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 periods. At that time, the continents formed a single supercontinent, Pangaea. The climate was dry and cold in the beginning of this era but started to warm midway through the period. Drought was striking, especially in the interior 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 paragraph 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 finds 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 finds possible? How can there be mammoths in layers that are commonly thought to be ancient? Why are such finds made? There is a clear contradiction. Such finds should be impossible.

Or, could it be that the birth of mineral coal, oil and amber are fairly recent thing, 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 finds 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 find was in California:

Mammoth remains are by no means rare. Over the centuries, they have been found on four continents in many different places: the frozen expanses of Siberia and Alaska, the asphalt pits of Los Angeles, the bottom sediments of the North Sea, gravel pits, caves and coal mines. The condition of the remains has varied considerably – some are almost perfect specimens that have preserved fur, skin, flesh, blood and internal organs, whereas others have been mere pieces of teeth and bones.

...Mammoths have also survived in California, in the middle of what is now downtown Los Angeles. 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 find – 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 finds 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 sardines 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, finds similar to the mammoth finds 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 remained for a period of 50,000 years and yet such finds 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 finds prove that the geological time chart 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? When it comes to carbon formation, the usual perception has been that it has required millions of years of processes. 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. Therefore, coal such as oil is considered a non-renewable resource. They have not been found to form even in tropical countries, even though the conditions there should be favorable. On the contrary, plants quickly rot there, and no oil or carbon is formed from them.

However, when it comes to carbon formation, it hasn't had to last long. 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 theories of evolution 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 1907 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. When the bias has been "slow and gradual development", it is clear that this has prevented the most obvious explanation for the origin of coal, i.e. that a huge natural upheaval caused by water has quickly buried the torn up plants.

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 can be 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 penetrating through 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 finds 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; topsy-turvy. 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 birth of mineral coal. Most scientists admit that water plays a part in the birth 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 the forests were buried in the sludge for some reason, coal deposits were create. 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 coal deposits of the Earth were created 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 created 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)

Other quotes point in the same direction. They show how there are fossils from the sea among the mineral coal deposits and how the deposits were stratified by water. The existence of marine fossils and fish in the strata proves that such strata could not have formed slowly in a specific marshland. Instead, a better explanation is that the water has transported the plants to the places where the mineral coal has formed. The water has uprooted the plants and trees, piled them into large heaps, and brought sea animals among the land plants. This is only possible in a large flood, such as the Flood, mentioned in the Bible.

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)

It is taught in schools that carbon is gradually created from peat, although nowhere can it be observed that this is happening. Considering the extent of the coalfields, the different plant types, and the upright multi-layered trunks, it appears that the coal deposits were formed by huge drifting rafts of vegetation, during a very large flood. Corridors carved by marine organisms are also found in these carbonized plant fossils. Fossils of marine animals have also been found in coal deposits ("A note on the Occurrence of Marine Animal Remains in a Lancashire Coal Ball", Geological Magazine, 118:307,1981)... Considerable sea animal shell deposits and fossils of Spirorbis, which lived in the sea, can also be found in coal deposits. (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 that the carbonisation took place quickly (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 chart. He considers the carbon in the Devonian strata to be at least a thousand times younger than the age noted in the geological time chart. 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 hundreds of thousands 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 emerged? It is for the same reason that crude oil was emerged and why it is no longer emerged. 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? Above, the emergence of coal and oil was discussed. It was found that they may have been formed in rapid processes, and that it only needs to be a few thousand years since they were born. Only a geological time chart with millions of years requires long periods of time, but practical evidence shows the opposite. In nature, several other processes can also be observed that have been thought to require long periods of time, but which, in reality, may have occurred in a few decades or even weeks and days. Here are some examples.

Glaciers. It has been a common belief that glaciers in Greenland and elsewhere have emerged over hundreds of thousands of years. This is based on the belief that the ice layers would have formed in much the same way as the annual rings of trees, i.e. the frozen beds have been interpreted as annual beds. A much better explanation for the layers, however, is that they are based on weather variations (e.g. rising temperatures above zero in winter) and new snowfalls. The same phenomenon can be observed by anyone who sees the inside of snow banks that get dissected by snow ploughs. There are clear stripes on the roadsides, which indicate changes in the weather. 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)

It can also be seen in practice that the current climate in the Arctic does not have to be ancient. For in Greenland it has been possible to observe how aircraft left in Greenland during the Second World War have been covered in ice up to 40-100 metres deep in less than 60 years. This figure translates into almost 1-2 meters (1 to 2 yards) per year. Similarly, in Antarctica, a 17-meter antenna has been observed to be covered in ice in as little as 30 years, which is quite fast.

Even the current rainfall is already enough to explain the accumulation of the glacier in a fairly fast time. For when e.g. In Greenland, 400 millimetres (15.7 inch) of rain falls a year, which, when converted into snow, does many times more, already accumulates a lot of it, even if part of it were to melt. Thus, no periods of hundreds of thousands of years are required for the accumulation of the glacier.

American Fighters Defrosted in Greenland

A pilot-journalist Dieter Herrmann from 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 machines 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. The planes that lost the Allied during the war are now covered by a layer of eternal snow and ice that has already grown to almost a hundred meters.

(…) 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. Today, the P-38 in question has been restored and flies at aviation shows around the world under the name Glacier Girl.(Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 14 January 2007)

Petrifactions. 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. "So did it only take 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 immersed a fresh log in a hot, mineral-rich spring 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. Millions of years are not needed for this. (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 their formation is thought to have required long periods of time. However, people have been able to grow opals at home in a matter of months. It doesn't 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 prestigious dating laboratory has measured a diamond to be 58,000 years old (using the C-14 method). (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 expressed his well-known principle, how the present is the key to the events of the past. His principle states that strata have always been formed in the same way as now, as the result of slow processes. By observing geological events now, one can conclude what has been in the past. There have been no major upheavals in nature, according to Lyell.

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 tree 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 more than ten layers, suggesting that the tree trunk has quickly buried. According to the evolutionary view, the strata should be millions of years old, yet all the trunks extend through them.

How problematic it is to hold on to slow stratification over millions of years is shown by the following examples. The trees must have been quickly buried, otherwise their fossils today could not exist.

Thick trunks that have remained in an upright position are bursting through layers tens of meters thick, showing how quickly everything has happened. The strata cannot be a result of slow formation of peat, as the supporters of evolution claim. (21)

Educated in strict Lyell's uniformitarianism, Derek ager, professor emeritus of geology at Swansea University College, describes some multilayer fossil tree trunks in his book with examples. "If the total thickness of the British Coal Measures' coal deposit is estimated at 1000 meters, and that it would have formed in about 10 million years, then the burial of a 10-metre-long tree would have taken 100,000 years, assuming that the stratification occurred at a constant rate. That would be ridiculous. Alternatively, if a tree 10 metres long had been buried in 10 years, this would mean 1000 kilometres in a million years or 10 000 kilometres in 10 million years. This is just as ridiculous, and we cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that stratification has indeed happened very quickly at times... (22)

Fossils in strata. One clear evidence of the rapid stratification of the soil layers is the fossils in them. For when there are fossils in the deposits, their origin can only be explained by the fact that avalanches of mud have buried an animal or plant very quickly. This also applies to all tree trunk fossils.

In fact, whenever we meet fossils, they testify to the fact that some plant or animal has very quickly been buried under mud and earth masses and then soon turned into a fossil. If the burial had not taken place, the animals and plants would otherwise have quickly rotted or would have been eaten by other animals.

Thus, when we meet fossils today, they only testify to the fact that the deposits where they are found must have arisen in a short moment, in just a few days and weeks, and not over millions of years. They were rapidly buried in the strata, because otherwise no fossils could have remained of them. Millions of years would not help their emergence at all.

Many scientists themselves admit that several deposits and fossils are best explained through rapid disasters. Otherwise, fossils cannot arise. This kind of mud deposits around plants and animals can best be explained by a devastating flood, such as the Flood mentioned in the Bible. The following comments suggest the rapid accumulation of strata so that fossils could have emerged. Perceptions that strata would have arisen as a result of long processes should be rejected:

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 evident that if the formation of deposits were to take place at such a slow pace, no fossils might preserve, since they would not be buried in sediments before decomposition by the acids of the water, or before they would be destroyed and shattered into pieces as they rubbed and struck the bottom of the shallow seas. They can only become covered in sediments in an accident, where they are suddenly buried. (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 fish deposits with 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 dams 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 find.

(...) 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. This stratum is estimated to be from the Carboniferous period about 300 million years ago. (23)

(...) A slate wall with unknown but probably alphabetic writing on it was found in a mineral coal mine in Hammondsville, Ohio. It is estimated to be from the Carboniferous period about 300 million years ago. (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 On the Origin of Species about what he thought of Lyell’s theories (p. 422): "Whoever does not admit the infinite length of the elapsed epochs after reading Sir Charles Lyell's magnificent work 'Principles of Geology' – which future historians will surely recognize as having brought about a revolution in the field of the natural sciences – he would do well to set aside this book of mine at once". Darwin also wrote in his book On 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 the strata of almost 22 kilometres (14 miles) thick that Darwin mentioned? These figures are not based on any practical observations that could be seen with the eyes; they are based on theoretical calculations and the thought of millions of years. The 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 absence of erosion between soil layers suggests that it cannot be a matter of periods of millions of years. Because when different strata have been studied worldwide, no signs of erosion can be found between them, neither in the famous Grand Canyon nor anywhere else. On the contrary, it seems that the layers are fairly uniform and that they have formed one on top of the other without breaks. The layer interfaces should be more jagged and uneven everywhere if erosion had affected them over long periods of time, but this is not the case. For example, one heavy rain alone can make deep grooves in the surfaces of deposits, 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 metre-thick sandstone deposit can be formed in 30 – 60 minutes. Geologists themselves admit that the best way to create deposits is through floods and water.

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.

On the basis of slow stratification and the idea of evolution, the so-called geological time chart has also been drawn up. It should describe different periods of the world, geological strata as well as fossils in them. This table and index fossils based on it are the main method in geological age determination. [Index fossils: Forms of life which existed during limited period of geologic time and were widespread]

But what do the strata and the fossils in them tell us? Evolution theorists believe in the development and processes of millions of years, but it is not worth believing in them, because there is evidence for the rapid formation of strata, and because several well-known paleontologists have admitted that the fossil material proves macroevolution as wishful thinking. No evidence has been found for that, although some people want to believe so. Instead, from strata and the fossils in them can be deduced e.g. the following points.

Deficiency of the strata. An observation that can be made of all sets of strata around the world is that they are deficient. It is rare if even three or four strata of twelve (or thirteen) overlap. From the famous Grand Canyon, which has often been used as an observational example, only five of the twelve most important layers have been found. The geological time chart there, as elsewhere, is incomplete and does not correspond to the picture that is presented in the books.

The layers are in the wrong order. In addition to the fact that the layers are incomplete, they are often in the wrong order, so that the old layers are on top, even on the slopes of the mountains. The following example from a Finnish geologist's book shows how old layers (the Triassic period "250-210 million years ago" and the Paleozoic period "600-250 million years ago") are on the slopes of the Alps. According to the geological time chart, these layers should be kilometers deep inside the earth, but they are not. This proves that the geologic time chart rests on a very shaky foundation. The quote is about marine animal fossils. The author determines their age based on the geological time chart.

There is a reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in 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. When we look at the rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain - if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. 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 there are spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of double-shelled clams. (…) 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 riparian deposits, such as quartzites and conglomerates 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 a catastrophe or several catastrophes has befallen the earth. 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. Insects also became rare. 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 find out what could have destroyed such a huge number of plants and animals both on land and in the sea. (27)

A better explanation for the previous destructions is that they all mean one and the same event. When scientists interpret everything according to the geological time chart, they believe that different species lived and perished at different times, but if this time chart is wrong (as it is), there is no reason to believe in several different great catastrophes. All extinct species could have been on earth at the same time and also perished in the same catastrophe. This is the most reasonable explanation.

In addition, it is most reasonable to believe that the cause of the disaster was water, i.e. the Flood. There are plenty of signs of this in nature, which will not be discussed in depth here. We explore the topic only through a few quotes. In the first of them, James Hutton, referred to as the "father of geology", writes in his book how remains of marine fossils can be seen in the layers of the 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):

In the glaciers of the Himalayas there are bones of oxen and horses. An avalanche of ice that originated on a glacier at an altitude of 5000 metres brought such bones. A large English expedition, reaching almost the top of Mount Everest, discovered petrified fish at these heights lying on the mountain. (28)

The following quotes relate to the Grand Canyon. It is commonly believed that it has formed slowly over millions of years, but a better explanation is that water has formed the deposits in it. This is evident from the fact that in this beautiful area there are clear signs of being flooded by water. Three quotes tell about the topic, the first of which is from the 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 and in it the shells of clams and brachiopods, sea lilies 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 bear witness to a great flood, which, when it descended, thus marked the shores of the seas and the edges of the streams, both in the valleys and in the 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. These 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)

The American geologist Clifford L. Burdick has carried out practical studies, e.g. in the famous Grand Canyon and in Arizona, Bonita Canyon. When talking about his impressions in an article called "Nature Tells the Truth", he says, for example:

“When you drive along hundreds of miles of the Colorado upper plains in northern Arizona, where there are thousands of square miles of unidirectional rock, you really have to be blind not to see the message of a great universal flood. What else could cause literally transverse layers that cover such huge areas of the earth's crust and to such a depth?” Signs of the Times, Oct. 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 they have tried to find other explanations for it because of their worldview.

More evidence in favor of the Flood can be found in the traditions and narratives of the peoples. They tell of similar things to the Bible, i.e. sending birds out of the ark, the rainbow and how water was the cause of the destruction. 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 says in his book "Beginning of History":

"We have the opportunity to prove that the story of the Flood is a universal tradition in all branches of the human family, and such a certain and uniform tradition as this cannot be considered an imagined fable. It must be the memory of a true and terrifying event, an event that made such a strong impression on the minds of the first parents of the human family that even their descendents could never forget it. (34)

The fact that the original home of man has been moved to Africa is also an indication of how the study of modern history has gone astray. There has been talk of millions of years, but real historical information does not point to anything like that. On the other hand, there is much better evidence for the fact that people originally lived in the region of the Mesopotamian in the Middle East and spread from there to the rest of the world, and it has not been many thousands of years. Modern scientists have turned to fables and rejected the historical data, when they offer other explanations for the origin of man and the signs of 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 asserts in his book Modern Science that he and other eminent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region, geologically speaking, must have been the only place where man could have lived in the beginning.

Dr. Armstrong says much the same in his book Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of mankind? On this, as well as on the question of racial unity, scholars are more or less in agreement. The high altitude regions where the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris are located are considered to have been the cradle of mankind. This is proven by many facts, e.g. the fact that the genealogies of almost all tribes mention this corner of the world as their original home. In addition, all the grain species used for human consumption in the world come from there. And geological studies also lead to the same result. (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 in hand. (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)

When fossils are dug out of the ground, the same problem applies to mammoth and dinosaur fossils. Many researchers assume that they lived at a completely different time and died out at a different time, but they cannot prove that (it was already stated earlier how fossils of both, such as human fossils and man-made items, have been found in carbon strata). For if both finds are well-preserved and even have radiocarbon left, it is impossible to prove that the creatures did not exist at the same time.

However, the reason why scientists believe these animals lived at a different time on Earth is simple: they stick to the geological time chart that guides their views. They look at the chart to see when these animals lived and that is the reason for their beliefs. They rely on the time chart, even though many discoveries have shown it to be false and contradictory.

However, it is reasonable to believe that both mammoths and dinosaurs lived at the same time and even in the recent history of the earth, not millions of years ago. Here are a few 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 the separation of water in the cells is only partial, which indicates an extremely 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 find 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 blood vessel. But the blood cells should have disappeared from the dinosaur bones ages ago. "My skin got goosebumps, like I was looking at a modern piece of bone," says Schweitzer. "Of course I couldn't believe what I was seeing and I said to the lab technician: 'These bones are 65 million years old, how could the blood cells survive that long?'" (Science, July 1993, Vol. 261, pp. 160–163). What is significant with this find 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 has been added to the quotes to make the point clear.)

He went to the deserts of South Dakota, where there are brightly colored red, yellow and orange rock walls and boulders. Within a few days he found some bones in the rock wall, which he estimated to be the kind he had set out to find. When he dug rock around the bones, he found that the bones were in the order of the structure of the animal. They weren't in a heap like dinosaur bones often are. Many such heaps were as if made by a powerful whirl of water.

Now these bones were in the blue sandstone, which is very hard. The sandstone had to be removed with a grader and removed by blasting. Brown and his sidekicks made a pit almost seven and a half meters deep to get the bones out. Removing one large skeleton took them two summers. They by no means removed the bones from the stone. They transported the boulders by rail to 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)

REFERENCES:

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, http://creation.com/a/0373 , http://creation.com/the-earth-how-old-does-it-look

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, http://creation.com/a/5894, http://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth , http://creation.com/a/9501 , http://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth-finnish / 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, http://creation.com/a/7441 , http://creation.com/ariel-roth-interview-flat-gaps

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