Hi
Cooper
That's old antiquated science. Now, many think that our coal and oil reserves are vestiges of all the vegetation covered up in the flood event...but there isn't anyway to prove that. Do you believe that God knows the end from the beginning? If so, do you believe that God created this realm of existence for man to live? If so, do you have any proof that when God spoke the earth into existence that coal and oil were not just a part of what He knew would be needed for mankind on the earth? Why do we think to assume that all of the minerals contained in the earth formed of their own natural processes? Why can it not be true that when God spoke the earth into existence some 6,000 years ago, there were not deposits of coal and oil and diamonds and lithium and all of the many, many other minerals found in the ground of the earth.
Now, I'm not saying that's how all the minerals got where they are in the earth, but I am saying that there isn't a soul upon the earth that can prove either hypothesis.
Further, who sat around for the million years to prove that it takes a million years for coal to form from vegetative matter? It's really just as possible that on the day God commanded the earth to exist, had there been an earth mover to dig miles down into the crust of that newly formed planet, coal may well have been right where we find it today. We cannot prove either hypothesis because it cannot be replicated. True science must be able to repeat its hypothesis, in order to prove that the hypothesis is correct.
Next question: If it took billions of years for water to carve out the grand canyon, and we have rivers all over the face of the earth, why don't we have grand canyons with rivers running at the bottom of them all over the earth. Why? What made the water of the Colorado River so special, or the formation of the earth over the 277 mile length of the Grand Canyon so susceptible to this carving effect that no other river of water was able to duplicate anywhere else on the face of the earth? Why is the Grand Canyon only 277 miles long? The Colorado River is some 1,400 miles long. What was so special about the 1/6th length of the Colorado River that it only carved out that limited area of its total length?
These are valid questions for which we should have answers, if we are to believe that there are only a couple of places on the earth where canyons have been claimed to have been formed by millions of years of erosion. Science tells us that the Ohio River was formed about 2-3 million years ago. Why is it only a few feet below the top surface of the surrounding land if millions of years of constant water erosion is what formed the Grand Canyon. Even if the Ohio River is younger than the Colorado, certainly after 2 million years it would have carved out a canyon at least 50-100-200 feet deep. Why?! There are places of similar sandstone and shale beneath the bed of the Ohio River much like the type of earth formation beneath the Colorado River. Why? What about the Mississippi River?
You see, natural explanations allow that everywhere that a particular natural element is acted upon in a similar manner, that the result will always be relatively the same. But in the case of rivers eroding rocky substrate, that isn't the case. Science tells us that the oldest river in the world is the Finke River. As we follow its path, there are very few places where there is any erosion evidence and nothing to compare to the Grand Canyon. Kind of makes me go, Hmmmm. Just maybe science isn't all it's cracked up to be in answering questions of long ages past.
Anyway, I've provided an answer to the questions asked and this now becoming a rather long running commentary of the faith in, and shortcomings of science. Please don't misunderstand me. I approve and believe in the scientific method, but I know that to really be able to prove any hypothesis, then it must be reproducible. Science is great in telling us how soda ash affects water quality in a swimming pool. We can reproduce that thousands upon thousands of times. We can study its effects in the here and now as it changes water chemistry. But so many of these scientific facts of ages past have to be accepted on faith because you can't reproduce it to actually prove by showing that the hypothesis works.
Finally, as I've said before, anytime it comes to the hand of God working in our realm, all bets are off as to there being any method by which man can prove or disprove that He did what He claims to have done. We cannot prove that Jesus was born of a virgin. We accept that on faith. We don't have Mary's uterus or vagina available for inspection. We can really only believe on faith, because God has said it is so, that Mary was really a virgin at the time Jesus' head popped out of her birth canal.
God bless,
Ted