A stunning new book with family friendly, groundbreaking creationist research will excite many
Published: 17 July 2014 (GMT+10)
CMI is pleased to carry the second book produced by Canadian creationist Vance Nelson in his Untold Secrets of Planet Earth series. In his first book, Dire Dragons, Vance revealed lots of new evidence of dinosaurs and humans living together via pictures of tapestries, carvings, ornaments and paintings. It was a stunning collation and is one of the more popular books that CMI carries. In this second book, Flood Fossils (CMI’s Dr Tas Walker was one of the contributing science editors), Vance has amassed dozens of examples of rapid fossilization of artifacts that must have been buried quickly to ensure their preservation. These include ephemeral fossils such as sand ripples, fossilized footprints of birds and even trilobites. Also contained are pictures of modern artifacts preserved in stone such as a spark plug, coins and even a US one dollar bill! Flood Fossils also contains great examples of rapidly fossilized fish, but even more stunning is evidence of them being buried alongside mammals and preserved in the same portion of rock (pp. 114–115). How did water-dwelling creatures and land animals end up being buried together? The evidence points to the global Flood of Noah’s day.
Original research provides bad news for evolution’s millions of years
Much of the alleged ‘science’ behind prescribing a ‘millions of years’ date to fossils comes from the presumed age of the rocks that fossils are found in. However, fossilized wood was extracted from Oligocene rock formations alleged to be c. 30 million years old (myo). Yet the wood appeared fresh, and indeed would still easily burn, as demonstrated in the pages of this book. In another example, wood was extracted from a tree buried in Permian (pre-dinosaur) layers presumed to be around 290 myo. If the tree was buried in layers that surrounded it, and the layers were dated to 290 myo then the tree would logically be the same date. However, the wood was sent to the University of Georgia in the US for carbon-14 dating and came back with an age of 48,160 years. They can’t both be right, because they differ by a factor of ~6,000. This does not mean the wood is tens of thousands of years old. All radiometric dating methods, including carbon-14 dating, are not infallible methods, and they are often used in an attempt to falsify biblical dates of creation. But here we have an example using the evolutionists’ own cherished methods that falsify their own various belief systems. It demonstrates the massive historical assumptions applied to the operational science of simply measuring radioisotopes in a sample. Indeed, in recent years carbon-14 has become the creationist’s best friend. This is because carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamond samples that are supposed be hundreds of millions and even billions of years old. In addition, a fossilized toe bone from an Edmontosaurus dinosaur (conventionally presumed to tens of millions of years old) was sent to the same university for carbon-14 dating and produced results of 32,420 years. The lab reports are reproduced in the book.
Fossilized fruit still has chemical residues in it
In one interesting experiment revealed in Flood Fossils, Vance sent samples of fossilized fruit (presumed to be dates) that were found in Miocene (up to 23 mya) brown coal seams in Germany, to a laboratory for chemical analysis. The lab report pictured in the book revealed the fruit still contained the same chemical esters (“observed to have fruit-like odors”) you would find in fruit sitting in your local supermarket shelves. Obviously these fossils cannot be millions of years old.
Sightings of Noah’s Ark
Without drawing any conclusions, this book documents multiple, yet consistent, eyewitness reports with regard to alleged sightings of Noah’s Ark. Indeed, I have been involved in the creation debate for over 25 years and was skeptical when I heard this book would contain such claims. However, some of the information presented was new to me. I was particularly struck with the similarity of the reports, considering many of them were separated by tens of years.
Like Dire Dragons, this new Flood Fossils book is pictorially stunning and one of the best books I have come across dealing with these issues in recent times, mainly because of its original first hand research with regard to dating fossils. It is a book for all ages, very lay friendly and a must have for every parent wishing to immunize their children against the ‘fossils prove millions of years’ dogma they inevitably receive in high school and university. This book ably demonstrates that such a mantra is not based upon real science at all. In fact, people of all ages will be excited to see firsthand research that demolishes arguably the biggest arguments that are used against the Bible’s account of creation and its associated biblical timeframes.
Looking forward to this new book! 'Dire Dragons' is an excellent coffee table book (leave it open in front of your skeptical friends while you go to make a long cup of coffee for them) and then ask them, "how so many people from different cultures, geographical locations, times in history and using different artistic mediums including a tapestry in the Chateau De Bloy in France recorded accurate likenesses of dinosaurs if they died out 65,000,000 years ago?" - a good question!
I am curious about the claim of fish fossils being buried/fossilized in the same strata as mammals. Do we have anything more than anecdotal evidence for this?
The claim is referenced on p. 114-115 of Flood Fossils and include photo evidence.
Perhaps the 30 million year old wood was preserved by iron in the tree's blood. Oh wait, trees don't have blood.
Concerning the question, mammals during the Jurassic period. Michael Oard has a journal article on the creation.com site that is very good. Cited in this creation.com article (below).
Courage and Godspeed,
Dinosaur demise did not jump start mammal evolution by Michael J. Oard
Oard, M.J., Jurassic mammals more surprisingly diverse, Journal of Creation 21(2):10–11, 2007.
I don't understand why people are looking for Noah's ark. Yes, it would be marvelous proof of the flood, but it seems incredibly unlikely it still exists.
If I had just gotten off an ark after a year long journey and I needed to build things like a house etc, or even firewood, I would dismantle the ark and use its planks. That's far easier than trying to cut down any remaining trees or sawing up felled trees. Over a century went into making the ark, why waste that effort? How many other uses for the pre-cut wood did they have? Probably lots. They weren't idiots: reuse, recycle, save time.
I don't understand why you would write that a fossilized bone was carbon-tested. It greatly confuses the matter when something that is still a bone is called fossilized. If it were fossilized it would have no carbon to test.
I think you're confusing fossilization and permineralization. A fossil is not always completely permineralized, as the recent soft tissue findings have shown. And if there is unpermineralized material, it can be carbon dated.
Lou Z. Before you commented did you actually read the book? If you had actually read the book and understood the case in favour of the Ark's preservation you'd not be proposing ideas already addressed by the author.
Furthermore the most reasonable research would indicate the Ark was not some flimsy built ship with planks nailed to a frame or structure that would be easy to dismantle. The largest mega ships in history that we know of were built with dowels and tongue & groove interlocking planking. The resulting structure would be uniform. Wood dowel pegs will expand when in the water creating a tight seal. Even if more accessible planking on the inside were used for some uses the bulk of the hull would remain intact as it was likely 2 to 3 feet thick. Add to this the fact that the conditions present on Ararat aid preservation. The author has documented a good number of independent testimonies of individuals describing roughly the same object. This makes a very strong case to the unbiased.
Look forward to getting a copy of this book.
Can you explain why fossilized fish in the same portion of rock as mammals is a problem for the evolutionist. Wouldn't they just argue that of course fish lived at the same time as mammals. I suspect I'm missing something obvious! Thanks
Yes, fish and mammals obviously lived at the same time. But we wouldn't expect to find them fossilizes alongside each other in the evolutionary scenario, because they live in different places. It makes sense in light of Noah's Flood, however, because the floodwaters would mix the carcasses of land animals and fish together.