It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It has been estimated by evolutionary anthropologists that the earth could have easily supported 10 million hunter/gatherer type humans. To maintain an average of 10 million people, spread over the entire planet, with an average life span of 25 years, for the last 100,000 years . . . .would mean that 40 billion people had lived and died. Archeological evidence clearly shows that these "stone age" people buried their dead. Forty billion graves should be easy to find. Yet only a few thousand exist. The obvious implication is that people have been around for far less time.
How truly sad that a person could look at that evidence of the great worldwide flood that the Bible tells us about, and to walk away from it spouting a fairy tale about great ages of the earth.
Originally posted by melatonin
Heh, Hovind is the ultimate creationist. Daft as a brush, and one of the most intellectually disabled out there.
He has a good well-learned patter in debates. But it's basically a gish-gallop - spout as many BS arguments in as short a time as possible. The opponent would have to take a day to adequately take apart each segment. Which is why it's better to assess it in writing. Easily shown to be specious.
[Is it a coincidence that a non-creationist found the correct forum for this stuff?]
Two people can often look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. The Grand Canyon is a perfect example. Evolutionists use it as proof that the earth is billions of years old, claiming that the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years. Bible-believing Christians interpret the canyon as a spillway from Noah's Flood. One believes it formed slowly, with a little water and a lot of time. The other believes it formed quickly, with a lot of water and a little time. What a stark difference.
If the Bible is true, and the earth is only about six thousand years old, we should find evidence that debunks the evolutionist theory about the Grand Canyon. We do. For example, the top of Grand Canyon is over four thousand feet higher than where the Colorado River enters the canyon, meaning it would have had to flow uphill for millions of years. Additionally, in contrast to all other rivers, we do not find a delta (a place where washed-out mud is deposited). This alone makes the evolutionist interpretation impossible.
The evidence does, however, point to Noah's Flood. Today, we see two beach lines from what used to be two large lakes near the Grand Canyon. Creationists believe that after Noah's Flood, the lakes got too full and spilled over the top. When water overflows a dam, the weakest point is instantly eroded. Thus, the Grand Caynon would have been formed quickly, supporting the creationist interpretation.
So, which interpretation is right? Knowing that rivers don't flow uphill and no leftover sedimentary deposits are found, evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the Grand Canyon. The Bible, however, says that a flood covered the whole earth (see Genesis 7:18-20). This means we should find places where the water drained. The Grand Canyon is one of those places. It is a washed-out spillway and provides great evidence for Noah's Flood.
Originally posted by Clearskies
If the Flood filled the area of the canyon, and the waters receded, it would MAKE a river.
Here's a site I enjoyed;
www.grandcanyonflood.com..."" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Grand canyon
Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Does Hovind actually have any real credentials or is he just writing all this crap based on faith
Oh, looks like they wont let real scientists write on this site :shk:
Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by OzWeatherman
yeah thats true cos he said so...i have no scientific background of my own i just read it so its true..... cobblers
both sides should be taught and let people make up there own mind