It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The biggest out of place artifacts ever?!?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by nighthawk1954

You're an idiot. There are no abnormally giant trees pictured in any of those links. Don't bother replying if you don't know what you are babbling on about.

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 11:39 AM


What I don't get is how these "finds" would support a biblical world view...

What makes you think Creationists peddling this nonsense have any interest in logic or reason?

Obviously these hills are trees therefore obviously this proves the world was created in 4004BC. QED.

If you disagree you are questining God ....

btw I think this should be in the hoax forum - unless someone can provide any evidence, however tenuous, that the Black Hills of South Dakota are not made of granite (or associated rocks) and are instead the petrified remains of monster trees?

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 11:11 PM
nice pos, OP! I was just describing pre-flood earth to a friend and he mentioned developers found a tree that was not fossilized due to swampiness that was 40 ft diameter here in the states (sorry, no link, but he is a contractor and knew of this--no one could explain it either.)

Scientist Dr. Baugh's explanation of the pre-flood earth as having more oxygen and more electro-magnetism means that EVERYTHING was much bigger: people, dragon flies (fossil record shows 3 ft. wing spans), plants, animals, etc...

pre-flood creation was also more diverse.

Many proofs for Creation model: Grand Canyon erosion, coal easily formed in months, radiometric dating flawed (assumes constant rate of decay and requires lab setting vacuum,), traces of microscopic radioactive decay (Polonium 214) that normally is fleeting suggest granite created very rapidly, fossil record, etc

youtube: The Young Age of the Earth - by Dr. Robert V. Gentry

also see former professor of evolution and scientist Dr. Walter Veith (had access to one of the largest libraries on evolution in the world--he was an atheist before converting) on Fossil record.

His presentation on DNA complexity also compelling. Even non-Christian scientists are having to admit that the profound complexity of even a single cell precludes evolution. The creation has been complex from the beginning and it tends to diversify, not evolve. Any changes to complex chain of DNA is destructive.
edit on 22-9-2013 by Verum1quaere because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2013 by Verum1quaere because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2013 by Verum1quaere because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 12:08 AM
reply to post by Verum1quaere

I would love to see proof of this 40 ft. diameter tree found in a swamp...wouldn't the tree have decayed away? Or was it perhaps preserved like a "bog body" would have been? I"m not saying this is impossible, and I understand that its just a story you heard from someone else, but you mentioned it so you should provide some other source of this "evidence". If something like that was found, I'd think it would have been in the news at least as at least being something that is cool.

I wouldn't cite Dr. Baugh as being a good source of nearly anything. He refuses to cooperate with mainstream scientists. He just wants to further his own creationist agenda. He continues to promote the London Hammer as being a pre-flood artifact, while refusing to allow scientists to carbon-date the wooden (non fossilized at all!) handle. The "out-of-place" artifact is easily explained by conventional geologic processes. I"m not going to go into further detail here though, since this thread is not about the hammer or Dr. Baugh.

I like to think I have an open mind, though I am as susceptible as anyone else to being biased to what I believe or don't believe in. I would like to see your evidence of the Grand Canyon's creation by erosion being a proof for a creationist reality? I also fail to see how coal being able to be formed in a few months, under laboratory conditions, proves the young Earth creationist theory. Just because the coal didn't have to take a million years to form doesn't mean the Earth is only a few thousand years old. That'd be like saying my mom can't be older than 29 years old because I'm 29...

ANYWAYS, to the OP...
I live in SE Montana, and we have formations such as those pictured in this region of Montana, I can specifically thing of similar rock outcroppings south of Bozeman, Montana. If I had more time I'd go up to where these supposed trees are, but alas right now I don't, being preoccupied with school and such.
All I really have to add is that they look like normal rock outcroppings to me.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in