clear signs of the beautiful area once having been flooded. Let’s study three quotes about this, the first of them from Finnish geologist Pentti Eskola:


Let’s keep in mind that the Colorado River is the second longest river in North America. It brings water from the Rocky Mountains, which get a lot of rainfall, and it carries on average a million tonnes of rock matter as silt each day. This is how much the river erodes its own bottom and sides. (...) There is only marine limestone with shells of clams and Brachiopods, crinoids as well as coral reefs in the topmost part of the path and on the ground to the south of the canyon. At that time at the end of the Palaeozoic era when the current strata of the Grand Canyon already existed, there was a vast and deep, clear sea over the area and there was no sign of the Colorado River. (29)


Professor G. M. Price has stated the following: “Clear and strong embankments high above the current water level can be found in all of the large rivers and streams of the world. These embankments prove that there has been a large flood that settled down and marked the shores of seas and the banks of streams in valleys and in highlands. Such embankments formed by water can be found up to the altitude of 2,000 feet on the shore of the Seine, the Rhone, the Mississippi and the Colorado. Such signs of a devastating flood can be found on the shores of the Mississippi River a mile or two above the current water level."

   Famous naturalist Cuvier has stated the following: “If geology has to offer any definite and infallible truth, it is that some major catastrophe took place on the earth 5,000 or 6,000 years ago.” (30)


American geologist Clifford L. Burdick did some practical studies of the Grand Canyon, the Bonita Canyon in Arizona and in other places. In his article, “Nature Tells the Truth,” he recorded these impressions:

   “When you drive along the hundreds of miles of Colorado upper plains in Northern Arizona with thousands of square miles of rock pointing to the same direction, you must truly be blind if you cannot see the signs of a major flood. What else could cause literally transverse layers that cover such huge areas and up to such a depth?” Signs of the Times, October 1957, p. 12 (31)


Stories about the Flood. It was mentioned above that there exist clear signs of a catastrophic event much like the Flood in nature. Scientists do admit that a catastrophe or several catastrophes have taken place but, motivated by their own ideologies, they have tried to provide other explanations.

   More evidence supporting the historical Flood event can be found in the traditions of different peoples. They describe similar events as the Bible: birds being sent out from the ark, a rainbow and devastation caused by water. Together, these sources provide strong evidence of a historic event:


Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic. (32)


Famous anthropologist Sir James Frazer has collected traditional lore on the Flood from a variety of remote locations, such as the Leeward Islands, Bengali, China and Malaysia. This terrifying event has been retained in the memory of peoples all around the world, including very primitive tribes. The stories agree on one issue: the Flood was a punishment for severe sins and only a few devout people were saved.

Titus Flavius Josephus is generally considered to be the most reliable historian of the classical period. He writes in his book Antiquities of the Jews: “The Armenian called the place (where Noah and his family exited the ark) the Apobaterion, the landing place.” (33)


Lenormant made the following statement in Beginning of History:

“We are able to prove that the story of the Flood is part of the universal traditions in all branches of the human family, and anything that is such definite and uniform in the tradition can surely not be considered an imaginary tale. It must be the memory of a true and terrifying event, an event that made such a huge impact on the first of the human race that even their descendents have not forgotten it.” (34)


The study of history has taken more than one wrong turn. Other errors were made when the site of human origin was changed from Mesopotamia to Africa, and when it was said that human development required millions of years (even though no data supports any such thing). There is much stronger evidence to support that humans were born in the Mesopotamian region in the Middle East, then spread from there to the rest of the world, and that this happened more recently -- not even many thousands of years ago.  Modern-day researchers have turned to telling tales and rejecting historical data by offering other explanations about where people came from, and about the Flood (cf. 2 Tim 4;3,4: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables).

William Dawson assures in Modern Science that he and other prominent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region must – from a geological perspective – have been the only place where people at first could live.

   Dr. Armstrong says the same in Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of the human kind? The learned pretty much disagree on this and on the question of racial integrity. The high regions giving birth to the Euphrates and the Tigris are considered to be the cradle of the human race. This is proven by many facts, such as the fact that the traditions of almost all tribes mention this part of the world as their original home. Furthermore, all of the types of grain used as human food originate here. Geological studies also lead to the same conclusion.” (35)


Did mammoths and dinosaurs live at separate times? If we dig up a fossil and study it, we cannot find any tag showing the time when the particular fossil was alive and walked the Earth. There is no way of discerning any such information from the fossil. This is self-evident to anyone holding a fossil. (The same applies to cave paintings: some scientists assume that they are tens of thousands of years old even though there can be found no signs of such age in the paintings themselves. In fact, these paintings may only be a couple of thousand years old.)

   Regardless of this, one of the basic assumptions of the theory of evolution is that these ages can be determined. Even though we cannot find any such information in fossils, many evolutionists claim to know when the fossils were alive (based on the so-called index fossil table). They believe that they have specific information as to the history of ammonites, trilobites, mammals and other life forms on the Earth, even though it is impossible to make such conclusions based on the fossils or the environment in which they were found.


“There is no man on this Earth who knows enough about rocks and fossils to be able to prove in any way that a specific type of fossil is truly essentially older or younger than another type. In other words, there is no-one who could truly prove that a trilobite from the Cambrian period is older than a dinosaur from the Cretaceous period or a mammal from the Tertiary period. Geology is anything but an exact science.” (36)


The same problem applies to fossils of mammoths and dinosaurs that are excavated from the ground. Many scientists assume that they lived at separate times and became extinct separately from each other but they cannot prove this. It was already noted before that both animal and human fossils as well as fossils of man-made items have been found in mineral carbon strata. If both findings have been well preserved and there is even some radiocarbon left in them, it is impossible to prove that the creatures did not exist at the same time.

   There is a simple reason why scientists believe they lived at different times: they are loyal to their geological time scale; it guides their views. They look at the time scale to see when animals lived; this is why they believe what they believe. They trust in the time scale even though many findings prove it false and full of conflicts.

   It is well justified to believe that both mammoths and dinosaurs lived at the same time, and that this time was not long ago – not millions of years ago. Below are some reasons why.


Well-preserved fossils of both mammoths and dinosaurs are often found. Soft tissue, blood cells, non-petrified bones, meat and skin have been found of them. Even a mummified dinosaur has been found just like mummified people have been found (a mummified human was found in the Alpine mountains in 1991).


A startling further proof of a major, sudden natural catastrophe once having occurred on Earth are the millions of mammoths and other large animals that were suddenly killed in the Northern Hemisphere (Northern Siberia and Alaska). Many of the animals have been completely preserved and unharmed (except for being dead, of course) with intact muscles and hair. In some cases, they have either stood on their knees or stood full upright with food still in their mouths. Their eyes and red blood cells have been very well preserved and water has only partially separated in their cells; this indicates very fast and permanent freezing. (37)


When Mary Schweitzer was five years old, she announced that she would become a dinosaur researcher. Her dream came true, and at the age of 38, she was able to study an almost perfectly preserved skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus Rex, found in Montana in 1998 (Journal of American Medical Association, 17 Nov. 1993, Vol. 270, No 19, pp. 2376–2377). The age of the skeleton was estimated at "80 million years." As many as 90% of the bones were found, and they were still intact. Schweitzer specializes in tissue research and calls herself a molecular palaeontologist. She selected the thighbones and shinbones of the finding and decided to examine the bone marrow. Schweitzer observed that the bone marrow had not been fossilized and that it had been unbelievably well preserved. The bone was completely organic and extremely well preserved. Schweitzer studied it with a microscope and noticed curious structures. They were small and circular and had a nucleus, just like the red blood cells in a vein. But the blood cells should have disappeared from the dinosaur bones ages ago. "I got goose pimples, it was as if I was studying a modern bone sample,” says Schweitzer. "Naturally, I was unable to believe what I saw and I told the laboratory technician: “These bones are 65 million years old, how can the blood cells have been preserved for so long?” (Science, July 1993, Vol. 261, pp. 160–163). What is significant with this finding is that not all of the bones had been completely fossilized. Gayle Callis, a specialist researcher of bones, showed the bone samples in a scientific meeting where a pathologist incidentally saw them. The pathologist remarked, "Did you know that there are blood cells in this bone?"  This led to a remarkable thriller. Mary Schweitzer showed the sample to Jack Horner, a famous researcher of dinosaurs, who looked at the sample and said, "So you think that there are blood cells in it?", to which Schweitzer replied, "No, I don't."  "Well then, just try and prove that they are not blood cells,” Horner replied (earth, 1997, June: 55–57, Schweitzer et al., The Real Jurassic Park). Jack Horner presumes that the bones are so thick that water and oxygen have been unable to affect them. (38)


Traditions. It is a well-known fact that there are cave paintings depicting mammoths. This means that the creatures lived at the same time as people.

   There are just as compelling grounds for believing that people and dinosaurs lived at the same time because there are several indications to that effect in traditions of different peoples. The older the descriptions, the more realistic they are. They do not call the creatures dinosaurs, though; instead, they call them dragons. The name “dinosaur” was not invented until in the 1840s, long after these stories.

   One peculiar fact is that one of the leading palaeontologists of the world, Stephen Jay Gould, stated that there are descriptions of dinosaurs in the Book of Job (Job 40, 41) but assumed that the people of Job's times got their idea from dinosaur fossils (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987).

   Finnish geologist Pentti Eskola, on the other hand, states in the quote below that the descriptions of dragons are reminiscent of dinosaurs. The World Book Encyclopedia notes the same:


The varying forms of lizard-like animals seem so funny to us because many of them resemble – in a distant and often caricature-like way – modern mammals living under similar conditions. However, most dinosaurs were so very different from the modern life forms that the nearest analogues can be found in the depictions of dragons in legends. Strangely enough, the authors of the legends had naturally not studied petrifactions or even knew of them. (39)


The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology. (The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265)


Mammoths and dinosaurs buried in silt. It was mentioned above that plenty of remains of mammoths and other large animals have been found in Siberia and Alaska, buried together with plants. Some scientists have even talked about millions of mammoth fossils.

   There is clear evidence suggesting that dinosaurs were also buried in silt in the same way. One piece of evidence proving this is the large dinosaur burial grounds and the fact that their fossils can be found inside hard rock. The only way fossils inside rock could have formed, is that dinosaurs were quickly covered in mud and silt that then hardened around them as rock. This is not a question of any slow process that takes millennia; apparently, it all happened in a matter of hours or days. This could have occurred during an event like the Flood. It is the most probable explanation for the destruction of both species and the destruction some scientists have assumed to have occurred during earlier eras. (The quote below suggests that swirling water could have gathered dinosaur bones into heaps. The bold face has been added to the quotes to make the point clear.)


He went to the deserts of South Dakota, where there are bright-colored red, yellow, and orange cliffs and rocks. Already in a few days, he found from the cliff some bones he assumed to be what he had gone to search for. When he dug the rock around the bones, he noted that the bones were the skeleton of an animal. They were not together, as the bones of dinosaurs often are. Many of these piles seemed as if created by a powerful whirl of water.

   These bones were now in blue sandstone that is very hard. The sandstone had to be removed by a road scraper and loosened by explosives. Brown and his assistants made a hole of almost seven and a half meters deep to get the bones out. Getting one large skeleton out took them two summers. By no means did they remove the bones from stone. They transported these blocks of stone by train into the museum where the scientists were able to chip the stone material away and set up the skeleton. This tyrant lizard now stands in the exhibition hall of the museum. (40)






1. Juhani Kakkuri: Muuttuva maa, p. 95

2. Adrian Lister / Paul Bahn: Mammutit, jääkauden jättiläiset (Mammoths, Giants of the Ice Age), p. 37,56,57

3. Ruth Wheeler / Harold G. Goffin: Dinosaurus (Dinosaurs), p. 33

4. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 12-14

5. Kimmo Pälikkö / Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 124,125

6. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 114

7. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 11

8. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 179, 224

9. Wiljam Aittala: Kaikkeuden sanoma, p. 198

10. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92

11. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 226

12. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 301

13. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 132

14. Kimmo Pälikkö / Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 127

15. Uuras Saarnivaara: Kaikkeuden synty, p. 146

16. Carl Wieland: The earth: how old does it look? Creation 23(1):8–13, ,

17. Kimmo Pälikkö / Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 122

18. Luominen, numero 1, p. 25

19. Luominen, numero 1, p. 32-35

20. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 245

21. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 124,125

22. Creation 29(3):54–55,, , ,  / quote from: Ager, D.V., The New Catastrophism, Cambridge University Press, p. 49, 1993

23. Uuras Saarnivaara: Voiko Raamattuun luottaa, p. 175-177

24. Millions of years are missing, Jonathan Sarfati interviews biologist and geologist Ariel Roth, Creation 31(2):46–49, ,

25. Pearce, F., The Fire-eater’s island, New Scientist 189 (2536): 48-49, 18 January 2006

26. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 236,237

27. Tim Haines: Matkalla dinosaurusten kanssa (Walking with dinosaurs), p. 28

28. Raamatullinen aikakauskirja, p. 17

29. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 26,30

30. Toivo Seljavaara: Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen?, p. 13

31. Wiljam Aittala: Kaikkeuden sanoma, p. 198

32. Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo, p. 78

33. Richard Wurmbrandt: Miksi uskon (The Answer to Moscow’s Bible), p. 52

34. Toivo Seljavaara: Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen?, p. 5

35. Sidney Collett: Totuuden kirja (The Scripture of Truth), p. 175

36. George Mc Cready Price: New Geology, lainaus A.M Rehnwinkelin kirjasta Flood, p. 267, 278

37. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus (The Collapse of Evolution), p. 52

38. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 114,115

39. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 366

40. Ruth Wheeler / Harold G. Coffin: Dinosaurus (Dinosaurs), p. 72





More on this topic:


When did the Dinosaurs Live? Learn why dinosaurs lived in the recent past, at the same time as humans. Millions of years are easy to question in light of the evidence


Fictional History - Why millions of years are not true? Scientists are ignorant of the early stages of the universe and life, as well as their age. There are good reasons why millions and billions of years are fables


Is the Earth old or young? Is the earth and life billions of years old or not? Learn how the evidence does not support atheistic birth theories or long periods of time


How does the eye see? - Do we see things as they are or as they were? We are told that we see from space and stars only past, not the present. However, this view is easy to question


How old is it, that is, the age of the earth and life on earth? Dozens of facts point to millions of years as lies











Jesus is the way, the truth and the life





Grap to eternal life!


More on this topic:


When did the Dinosaurs Live? Learn why dinosaurs lived in the recent past, at the same time as humans. Millions of years are easy to question in light of the evidence


Fictional History - Why millions of years are not true? Scientists are ignorant of the early stages of the universe and life, as well as their age. There are good reasons why millions and billions of years are fables


Is the Earth old or young? Is the earth and life billions of years old or not? Learn how the evidence does not support atheistic birth theories or long periods of time


How does the eye see? - Do we see things as they are or as they were? We are told that we see from space and stars only past, not the present. However, this view is easy to question


How old is it, that is, the age of the earth and life on earth? Dozens of facts point to millions of years as lies