We discover the planets and moons of our Solar System are all obviously young when the evidence from Pioneer and Cassini and Hubble and all the other space missions reveal the up-close-and-personal nature of our planetary neighbors. Scientists begin making up fables. We put reflectors on the Moon so we can measure the Moon's recession accurately and find that the Moon could not be ancient. Scientists sputter and move on. We determine that the nebular hypothesis does not work, that comets are too young to be millions of years old, that the sedimentary rock layers were formed by catastrophic activities and not long ages, that organisms are obviously designed...yadda yadda yadda.
Secular science buries the truth in the backyard and comes out front with another fantastic story. The latest one about bacteria made me say:
Darwinist Science is so stupid....How stupid is it? They are so stupid they find living bacteria in "86-million year old clay" and pretend the bacteria are in suspended animation and unfathomably old. DUH, did you ever think maybe they were buried in the FLOOD and were only a few thousand years old?!!! Bacteria are tough, but DNA and living matter cannot survive one million years, let alone 86 million!!!
So let us
The first article below this essay is typical Darwinist propaganda. Here is the evidence = there is a place where sediment and, well, ANYTHING else is unlikely to make its way down to settle in. That place is the Pacific Gyre. So researchers take core samples of the area and find bacteria buried in the clay sediments. Since we know that there is a great deal of evidence for a global flood about 4,000 years ago, it makes sense that the bacteria colony was laid down in this place at that time and have subsisted on what is available within the sediments for that time period. This makes sense. But Darwinists? They give us stuff like this! Here is a quote from the article...
"Roy can't say exactly how old the individual bacteria he studies are. They may have been reproducing extremely slowly since the time of the dinosaurs. Or the individuals could be millions of years old, rebuilding themselves just fast enough to repair the inevitable damage of aging."
There have been many movies devoted to the mummy-comes-to-life idea. Hollywood recycles stories all the time. So way back in 1932 we had Boris Karloff, more recently (1999) Brendan Fraser starred in another "The Mummy." That one has had two sequels so far and a third "in production" as they like to say when it isn't certain to be made.
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."
When you read the articles below, keep in mind it is typical of the things written about the find of the bacteria in the Pacific Gyre. Remember the Arsenic and Citrate and Nylon-eating bacteria that were big news until proven to be unremarkable and no help to evolution? Or did you miss the tiny retractions that came out long after the big headlines? Remember how Lucy was largely a fraud, Pakicetus totally a fraud, how "vestigial organs" turned out to be useful and how "junk DNA" is proving to have purpose? Recall how Tiktaalik turned out to be just a fish?
I'm telling you and week after week, month after month I am showing you that Creation by God is logical and fits the evidence, while Naturalism plus Evolution minus God (Darwinism) just never fits the evidence and is comprised of fairy tales and speculation and lies.
How about one more on how wrong Darwinists are about the Moon?
So let us post this material and see what the brainwashed have to say? After all, they are not usually impressed with actual evidence. Let's see what they cannot comprehend this time! It is a wonder to me how they keep their story straight, with so much new evidence to deal with that drills holes in Darwinism and Naturalism. Their worldview is like Bonnie & Clyde's getaway car when the Feds finally caught up to them. Lots of holes, no viability.