Coal and Crude:

Some of the massive, colossal graveyards found all over the global did not suffer just a swift burial of plant debris and animal carcasses. Many, buried at a greater depth, were beneficiaries of humongous compression and great pressures and temperatures coupled with other “proper” conditions, including de-oxidation, which led to the vast coal, natural gas and oil fields of our day. Plants account for the coal beds; animals formed the oil fields (ordinarily). This again re-emphasizes the shear magnitude of the amount of vegetation on this planet before the flood, and the number of animals that roamed at the time. A rock hitting the earth could not and did not kill that much vegetation, or, all those creatures.

Side Bar

A thin section of coal, viewed under a microscope will reveal “…mass of plant debris, pieces of bark, wood, leaves, cells, spores and algae all floating in a black jelly.” (end of side bar)

“700 trillion tons of vegetation are buried in the world’s coal beds” found in every continent, Antarctica included, along with all of those massive graveyards of bones already mentioned. As with the bone yards, so likewise the evidence shows that graveyards of peat and the several grades of coal were begun as gargantuan depositories, with massive piles of trees, all stacked on top of each other-as if by some great catastrophe (the one to which you rightly appeal, Mr. Loy!)-then covered quickly by an unimaginable tonnage of sedimentary rock, which through enormous compression, squeezed out oxygen and moisture, thereby preventing decomposition, while prompting and promoting a chemical transformation; which in turn left coal in its wake. Similarly, the crude deposits around the world are the byproduct of giant graveyards of animal carcasses buried at a much greater depth, and thereby subjected to much greater pressure and heat than the bone yards. Whatever the depth of either end product, be it coal or crude, the initial pile of debris had to have been many times greater (a 10′ coal seam, may have begun with a pile of dead plants 3 or 4 times higher.). It was this stifling pressure, absent of oxygen and other life gases (hydrogen and carbon), along with heat that set in motion the cogwheels of a chemical transformation that has given us our present day coal (plant debris; almost pure carbon, only 6% hydrogen) and oil preserves (animal fat; 10% to 50% hydrogen). Natural gas and petroleum deposits are, like crude, 10% to 50% hydrogen but, formed almost exclusively from deposits of marine life.

Accounting for the presence of all this debris is absolutely critical. How did it ever come to be? How did all of these mounds of plants and animals ever form? Decomposition and decay factors quite preclude the slightest possibility that all of this animal and plant carnage simply walked to its point of death and/or fell into place over unfathomable periods of time. As shown already, there is no other way these huge, tangled wreckages of jumbled deposits could ever have been formed, world-wide-layers upon layers as they were-apart from a calamitous event such as the Bible’s flood, by means of which every tree and carcass was lifted into place, where they could settle and be buried in limestone, mud, and sand, as the water receded. The neat thin geological layers, free from any hint of trauma, as envisioned by evolutionary doubters and Bible flood-scoffers, simply do not and have not ever existed. They are nothing more than fabrications of over zealous, incredulous minds and, therefore lies.

The process needed to produce this coal and crude did not require vast periods of time (millions of years), as has been suggested by evolutionary geologists.

Conclusion

Thus, my friends, the ill-informed and poorly reasoned assumptions you proffer are soundly and roundly refuted, relative to geology and the practicality of a Bible-based flood. You say or you infer that man’s “fallibility” inherently makes anything he says or writes wrong, or, prone to error. In that the geologist/paleontologist by his own work (and, increasingly by his words) has indeed proven himself wrong, world without end, and the Bible right, explain then how the Bible, having been penned exactly as it states-by men under the inspiration of God-must therefore be wrong! To the degree that his knowledge and work confirms the Bible, shows up and settles your ignorance in the process, explain then as well how you-having spoken so eloquently, albeit, ex-cathedra!-are therefore less subject to the mantle of fallibility than either the Bible writers or the modern geologists and paleontologists!

The biblical flood did occur. The ancient animals, dinosaurs and plants were not destroyed by any supposed meteor strike, nor was there any supposed shortage of food for the super large among the animal kingdom. The earth was in fact teeming with life, as evinced by the presence in our day of bountiful evidences in the form of undeniable, irrefutable grave or bone yards, coal beds, crude/petroleum/natural gas deposits-all scattered all around the world, on all seven continents in staggering numbers, in the same basic strata. All of this ancient life was destroyed by a magnificent flood, per the Bible’s prescription, at the same time, otherwise rot and decay would have prevented the formation of those vast coal, crude, and natural gas preserves.

The Bible in light of modern Archaeology

Now let us consider the Bible from a purely historical point of view (in terms of people), in light of the physical science of modern archaeology. Some say, on highly questionable authority (if on any authority at all), that it is a book of fables, Jewish folk-lore, having no basis historically. If this be true then, would it not negate this assertion (and similar commentary) excerpted and quoted from an otherwise authoritative, highly respected, non-religious, knowledgeable, objective and unbiased news and history reporting-source like the periodical “U. S. News & World Report”? Consider:

· “A wave of archaeological discoveries is altering old ideas about the roots of Christianity and Judaism-and affirming that the Bible is more historically accurate than many scholars thought.”

· “Even on the critics’ own terms-historical fact-the Scriptures seem more acceptable now than they did when the rationalists began the attack.”

Time Magazine, 12/30/74

That said, we could here and now wrap up this segment of discussion and, go home. After all, who among minor league scoffers is even remotely prepared to be at loggerheads with even the least of the researchers, reporters and contributors to the likes of these two magazines (versed as they are in theses geological and archaeological genres as well as the Bible-in which they yet don’t believe either)? Nevertheless, we press on.

It is said that Napolean’s invasion of Egypt in 1798 provided the basis for the official launch of archaeology as we know it. Actual digging did not begin, however, until fifty years later with Botta in 1842 and Layard in 1845, in Mesopotamia. Ira M. Price, in his Monuments and the Old Testament (1899), has written that 100 years prior, there was no other source by which might be known the certainty of the ages past. There was no other representation of the millennial years leading up to the advent of the Greeks and the Romans, apart from the Bible.

On the other hand, archaeology, per R. K. Harrison, paints “…a reasonably precise picture” of all the Bible’s claims. According to one Nelson Gleuck, one of the greatest authorities in Biblical archaeology, “As a matter of fact, however, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.” Entire periods of Old Testament history, previously unknown otherwise to generations of scholars, can now be reconstructed, thanks to this scientific study of ancient cultures (all of which then begs the question, in what sense is your feeble “analysis” scientific? Why would any geologist or historian be obliged to take notice of thereof, to say noting of ordering his life and/or work around it?). Hence, far from disproving the Book of books, archaeology (basis and chief cornerstone to all informed and reasoned criticism) has established itself, therefore, as “…the Bible’s best supporting witness”.

Writing and Accuracy

Relative to writing and accuracy-ignoring the criticisms of those of you who wax eloquent against the Bible utterly without basis and with less imagination-we cannot but observe that “…the most dramatic archaeological discoveries are those that completely upset ideas or theories previously thought to be true”; (that is these “ideas or theories” were never greater than commonly held assumptions for which there was no scientific or historical basis and backup to begin with!). Furthermore, archaeology has totally discomfited the imagination of those who were once the pillars of the enlightened, among the Bible’s best informed critics and scoffers. If their fables have been proven to be lies, what then must we conclude with respect to your ill-grounded assertions and foolish assumptions? Some of them readily admit their wrongs, having begun with pick and shovel in one hand, the Bible as their roadmap in the other. They were initially dedicated agnostics and scoffers driven by an unquenchable, passionate determination to bring about and see a reasoned end to the Bible the right way, the sensible way. In the final analysis, when the swinging and shoveling ceased, the dusts of excavation having cleared, they became themselves Christians, their own hands and their work proving and affirming what was once the object of their sore disaffection, at every turn, before their very own eyes, more than it could ever discredit it. What particulars could possibly foment such a change of heart, you ask? Consider:

There are 99 kings mentioned throughout the Bible-even those once controversial, such as certain rulers of the Assyrians. All have been confirmed. There are 1172 places mentioned in the Bible, all confirmed. Of all the people groups mentioned, even the most contentious of them, like the Hittites, have now been established as non-fiction, thanks to the work and contributions of the German archaeologist Winckler. It was he who confirmed the Hittite capital and that people’s entire history, written on something called cuneiform tablets. The Bible and its stories were hereby validated in part, as well as confirmed by a historical narration that conformed to that of Holy Writ. Several universities then went on to expand their curriculum by offering a major in Hititology.

The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the antiquity of the Old Testament writings and their accuracy. For years, so-called “higher criticism” assured the world in no uncertain terms that the Pentateuch could never have been penned by Moses, given that no one could write during that era. That higher critical and error prone thinking was reversed and completely shattered with the discovery of the “Black Stele”, in 1901. Being a stone that contained a detailing of the legal codes of Hammurabi, the Black Stele pre-dated Moses by about 300 years. In the 1960s in northern Syria, the tablets of Ebla of the Ebla Kingdom (which existed about 1000 years before Moses) also proved that writing was commonplace long before Moses’ and the Ten Commandments, the cuneiform tablets of the Sumerians being the earliest known writing. The Tablets of Mari along with the Nuzi Tablets (there is about 4000 of them, dating to 1500-1400 BC) “give corroborating accounts as to the life and customs recorded in the Bible.” In upper Egypt, there is recorded upon the walls of the great temple Karnak, an account of an Egyptian assault in Palestine that corresponds to that of I Kings 14:25 and 26.

In the New Testament, to the dismay of fervent scoffers, that a regular enrollment of taxpayers by Rome was initiated a few years before the birth of the Christ is affirmed by an old inscription known as the Titulus Venetus. An AD 104 Egyptian papyrus confirms the requirement that all were to return to their homelands to partake in the census. The existence of Pontius Pilate and the story surrounding him is affirmed by the 1961 excavation of the city of Caesarea, the Roman capital of Palestine. The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus lends much weight and credibility in his “Annals” to the gospel accounts, specifically to the reality and torture of Christ leading up to His crucifixion (in addition to expressing his general disdain for all things Christian)-and thus His “historicity”-as well as support for the believability of Pontius Pilate: “Hence, to suppress the rumor, he (Emperor Nero) falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus… suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition thus checked for the moment, again broke out…”. A Latin inscription dug up in Caesarea in 1962 by Italian archaeologists reads, “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans.” As an arch-skeptic and scoffer of the Bible (originally), Sir William Ramsey was one of those archaeologists who had little regard for the historicity of the Book of Acts. He later, based upon thorough research dedicated to its destruction, came to regard the book as “…an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor…in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth”, he concluded, “…accurate in its minutest detail”.

Civilization(s) before the Flood

Who ever said that Judaism was the oldest of civilizations? The Bible nowhere makes that claim, for sure. On the other hand, since the archaeological record to which you make appeal establishes the Sumerian culture, of which you also make mention as the root of ancient civilization, how is it that you figure the Egyptians and the Babylonians also existed before the flood, when clearly the oldest of known writing cultures do not even have records, much less reliable ones, beyond 2700 years before Christ(!)?

Furthermore, regarding Mr. Loy’s appeal to the ancient Sumerian culture to bolster his denunciation of the practicality of a biblical flood-on grounds that these ancient peoples existed before, during and after the flood period-the historical record purports that they appear to have arisen out of nowhere, approximately 3760 BC; the flood occurred in around 4000 BC. That is, there is no reliable written records of who they are, or, where they came from prior to 3,760 years before Christ. Their writing system, however, by means of which they were able to compile and leave not only important, but, the first historical records, was not developed until around 2700 BC-over one thousand years after their emergence as a people. Thus, the so-called science of Mr. Loy’s affection, amounts to nothing more than the rubbish of pure conjecture, having no real value, void of even the slightest substance.

In summation then, relative to Mr. Loy’s arguments and objections, whatever the modern sciences have done, the Bible has only benefited and in the end, proved many times over. Everything science-whether the natural sciences, or, the physical sciences of geology (with its witness in thousands of bone yards, and fossil fuel depositions, worldwide-95% of the contents of which are marine) and archaeology-all fingers thereof point unswervingly to the accuracy and historicity of the Book of all books. All of its stories and claims are therefore true and believable.
About the Author: