225
T h e
May 1929
K i n g ' s
B u s i n e s s
so deposited, the salt and sediment came immeasurably faster, instead of one-twentieth as fast as now. For example, fish fossils are common in many places and it is apparent to every normally intelligent man that sediment would have to move with enormous speed, com parable in nature to the way it would move during the Deluge of Noah, in order to catch and bury fishes so as to make good fossils, or to bury the marine and other animals from which we get the petroleum to run our cars. Instead of salt and sediment coming slowly in the past, it must have come (occasionally at least) very rapidly. The sci entists have, therefore, to cast aside entirely these two measures of geologic time or they have to cast aside entirely their present time estimates and in so doing remodel their whole theory of geologic history. Their alleged excuse for adopting such long estimates is, as I quoted in the beginning from Gregory, the rate at which uranium changes to lead and helium. I will say only two things about that, both very brief. The United States Geological Survey Bulletin, “The Data of Geochemistry,” takes up that problem and points out that this method of measurement gives results which conflict greatly with one another and are decidedly inconsistent with one another. Secondly, astronomers and physicists are absolutely helpless in accounting for the origin of this earth on any naturalistic basis, and they cannot decide what its early history was like. As I said, they cannot account for the atmosphere, nor the ocean, nor the chlorine in the ocean. Naturally they know nothing about the origin of that uranium ore, nor what condition it was in when the geo logic history of the earth started. Finally, it is decidedly unscientific to throw aside the other two measures of geologic time and to adopt another which is in definite conflict with them. After all is said and done, all of this evolution business, all of this anti-Genesis science, is riddled with fallacies and unscientific assumptions. There are none that I have seen which cannot be overthrown as easily as this false teaching that the earth is millions of years old. That asser tion I am prepared to maintain against all attack.
estimates of the age of the earth are contrary to science; and I might say, the evolutionists deal dishonestly and unfairly with the public to whom they give these estimates. There are several reasons for believing that exactly the contrary was the case. I will take the latter proposition up under several heads. 1. The ocean was not fresh to begin with, but well charged with salt. There is an enormous amount of chlo rine in the ocean and a comparatively small amount comes from the land, either from volcanoes or otherwise. No matter how they explain the origin of the oceans (and I can say that they are helpless in explaining either the ocean or the atmosphere in any reasonable manner, and I challenge any evolutionist to deny that assertion), they must have been heavily charged with chlorine to begin with, and if the chlorine was there it must have been com bined to a large extent with bases and there is therefore no excuse whatever for assuming that all the salt in the ocean, or more than a fair-sized fraction of it, came by gradual washing from the land. 2. When one considers the rank vegetation that there was in much of past time (I am talking from a natural istic standpoint only, and ignoring the Bible account), he cannot help but believe that moisture was abundant in the ancient earth; therefore there must have been rivers and there must have been a great deal of salt carried from the land to the ocean then. 3. A very large part of the land now is composed of material that has been leached over and over during the geologic ages, and it stands to reason that it would have less salt to leach out now than it formerly had ; therefore the reasonable thing to do would be to assume that salt washed into the ocean faster during the past than it does now, instead of only one-twentieth as fast. I should like to have McCabe and Gregory, and all the other evolutionists digest this argument and report their conclusions. 4. On top of all this there is the point of overwhelm ing importance, that a very large part of the sedimentary rock from past ages was deposited in a catastrophic man ner and-not slowly and gradually as at present. If it was
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker