ANSWER TO MR SKLYAROV - ABOUT HIS ''ALTERNATIVE GEOCHRONOLOGY''

ХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХХ

THERE IS NO WRONG EXPERIENCE. THERE ARE ONLY WRONG CONCLUSIONS FROM INFORMATION AND EXPERIENCE.

 

   Several years ago, the book by A.Y. Sklyarov "The Sensational History of the Earth. How old is our planet really?"

   The main idea of ​​the book is that the age of the earth is not six billion years, as most theoretical scientists believe, but five million, no more. Nevertheless, creationism as a position could be a logical continuation of such a thesis, but the author decisively denies creationism, scolds it, apparently misinterpreting other people's words, he does it well, because in the past he was a Comsomol (Young Communists) worker. Disputing the biblical chronology, he refers, of course, to Darwin, who was indignant when he heard that the Earth was only 6,000 years old, as well as to the pseudo-geologist Lyell, whose theories have not yet been proven, but Cuvier's theory of catastrophes is rejected. However, evidence that the Bible is right, there is, and not only geological, but also from the field of astronomy, confirming the lesser age of the luminaries in the biblical limits, which can be seen from the change in the size of the Sun and the amount of dust on the surface of the Moon, determined as a result of flights of lunar stations.

   At the same time, the author believes that there is no reason to reject the above-mentioned theory of catastrophes, this is a gross mistake. And this is so, because to assert that all processes on earth proceeded smoothly and at a constant speed is to promote an elementary fiction.

   Rejecting the fact of the flood, he seems to support the theory of the ice age, but I must say that the age of glaciers and the rate of their accumulation are completely different from what scientists used to think: they accumulate many times faster, and the “heat-cold” drops, leaving visible traces , are not annual, but occur many times a day. I must say that it is stupid to reject the Flood, and this is why: the layers of the earth's crust were formed as a result of the most complex processes of alluvial, and in some places there are no whole geochronological "periods" and even "eras", from which the author does not want to give up and calls them that way rather than layers. To understand more, creation scientists are not engaged in theoretical inventions, but in experiments on special installations.

   The author also states that there are no transitional links in animal classes "as the creationists say," and there are REALLY NO, and many naturalists, including Brem and Darwin himself, knew this. Modern people know much more, there is so much difference between the classes that they could NOT HAVE come from each other in ANY way.

   This book cannot be considered objective, because, regardless of beliefs, the author seems to justify himself before the scientific world that for such a small age of the Earth he will be called a creationist and laugh at him. Moreover, one of his colleagues, astronomer Martin Rees, recently, on the contrary, for a short time pretended to be a creationist in order to receive a $ 1.6 million prize from the Tepleton Foundation for this, but probably did not feel well, when chief atheist of Dawkins laughed at him.

 

   The arguments for the creation of the world are as follows:

   The universe is reasonably arranged, and neither matter nor the laws of physics could come by themselves from the "big bang" of mass from energy of unknown origin.

   Observations of the luminaries show that this theory is false and that the bodies of the solar system are relatively young.

   The present age of the Earth corresponds to the biblical age, and Lyell's theory is just a figment of his fantasies.

   Stanley Miller's theory of the origin of life is incorrect, and even he himself has not believed in it for a long time, and the species did not originate from each other. Theories of the origin of man from a monkey are just a set of falsifications. Just like the restoration of organisms across multiple bones.

   Man is fundamentally different from any animal.

   Much more has been discovered with the help of electron microscopes, computer programs, and the discovery of the genome.

   And the last, by the method of elimination: if the world is not the result of self-evolution, it means that IT WAS CREATED BY GOD, because there is no third option!

   And the Bible is just that source (by the way, its truth was confirmed, and not only with the help of archeology), where it says that we can know about God and what we need to know about Him!