If an intelligent, designer and creative being as the human being likes to call himself cannot chemically synthesize an organic compound from the periodic table, if such an intelligent designer and creative being cannot BUILD what was supposedly formed “SPONTANEOUSLY”, word that those people who claim such an explanation love to repeat, much less it can arise “magically”, sorry I meant "spontaneously", said organic compound.
Abiogenesis is the field of study that aims to explain the origin of life from lifeless matter.
One of the goals of abiogenesis is to explain the process, BEFORE the existence of biochemistry, BEFORE the existence of organic compounds, through which said organic compounds were formed, starting from the elements of the periodic table.
Another of the objectives of abiogenesis is to explain how to build, how synthesize, how to put together, how to assemble, a cell.
The simplest organic compounds, necessary and present in all biological systems, those that are absolutely necessary to start building a living cell, are 4 types of fundamental monomers:
These are the parts of the machines, and the letters of the programs, that allow cells to be assembled.
The machines and programs needed to build a cell are basically 4 types of polymers:
Each of these polymers are assembled from monomers. “Poly” means many. “Mono” means one. A “Poly” is built of several “Monos”.  Easy right?
You cannot put a left hand glove on your right hand. This is because the mirror image of your left hand cannot be superimposed on your right hand. When the structure of a chemical compound presents this characteristic is said to be CHIRAL. And when in one sample of a chemical compound there is only one type of chirality, that is all are gloves for the right hand or all are gloves for the left, the sample is said to be HOMOCHIRAL. When there are gloves for both the right and the left mixed in the sample, it is said that the sample is racemic.
The monomers, those pieces and letters, those that are of 4 types: monosaccharides, amino acids, nucleotides and glycerol, which are observed in biological systems, they have that characteristic to be HOMOCHIRAL in biological machinery. They are all gloves for the same hand. The letters and the pieces with which the cell machines and programs are assembled are all homochiral.
Each chemical reaction has different necessary conditions for temperature, acidity, pressure, electromagnetic radiation, energy, purity in the reagents, etc. so that it can actually happen.
Some reactions require the presence of specific compounds that facilitate them although they do not participate in the reaction. They need facilitators.
Some reactions need to be stopped because if they continue you will not get the expected result. They need a change in conditions to stop the reaction. They need a brake at the right time.
Some reactions result in a mixture of several compounds where only one of them is the desired one and may be in a ratio very small compared to the total result. It may happen that only 1% of the mixture is the compound that is desired. And it is necessary to separate said desired compound by some additional procedure that is sometimes simply not known, it’s not known how to separate it from all the undesired ones, from the trash. Garbage is not wanted.
Some reactions do not work in reverse. They only work one way.
Some reactions require certain parts of the reactant to be protected, so that the reaction occurs only in the points, at the right places, of the chemical structure, where it is desired. Something like putting on shoes and a glove on your right hand so that the union with the other, that desired link, is only by the left hand and not by any other extremity. This implies preparation prior to the reaction of each of the reactants. Sometimes it requires protection.
Once you have a reaction, you need to show that you actually got what you wanted and in what quantities. This process is called characterization. And many times it is even more complex than the reaction itself.
What happens then when, in the field of abiogenesis, it is intended to explain how these letters and fundamental pieces were formed, those first organic compounds that are monosaccharides, amino acids, nucleotides and glycerol, on a DEAD and BRUTE planet where there was no laboratories, and for my next step in my chain of chemical reactions I need the result of my previous step to be in homochiral form, for it to have the necessary purity, suitably protected for the following reaction to occur, conveniently separated from other compounds, with the conditions of temperature, pressure, acidity, etc. And the ongoing reaction has not stopped, my desired compound is being mixed with 4 other garbage compounds and in a proportion less than 1% of the amount I need, which I have no idea how to separate from the garbage compounds, which is being formed in racemic form and not homochiral as I need it, that my reaction has no reverse and even though I am in my modern laboratory with all the technology that the intelligence, design and creativity of the human being has been able to produce, I have no idea how to make that compound that I can extract from already existing biological systems by destructive procedures that we have managed to develop?
Easy. First I cheat and extract it from existing biological systems, those that I intend to demonstrate how they were formed, through the destructive procedures that we have developed to extract these compounds. Something like destroying a car to remove the tires that I need, those that I think were put together by themselves in millions of years.
Then, using other organic compounds also extracted from biological systems, I protect it in the parts that need protection for my next step. I do all the steps the same way. And finally I write an article omitting those little details, like the need of a human controlling the conditions of the reactions, and announcing that the goal has already been achieved.
And this is just to show that you can, in a modern laboratory and with human intervention, build the letters and pieces of the programs and machines that we find in cells.
That is the truth of the lie, the cheating, and the deceit, of those articles on abiogenesis.
Polymers are the machines and programs of biological systems. They are made of monomers.
The human being is not capable of synthesizing the monomers that make up the essential polymers to build a cell without using what is already in living cells, in existing biological systems, those that he pretends to show how they were formed.
But LET'S SUPPOSE, LET'S ACCEPT, LET'S BELIEVE that yes, that man can already build monomers without using compounds extracted from biological systems. Which can synthesize monosaccharides, amino acids, nucleotides and glycerol. That is the least of the problems.
If men intend to deny the creator, the human being would have to at least, using all his intelligence, design and creativity, using all his technology, using modern laboratories, those that do not have a planet DEAD and BRUTE in which everything supposedly happened SPONTANEOUSLY, develop chemical procedures that allow reproducing at least the simplest polymers observed in biological systems. Polymers for which the sequence is already known, without having to design them, those with which a cell is built: carbohydrates, peptides, nucleic acids and lipids. Of the simplest cell, the easiest of them all, the one he wants, the one he chooses.
Men can not.
He has to cheat. He has to extract the machines and programs from the existing biological systems for use in the synthesis of said polymers. Those that he supposedly want to prove appeared in a DEAD and BRUTE planet millions of years ago, just with time, luck and chemical reactions that supposedly occur SPONTANEOUSLY but man can not even do using his latest technology and using all his creativity, intelligence and design.
With those letters and pieces that are monosaccharides, amino acids, nucleotides and glycerol he should be able to assemble at least the carbohydrates, peptides, nucleic acids, and lipids of the simplest cell imaginable.
Men should be able to synthesize them. He should be able to polymerize them. He can not. He has to cheat. And yet the popular explanation, the one we read in the encyclopedia, is that they arose SPONTANEOUSLY. Puff, by them selves .
The machines that man can create to join letters of a, quote and quote, “biological program” are the size of a REFRIGERATOR and can only join a maximum of 15 to 20 letters before they start having the same problems, in their chemical reactions, that the human being has to synthesize the monomers in any other modern lab.
The longest program that man can synthesize with his machines goes up to about 20 letters. If you want longer chains, you have to use the machines extracted from biological systems. You have to use carbohydrates, peptides, nucleic acids destructively extracted from biological systems.
In fact, he has to cheat even more, because let's remember that we're accepting the cheating that said letters were extracted from biological systems and adequately protected using organic compounds also extracted from biological systems.
A biological program for a single cell has hundreds of thousands of letters, and machines found in biological systems are so small in size that hundreds of thousands of these machines can fit in a single cell.
We are not even close to being able to synthesize the polymers needed to build a cell. We can not even accepting as if we could what we can't do: Synthesize the monomers.
We cannot even knowing the information that describes the structure of these polymers. But supposedly a DEAD and BRUTE planet could. Supposedly it all happened SPONTANEOUSLY millions of years ago. That is what they teach at school and they repeat it at college. Poof. By themselves.
The human being is not even capable of synthesizing essential polymers similar to those needed to build a cell, without using what is already there in living cells, in existing biological systems, those that he aims to show how they were formed magically, sorry, spontaneously in a DEAD and BRUTE planet.
But LET'S SUPPOSE, LET'S ACCEPT, LET'S BELIEVE that yes, that man can already build, synthesize, polymers resembling those essential for building a cell, without using compounds extracted from biological systems. LET'S SUPPOSE that he can synthesize carbohydrates, peptides, nucleic acids and lipids.
That is just the second challenge. That's just the power to write.
The most important question of all is: What is he going to write?
Programs are not written by themselves. And much less randomly, by chance, by luck. Some people think otherwise and try to prove so by writing programs. Programs that didn't write themselves either. Absurd, right? Programs that seek to be random using a MACHINE. Using something completely deterministic like a computer. Even more absurd, right? Using functions that pretend to be random, pseudo-random functions, “almost” but “NOT” random.
The mathematical question of whether there is a fair coin, one that is not preferential, a truly random function, one that is no longer pseudo, that which is no longer quasi-random but that it IS random, it’s considered an open problem. It is considered a problem that has not been resolved. Neither for YES, nor for NO. It shouldn't be, because it's equivalent to problemes that HAVE been resolved. It doesn’t exist. Don't look for it. There is a Creator.
But LET’S SUPPOSE, ACCEPT, BELIEVE, for the sake of argumenting, that the human being uses any tool he wants, not necessarily organic polymers, to write the program that he wants and how ever he wants it.
The program that the human being should be able to write, using all his intellectual capacity, creativity and design, that which does not have the supposed DEAD and BRUTE planet in which supposedly everything happened SPONTANEOUSLY, it would have be one who can at least do what he himself, the human being, does.  The famous artificial intelligence. One who passes the famous Turing test. One who learns to learn. One that processes information in a way indistinguishable from the way a human does it.
We have not been able.
But LET’S SUPPOSE, LET'S ACCEPT, LET'S BELIEVE, that yes, that the human being has already achieved the creation of a program that processes information in a manner indistinguishable from like a human does it.
In that hypothetical case, in which you need to BELIEVE and SUPPOSE more than what is needed to BELIEVE that Jesus Christ is alive because he was resurrected, the ONLY thing that will have been shown is that to create a REAL intelligence, ANOTHER one is needed.
The ONLY thing you would have shown is the need for a programmer, the NEED of a CREATOR.
That Creator didn't just design the DNA program. DNA is just the program. The machine on which it is going to be executed is also needed. And said machine needs energy and the right environment so that it can run the program. The fertilized egg needs the uterus.
This factory that is the fertilized ovum begins to subdivide following the specific program and after nine months we have, only in the brain, a program that we have no idea how it works. And we can't even mimic it with our best technology.
 Absurd, right? But that's where we are.
A person about 3 thousand years ago understood it better than many modern scientists. Psalm 100 tells us: “Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture" 703.
Dead in the deception of denying the Creator.
One of the most famous tales is that of the frog that becomes the prince. It is a tale for children.
A similar tale, but adding millions of years, is that of evolution. Man evolved from a reptile in millions of years.
Any method recognized as scientific must start from observable evidence.
There is NO, ZERO, nothing, zip, NADA, nadita, nada, ni poquito, of OBSERVABLE evidence that an animal kind, a feline, a canine, an equine, transforms, evolves, changes over time into another kind.
In the examples of change that those who believe the tale, the animal NEVER changes kind.
Bacteria are still bacteria, birds are still birds, turtles are still turtles, fish are still fish, insects are still insects, canines are still canines, equines are still equines and felines are still felines.
And in the most modern examples that claim to show genetic changes, it’s simply the same animal without a member, with the member impaired, or with a member in the wrong place. And the similarities that are alleged in the genetic code between chimps and humans are only in the COMPARABLE sections and in the most similar cases of those COMPARABLE parts, the similarities never exceed 85%, according to the proponets themselves. Something like arguing that if the leg of a monkey resembles, in COMPARABLE parts, that of a man in 85%, it is evidence that both have a common ancestor. Your host believes that the accepted maximum of 85% is not even 60% in reality. The explanation is that they are DIFFERENT kinds of creatures. They are different designs with some common functionality.
It is portraied as evidence some fossils of bones, that supposedly have been there millions of years, but that let’s remember they have Carbon 14, that Carbon 14 that supposedly can't be there if something died more than 60 thousand years ago, and with those stones they put together a story of the imagination that lasts millions of years.
It is impossible to OBSERVE the CHANGE, that which is required by any method that is considered as scientific. It is impossible to observe because supposedly it happened millions of years ago and it is not possible to reproduce it in ANY laboratory because the CHANGE supposedly also occurs in millions of years.
There is no OBSERVABLE evidence of a change from one kind of animal to another.
The only thing that is observed is adaptation. That happens even within the life span of a human being. But no one argues that a short person is of different kind than a tall person. Only a person who believes the tale of the frog would consider that a person with black skin is of a different kind than a white-skinned one.
The modern classification according to species is completely arbitrary, there are more than ten different definitions of the word, and the only thing that it achieves is to differentiate the ramifications of the ADAPTATION that has had the same kind of animal.
Canines are still canines, equines are still equines, and felines are still felines.
The supposed evolution of the species, the one that changes kind, the one that they call macro-evolution, the one that supposedly was the original, it can NOT be OBSERVED anywhere. It is an imaginary tale. There is not OBSERVABLE evidence of kind change.
Bacteria are still bacteria, birds are still birds, turtles are still turtles, fish are still fish, insects are still insects, canines are still canines, equines are still equines and felines are still felines.
On the contrary, it has been observed on multiple occasions that when two of these ADAPTATIONS begin to coexist in the same environment for a long period of time, say forty years, it is observed that they are able to cross among them.
The large amount of genetic information that differs between two different kinds of animals was never understood, during the last century, as descriptive information of the kind of animal, and only until recently it has been observed that it intervenes in the process of gestation of the animal. It was considered junk DNA, once used during those supposed millions of years for one kind of animal to evolve into another. Evolution for which there is NO OBSERVABLE evidence, because it supposedly happens in millions of years and supposedly it happened millions of years ago, and that ofcourse cannot be OBSERVED today. A tale of man's imagination.
We were also taught in school that some organs, of which we did not know their function, that are found in current biological systems, were completely unnecessary and were there to remind us of those millions of years of evolution. We were taught that of the appendix, only to come to discover , a few years later, that it is part of the immune system. We were taught that about the coccyx, only to come to discover, a few years later, its function as termination and support of a multitude of ligaments and muscles. We were taught that whales and other aquatic animals have small bones that are vestiges of what once were a pelvis and legs, only to come and discover, the important role they play in the mating of these animals.
Perhaps, who knows, maybe, possibly, the people who believe the tale of the frog should begin to consider the possibility that simply the story NEVER HAPPENED. That the reason there is NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE of transformation, of evolution, of CHANGE from one kind to another, it’s not only that it tries to know the whole movie, of supposedly billions of years, just by looking at the last picture, but that said transformation NEVER HAPPENED. There was NEVER an evolution. They were NOT thousands of millions of years. The movie lasts only a few thousands years. And it began when the Creator decided so. And all kinds of animals were physically created at the same time.
But no. They continue with tales to support a tale of a frog who became prince. Only that it happens in millions of millions of years to make it look believable.
Dead in the deception of denying the Creator.
Fossils of trees are found in geological strata in vertical position. The same fossil crosses several layers or geological strata that supposedly took millions of years to form.
The traditional explanation of how this happened is that for those, and only for those trees, geological events that we see today, of quick deposit or several small ones were the ones who buried said trees. Examples of such events include volcanic deposits, deltaic deposits and glacial deposits. That was a volcano, that was a river, that was a glacial. That is to say that for those and only for those trees, the geological strata formed quickly and not in millions of years. But yes, not even by accident is it considered that the evidence is perfectly consistent with a planetary flood event.
 What if the famous Carbon 14 is found in these fossils? That Carbon 14 that supposedly can't be there if a tree died and started to fossilize more than 60 thousand years ago?, what happens when this occurs in strata that was already classified as being millions of years old?
Nothing happens, the evidence gets ignored. The evidence is simply as if it did not exist. It is too contradictory even with the same assumptions of what is called evidence.
The story of the frog that becomes a prince is still held, because it’s the only alternative to admitting the existence of a Creator.
Dead in the deception of denying the Creator.
The explanation taught even in online encyclopedias is that the formation of the carbon that we observe on the planet took millions of years of plant debris that accumulated under water and clay. And that said remains were buried by sediments, and then, supposedly over millions of years of high pressures and temperatures produced by the burial, they caused a loss of water, methane and carbon dioxide. And this loss increased the proportion of carbon, and voila. Easy, right?
But what happens when we find coal reserves of 26 thousand square kilometers, with carbon bands, low in impurities and low in sulfur, 61 meters thick, hundreds of kilometers long, and almost 80 kilometers wide? How to explain that, over millions of years, the necessary conditions to form them were kept? Why did not the bands get diluted in fluxes of clay or other impurities before thickening? What happens when Carbon 14 is found inside that carbon?, that Carbon 14 that supposedly cannot be there if something is more than 60 thousand years old? What happens when oval radiation rings are found within the coal indicating a rapid and simultaneous formation with the coal because these rings would have dissipated, faded or cracked if the coal formation had taken million years or it had not been simultaneous with the rings? What happens when carbon is formed from wood in the presence of water, absence of air, at 160 degrees centigrade, high pressures, and with only two weeks or so of waiting?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing happens. The topic is ignored. The evidence is just like if it did not exist. It is too contradictory even with the same assumptions of what is called evidence.
The story of the frog that becomes a prince is still held, because it is the only alternative to admitting the existence of a Creator.
Dead in the deception of denying the Creator.
A series of characteristics are observed on the planet in the land and the ocean. Mountains, lakes, volcanoes on land and ocean, large deposits of minerals and organic compounds, large canyons, oceanic trenches, mid-ocean ridges, a granite crust covering partially the planet, etc.
In the last century, seeking to explain what we observe and using too much imagination the theory of tectonic plates was proposed. A theory that proposes a series of mechanisms such as the expansion of the marine floor, subduction, mountain building, mantle circulation, hotspots, transform faults, inversion of magnetic poles of the planet, in short, a whole series of mechanisms that NEVER, listen: NEVER, they have NEVER been observed.
NONE of these supposed processes have EVER been measured. There is no OBSERVABLE evidence that these processes happen.
The excuse is the same as the one in the tale of the frog, the one in the tale of the macroevolution: is that they happen in hundreds of millions of years.
Tectonic plate theory assumes too much, it imagines too much. It happens to it the same thing as to all the other theories that use the present to imagine, his followers call it "deduce", quote and quote, the past.
With a picture, one frame, of the present, a movie of the past billions of years is imagined.
There is NO OBSERVABLE evidence of the highly imaginative mechanisms of billions of years that supposedly explain what we do observe in today’s present. The picture of the present. These mechanisms are supposedly deduced from the vivid imagination of those who claim them.
That happens because when it comes to denying the Creator you have to have a much larger imagination than is needed to believe that Jesus Christ is alive because he was resurrected.
Do not confuse the plates that are IMAGINED with the crust of GRANITE that IS observed and the terrestrial mantle of SILICATES that IS observed.
The granite crust that we have been able to observe, which is known as continental crust, corresponds to the dry land that we observe above sea level and extends partially as a border in the oceans to what is known as the “continental shelf”. The granite crust is on average 40 km thick and is composed mainly of granite and sediments.
Not all of the Earth's mantle is covered by the granite crust, the continental crust. In the oceans, parts of the mantle are only covered by sediment and water. This layer is known as the layer 1 of the oceanic crust and it actually includes in its layers 2 and 3 part of the earth's mantle.
The mantle is an earth’s layer that we can OBSERVE, which is composed of silicates, which is about 2900 kilometers thick, and which surrounds the core, the center of the planet.
That is what we observe: a granite crust, layers of sediments and the thickest layer of all, formed by silicates, which we call mantle. Not even what we call the core of the planet has been directly observed.
On the other hand, the supposed tectonic plates have an average of 125 km thick, almost 85 km on average, supposedly thicker than the granite crust. These so-called plates are composed of crust continental, oceanic crust and an arbitrary upper part of the terrestrial mantle, each one decides how much it includes, or not, as part of each plate. Make your tectonic plate game. That is, the thickness of the supposed plates is formed by an arbitrary mixture of the observed earth’s layers, clearly distinguished in their chemical composition, which we DO observe.
The Earth's mantle is a layer of about 2900 kilometers thick of silicate rock formations and each imagined tectonic plate supposedly has in its innermost part about 85 km from the top of the mantle.
These plates do NOT correspond to the dry land that we observe above sea level but with an arbitrary division that changes as much as the division into continents change. Some admit more plates others admit fewer plates.
In addition, the supposed plates penetrate the ocean much more than the granite crust that we CAN observe until we reach the "oceanic ridges”, which we can also observe, and that is where they imagine that such tectonic plates are formed. That is, other completely arbitrary borders, this time in the area covered by the supposed tectonic plates.
Plate tectonics cannot be OBSERVED because the imagined processes that would allow us to identify its borders, its edges, they supposedly happen in hundreds of millions of years and we haven't been that long in the planet.
With a picture of the present they imagine a movie of billions of years of the past.
The vast majority of earth’s oceanic trenches are found in the Pacific ocean. The imagination of man has proposed that these trenches formed when one plate was pushed under another in a process that has been called subduction. Subduction is the supposed mechanism that explains the formation of the oceanic trenches of the Pacific.
Today's seismic tomography should show clear images in 3 dimensions of gigantic plates that supposedly have an average thickness of 14 times the height of mount Everest, about 125 kilometers in thickness, penetrating one below the other in each zone, listen: IN EACH ZONE, NOT in a single one that has been manipulated, where there is an oceanic trench at the Pacific. They are not there. We imagine them.
A single zone, explainable by a global flood event, with images that are by no means conclusive, they get manipulated to make it appear that the conditions are met, and we generalize that the same thing happens in ALL other zones where there SHOULD be clear three-dimensional seismic tomography images of the supposed subductions that of course we do not have.
If we really are able to measure a displacement of up to maximum 10 CENTIMETERS per year, carefully measured with technology which normally has a margin of error of 15 METERS, that is to say a margin of error almost 100 times BIGGER than what you want to measure, in the planet's crust which is on average 15 kilometers thick, listen: on the CRUST, NOT on some supposed plates that they want to make us believe that they exist and that they are supposedly almost 10 times thicker than the earth's crust, if we are really able to measure said displacement of the crust, why are we not able to observe the supposed subduction of the supposed plates? The excuse is the same always: it happens in hundreds of millions of years. The people that they simply repeat the story they were taught, as if they were parrots, they should consider the possibility that it just doesn't happen.
But the story of the subduction, that a plate of 125 kilometers in thickness, which does not correspond to observable characteristics but to imagined ones, which penetrates under another of a similar thickness, in addition presents other serious logical problems in explaining, as claimed, the oceanic trenches of the Pacific that we DO observe.
What is the mechanism that makes the plates move? Which is the driving force? Why is there NO movement or flow observed at all in the mantle of the planet? If volcanoes occur under the plate superior by the magma generated in the friction of the two plates when the supposed subduction or penetration, how to explain that the volcanoes are on the aquatic side of the trench and not on the side penetrated into the land’s zone? How to explain that this supposed subduction occurs in an arc shape? If the plates are supposedly being generated at the mid-oceanic ridges that are supposedly rising, and the oceanic trenches are supposedly generated by supposed penetrations of one plate below another, how is it possible that there are intersections of trenches with ridges? How is it possible that material is rising and falling at the same time? What forces break plates supposedly between 50 and 200 km in thickness so they get separated? What forces make one penetrate under another? What forces make it possible to overcome the enormous pressures that would be generated in opposition to the supposed plate that is trying to penetrate? If one plate is penetrating under another and there is a strong friction when doing it, how to explain that the layers of sedimentation in the trenches are not disturbed? If ocean trenches are produced by plate subduction, a process that would increase the mass below the upper plate, how to explain the mass deficiencies below the trenches?
The story has several logical problems.
But what happens with all the evidence to the contrary and the lack of it in favour? And what happens with all the failed logic in the assumed mechanisms? Nothing. Nothing happens. The topic is ignored. The evidence and failed logic is as if they did not exist.
Dead in the deception of denying the Creator.
On the planet's oceans floor, a formation known as mid-oceanic ridge is observed. It is the longest rock formation on the planet. It is a huge and long scar that surrounds the entire planet similar to how seams surround a baseball.
This rock formation is credited with the formation of the tectonic plates. The problem is the same as always: there is NO OBSERVABLE evidence. Everything happens sporadically in processes that supposedly last hundreds of millions of years. Sporadic volcanic eruptions for hundreds of millions of years. Supposedly for this reason we do not observe how tectonic plates are formed.
What we DO observe is that in various parts of the formation there are cracks in perpendicular directions. These cracks indicate tension fracture, separation fracture, getting away fracture. This cracks are observed in two perpendicular directions. Some perpendicular to the line of the ridge and others parallel to the line of the ridge. The ones parallel to line NEVER cross the ones perpendicular to the line. This observation is completely contrary to the way in which mountains on the surface are believed to form: by compression of material.
The evidence observed, these cracks, indicate that the ridges are formed by tension fractures, NOT compression fractures, much less in TWO perpendicular directions.
What does the theory of plate tectonics do with this evidence? Nothing. It ignores it. Maybe because it can't explain it. It is not even mentioned in famous Internet encyclopedias. But YES it can be seen with the naked eye on any ocean relief map.
Below India, east of Africa, on an ocean relief map, a characteristic of the planetary ridge is observed: There is a gigantic "Y" inverted, forming a meeting in the form of a capital "T" letter. If the ridge is supposedly generating the formation of tectonic plates, why don't we see accumulation of ocean floor, as in a way of mountain formations by compression, in the areas of the "T" where there would be generation from two perpendicular directions? Other little problem of simple logic for the "theory", quote and quote, of plate tectonics.
Dead in the deception of denying the Creator.
The alternative to the whole story of plate tectonics and their millions of years is of course another story in which imagination is also used because we cannot know the past with certainty. No one can travel to the past and confirm that it really happened.
In this story it must be recognized that the evidence and logic indicate that there has to be a Creator.
This tale matches better with logic, with the evidence, and with the testimony of the 6th chapter of the book of genesis about an event that marked the history of humanity: a global planetary flood.
Just look at a photo of the planet from space and see that it seems flooded with water to recognize that, just there, this story already matches better with logic, evidence, and the bible.
But it's still just another story. There is no technical creativity. It is not something that the human being can rebuild.
The following presentation is based on the theory of hydroplates or “hydroplate theory”, initially proposed by Walt Brown in 1980 and last revised in 2019. Dr Brown may be called doctor because he has a PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT. His complete presentation is in a book on the Internet called “IntheBeginning” which can be downloaded for free or physically purchased at creationscience.com.
Your host, that is, me, Jose Luis Quiroga, does not share the theory of hydroplates in its entirety, not even in all the biblical foundation. But, in everything related to planetary geology, it seems to me that is simply the most logical and coherent explanation, with all the evidence, including the bible, that exists so far for what we see today on the planet.
The hydroplate theory starts from only 2 initial conditions for explaining more than 15 geological and planetary features that we observe today, and that, in the light, pardon me, the darkness, of the most popular explanations seem contradictory.
The two initial conditions are:
This planet had a global shell of granite that covered it completely and had, under the shell, water stored in underground chambers. There were no great oceans or great mountains. The planet did not seem flooded in water. The surface water was a few hundred meters deep and the highest parts of the mainland were also a few hundred meters high. The granite shell was a few tens of kilometers thick. The height of the underground chambers that contained the water between the granite shell and the center of the planet was only a couple of kilometers.
That great shell of granite that covered the entire planet and that had under it super-critical water increasing in pressure every time the earth rotated on its axis, it broke and tore, due to the pressure of that super-critical water, just above the formation that today we call mid-oceanic ridge and that divides the planet into two large parts as do the seams of a baseball. All the continents we see today are the torn and shrunken pieces of what was that granite shell. As this shell burst and tore, it contracted, shifted and shrunk slightly, releasing all the water inside it, and since it was lubricated by the water that was escaping from its interior, moved in the direction of contraction. The internal instability in the planet generated by that tear slightly bulged the planet in the Atlantic and submerged it slightly in the Pacific. The wrinkles on the granite shell changed the surface mass distribution of the planet and this, by conservation of angular momentum, caused a latitude rotation on the planet and what was near the equator of the planet is now the north pole. The end result of this process is what we see today. The rupture phase lasted for hours, then the flooding lasted for months, then the drift phase lasted days and finally the recovery phase is not over yet.
The mid-ocean ridge splits the planet in two.
To the part of the granite shell that now contains the Americas will be called from now on the Atlantic hydroplate and the other part of the granite shell, the largest in area, it will be called the Pacific hydroplate.
The Pacific hydroplate covered almost 3 quarters of the planet while the Atlantic hydroplate only 1 quarter of the planet. The two large hydroplates into which the granite shell that covered the planet was divided were lubricated by the underground water. Hence the name of the theory. Hydroplate theory.
Imagine a ball the size of an apple with a waterproof cloth that covers it. The cloth is the same thickness as the apple peel, and between the ball and the cloth there is a lubricant. The ball is the planet, the cloth is the granite shell, and the lubricant is the muddy water in super-critical state.
When the cloth covering the ball is torn along a line with the same shape of the mid-ocean ridge, the cloth slides over the surface of the ball letting the lubricant escape and contracts forming what we now call continents.
At the same time that this is happening, the ball deforms slightly in a tenth of the thickness of the cloth. On one side of the ball bulges into a tenth of the thickness of the cloth and by the opposite side sinks to a similar thickness. The edge of the sinked zone would be pacific trenches.
When the cloth shrinks and shifts, the cloth will wrinkle slightly on some parts of its surface, not more than one-tenth of the thickness of the cloth. The wrinkles would be the mountains.
The escaping lubricant ends up largely over the cloth that covered it. That water would be the oceans. At first glance it only seems that the cloth tore and shrank and that the liquid escaped and covered good part of the ball.
The wrinkles, that is to say the mountains, and the depressions, that is to say the zone limited by the trenches, are difficult to perceive with the naked eye in the ball of the size of an apple because they only have a maximum height of one tenth of the thickness of the cloth that covered the ball and which would be the thickness of the apple peel.
This comparison only gives us an idea of what happened to the cloth and with the lubricant, that is to say with the granite shell and with the super-critical water that was in the underground chambers, the two initial conditions of the hydroplate theory.
Let's see a little more in detail how the whole process works.
For a few hundred years, the water that was in underground chambers beneath the granite shell that completely covered the planet was heating up and increasing pressure due to the daily rotation of the planet and the presence of the moon until reaching the state known as super-fluid or super-critical. State in which the matter is neither gas nor liquid but super-fluid, also called supercritical.
The increase in pressure and temperature of the super-critical water contained in the underground chambers made the ceiling of granite and the floor of silicates from the chambers begin to dissolve in the super critical water. A couple of kilometers from the granite shell was dissolved in a few hundred years by the super-critical water and this weakened the granite shell.
The pressure reached such a point that a crack opened on the surface of the granite shell that grew horizontally and vertically, it also deepened. First it ended up traveling horizontally around the planet in a matter of a few hours, above what is now seen as the mid-ocean ridge. The crack in the granite shell opened like stretched fabric that begins to tear.
When the crack reached the depth of the underground chambers, the super-critical water stored under the shell began to leak out fired by said crack at super-sonic speeds releasing a stored energy greater than ten billion hydrogen bombs and reaching heights of tens of kilometers into the atmosphere. The majority of that water is what we now observe as oceans.
Water in a superfluid state released at supersonic speeds underwent a chain reaction by the energy stored on the surface of the microscopic droplets and in the ions of the super-fluid. The heat released was almost entirely used in the union of the ions and almost instantaneously on the vaporization of existing droplets or resulting from the union of ions producing an incremental expansion in vapor form at supersonic speeds as the super-fluid was released.
The super-fluid jet and its vertically directed expansion that should have been observed can be imagined by observing the jets of steam released on Saturn's moon Enceladus and on Jupiter's moon Europa. Since the energy released in this cataclysm was much greater than the that released on these moons, the jet would have been along the entire the crack, at much higher heights and speeds, much more focused, and without so much dispersion of the super-fluid that escapes through the crack, comparing with what is observed in these moons.
In the same way that the tip of a metal cutting torch focuses, the gas released in a directed jet of gas, the jet of super-critical water released was focused vertically into outer space by the crack in the granite shell that formed just above what is now known as the mid-ocean ridge.
The ridge was the floor of the underground chamber below the crack and it simply marks the point where the granite shell gave way due to the high pressure and the crack opened. At this time the floor had not raised yet and the ridge did not exist yet.
A good part of the material that was shot vertically with the super-critical water escaped into outer space and because they had approximately the same vector velocity, that is, its velocity was roughly the same in both magnitude and direction, that material was gathered by the simple action of gravity in many of the objects that today we call asteroids, meteorites, comets and trans-neptunian objects.
Another part of the super-critical water that shot out did not come out of the atmosphere but produced rains as abundant as the planet had never experienced until then and has never experienced since. Part of that super-critical water froze due to the lower temperatures of the higher layers of the atmosphere and produced abundant hail rain.
All the material that had been diluted from the ceiling of the underground chambers was expelled along with the super-critical water and fell on the planet in the form of muddy rain or icy muddy hail.
Where hailstorms occurred, an effect was produced that today we identify with ice ages. Actually it was just one and the effects have been preserved in some parts due to the rotation of latitude that the planet suffered. All evidence of frozen plants and animals near the North pole indicates that they were from the tropics and that they were frozen very quickly. This evidence is consistent with what would happen if, a few months after being buried under hail, the planet underwent a rotation of latitude that puts a tropical zone in the North Pole.
The high pressures, with which the super critical water was shot out through the crack, they were widening, eroding, wearing away, the crack, the opening, through which the water escaped, to such an extent that it lost pressure and the rains stopped. But the water level on the planet kept going up because muddy water kept escaping from the underground chambers that were under the granite shell.
As the super-critical water escaped the opening widened and to the granite shell a similar effect, only much slower, to what happens with the tongue when saying “BRRRRRRRRR” was produced: the tongue vibrates or flaps. This flutter effect, or waves of the hydroplates, of vertical pulsation, made the jet of water that came out through what was just a crack, already turned into an opening, to also pulsate.
This undulation in the Atlantic and Pacific hydroplates produced a piezo-electric effect inside the hydroplates that generated large discharges of energy. Discharges similar to what happens when we see a lightning fall from the sky. These lightnings or discharges of electrical energy occurred between the surface and the bottom of the gigantic granite hydroplates. The z-pinch effect that happened in these internal discharges of what we now call continental crust, that which was the original granite shell, produced a nuclear fission effect in the atoms used in the plasmatic zone of each discharge, and this produced heavy elements that began to decay into the radioactive elements that we observe today mainly in said continental crust.
The muddy water began to sat on top of the granite shell by the action of slow waves of about 60 meters high, both from the water above these, as of the granite shell itself on which they were starting to sit, to sediment. The liquefaction of these sediments, together with this undulation, they were separating the sediments in different layers with repetitive patterns. These layers were not necessarily in order of size, shape, and density because not all sediments fell at the same time.
The torrential rains lasted 40 days and the water continued to pour out of underground chambers for another 110 days. During all this time these layers were produced. These layers of sediment that came from the roof of the underground chambers that stored the super-critical water, that which was the bottom of the granite shell, is what we now know as geological strata.
The water transported the material of the walls of the underground chambers that was diluted in said water for hundreds of years before the crack was formed through which the water escaped. This water, with said materials diluted in it, moved, from under the granite shell, to above the shell, as said water was escaping from the underground chambers through the crack, later converted into an opening. By the process known as liquefaction, these materials together with the biological remains of what died on the surface, they settled down, they sedimented, forming what is now known as geological strata.
Not all geological strata were formed at this time, but most of the non-biological material comes from the ceiling of these underground chambers. All that we call sedimentary rock.
When the rains stopped, the water continued to flow for several months and because the crack widened so much that the water pressure decreased, the downward pressure on the floor of the chambers under the crack also decreased. This decrease in pressure on the floor of the underground chambers made for the floor to rise. It was first raised parallel to the crack in the granite shell. Then, as the crack in the granite was widening, the floor under the crack was lifting in a direction perpendicular to the crack in the granite. This lifting produced cracks in the floor perpendicular to the lines of the lifts. First floor cracks perpendicular to the granite crack and then floor cracks parallel to the granite crack. This is the reason for which the cracks in the mid-ocean ridge, that which was the floor of underground chambers, have the characteristic that those that are parallel to the ridge never cross the perpendicular ones. The perpendicular to the ridge were formed first and then those parallel to the mid-ocean ridge. This process generated what we now know as the mid-oceanic ridge.
The floor cracks parallel to the mid-ocean ridge make the subterranean temperature of the ridge below said cracks smaller than those in the areas where there is no crack. Since the magnetic capacity of chemical elements depends on the temperature, the intensity of the magnetism is greater where the temperature is lower. That's why the magnetism is greater just above where the cracks are.
This curve of intensity of magnetism that corresponds perfectly with the underground temperature is the one that has been misunderstood in the popular tale by saying that in the past there were polarity reversals at the magnetic poles of the planet. They never happened. We just have to accurately interpret the evidence.
Since the hydroplates in which the granite shell split apart were lubricated by the underground water, and due to the strong flow of super-critical water, the two gigantic hydroplates were at the drift. They kept afloat by the pressure of the water trying to get out only by the rupture zone, just above the current mid-ocean ridge.
This movement of the gigantic hydroplates lasted until the pressure of the water that came out of the underground chambers diminished enough so that the ceiling of the chambers began to rub against the floor of the chambers. This friction generated large amounts of magma and the movement of the hydroplates began to stop.
The imbalance in the pressures on the earth’s mantle product of the uplifts in the mid-ocean ridge and the displacement of the hydroplates generated small vertical cuts, internaly in the planet's mantle, and their walls rubbed each other as a result of that vertical displacement of the planet’s surface and of the mantle below them.
These vertical cuts increased in quantity to the sides and to the inside the planet as the ridge formed, as it lifted up, and as the area around the ridge also went lifting up. That friction produced heat and that heat made the material to melt into magma in these vertical micro-cuts. This produced a cycle that accelerated the process. The magma lubricated the micro cuts, these grew, this facilitated more vertical movement, more friction, more heat, more magma, more lubrication. In this way they generated gigantic columns of earth’s mantle, below the ridge, separated by thin cracks lubricated with magma. These columns go almost from the depth that the underground chambers were to the depth of liquid zone of the planet's core.
Magma is much more compressible than the mantle, and below the crossover depth, where the pressure is high enough, that is about 350 kilometers, the magma was compressed, became denser and sank toward the core of the planet.
Above the crossover depth the magma expanded and came out to the surface.
This type of movement of the magma is the cause of what even today we observe and call seismic movements.
Currently at depths near the crossover depth there is almost no magma movements. This is the reason why there are hardly any perceived seismic movements whose epicenter is close to the depth of the 350 kilometers. At this depth there are almost no magma displacements. The vast majority of magma displacements occur near the surface. And a minority occur near the liquid zone of the planetary core.
The increase in mass of compressed magma in the planet's core continues today and this increase has caused the planet to be losing volume. Similar to what is observed when a dry fruit loses volume.
The flow of magma towards the center and the surface of the planet continues today and is the cause of the seismic movements of the planet.
The increase of compressed magma in the liquid zone of the planet's core caused the magnetic material in the displaced liquid crystals to be realigned with the planets’s magnetic field and this is the reason why the magnetic field of this planet is much stronger than that of the rest of the solid planets in the solar system.
This alignment of magnetic elements that moved towards the nucleus with the pre-existing field increased the field.
The crystallization of these magnetic elements, mainly iron and nickel, generated a solid center on the planet. The solid zone of the planet’s core .
The movement of the magma fed back: more vertical movement, more friction, more heat, more magma, more lubrication and more vertical movement.
The internal imbalance of the planet increased. A part of the planet bulge and the opposite part sank.
The part that bulged is in what we now know as the Atlantic ocean and the part that sank is in the area inside what we now know as the Pacific ocean ring of fire. The magma that came out to the surface formed the more than 40 thousand oceanic volcanoes that can be seen in the Pacific.
This analysis allows to make one of the most important predictions of hydroplate theory that has not been verified: In the area within the gigantic "u" formed by the ring of fire, inside that "u", under the floor of that area that is all sunk in the Pacific ocean, below the floor of the layer of volcanic formations that are in that area, and bordering the entire interior of that "u" that forms the ring of fire, THERE SHOULD BE two large submerged pieces of the GRANITE hydroplates that separated just above the mid-oceanic ridge of the Pacific.
When the surface in the Pacific sank, a part of the gigantic hydroplate of the Pacific also sank, it sank with the surface of the planet, in the western part of the gigantic "u" of the Pacific ocean that today we known as "the ring of fire", bordering the coasts of Asia and Oceania.
And, when it sank, a part of the gigantic hydroplate of the Atlantic sank, it sank with the surface of the planet, in the east part of said "ring of fire", bordering the coasts of the Americas.
These sinking is what we observe as oceanic trenches in said ring of fire.
When the friction between the ceiling and the floor of the underground chambers stopped the movement of the gigantic hydroplates, in some parts the hydroplates rose, wrinkled, producing the mountains we see today. By that time they were in a state of liquefaction and behaved as a dense fluid.
In some areas of the planet, where there were wrinkles in the hydroplates of granite low enough to still be completely covered with water, the sediments that were on the high points of the wrinkles were re-ordered by the waves in the water since they did not find support on the granite hydroplate.
Due to the difference in densities between layer and layer, the biologic remains of plants and animals slid uphill where the pressure was lower, and they reorganized into new horizontal layers above the previous layers of strata that had already settled, forming the breaking zone in the geological strata that is now known as geological unconformities.
The biological material that was separated in the middle of these upper layers of sedimentation was compressed by the wrinkling of the hydroplates and later by the weight of the upper layers and it reached high temperatures. Depending on the amount of water, the pressure reached, and the temperature reached, they formed the deposits of coal, oil and gas that we see today.
The gigantic hydrocarbon deposits that cannot be explained if formed over millions of years, because it would be impossible maintain the necessary conditions in such large blocks for such a long time, they find a completely feasible explanation under a process that lasted only a few months and that can be reproduced today, in its chemical aspect, in the laboratory.
The formation of mountains caused that part of the water that was above the hydroplates to be trapped in some parts thus forming gigantic lakes above the hydroplates. Seismic movements produced by the movement of magma on the planet both towards the surface and towards the core of the planet caused some lakes to overflow slightly producing a chain effect of that overflow in which the flow of water increases the size of the point of overflow until producing a gigantic outlet through which the water of the lake comes out until it's almost empty.
This process was what generated, in a few weeks, great canyons like the one found in Colorado.
The water that came out of these lakes sought the path of least resistance and as it flowed out it took with it some of the land around it and scratched, carved, in the ground the kind of patterns that are observed in those canyons.
The friction between the ceiling and the floor of the underground chambers, that were almost without water, it not only stopped the movement of hydroplates and wrinkled them, forming today's mountains, but generated large amounts of magma where the ceiling and floor of the chambers touched.
When the weight of the granite hydroplates where there was more mass, which is to say where the mountains formed, began to sink due to the weight, the magma moved to the underground parts of the chambers where there was less weight above, less pressure, that is to say where there were no mountains above.
As magma accumulates under these flat areas, the upward pressure made by the magma fractured the granite hydroplate and the cracks of those fractures filled with magma allowing the magma to escape from the underground chambers to the surface of the hydroplates.
This magma lubrication allowed hydroplate blocks to rise as a piston rises. The rise of this hydroplate blocks due to the pressure made by the magma that was escaping from below the hydroplate blocks trough their perimeters, lubricating the rise of these blocks as a piston, generated the plateaus that are observed beside some large and heavy mountain areas.
The same uplift that generated the plateaus is also part of what generated the overflow of lakes that had formed when the water was surrounded by mountains and that generated canyons such as the one in Colorado Arizona. And in cases where afterwards, the water that overflowed from a lake, flowed around the solidified magma in volcanic rock of these plateaus, eroding the sediments around the volcanic rock, it formed the so-called Butte. Mountain formations of the plateau type having solid magma or volcanic rock on top as in the case of the Red Butte in the United States.
After the formation of the mountains, that wrinkling of the hydroplates, and due to conservation of angular momentum, the zones of high latitudes in which great mountains were formed began to move to more southern latitudes and the planet suffered a latitude rotation. Today's north pole was once in the tropical zone. Evidence for this latitude rotation is found in the angular variation of the polarization of the magma magnetic material that was solidifying as the magma cooled when the planet rotated, thus leaving a record of said rotation.
The oceanic formation known as "the ridge of the meridian 90 East", which is located just below the area with the highest mountains in the planet, is another evidence that is observed today and that is explained by the latitude rotation suffered by the planet. Since the planet is not perfectly espherical but is more bulky in the equator, as the planet rotated in latitude, the area that reached to the equator was stretched with the tension generated by the daily turn of the planet, and in the same way that a round rubber breaks in a single point when stretched enogh, the surface of the planet was always tearing by the same point and as the magma generated in the crack was coming out it was solidifying on the surface, thus generating said mountainous formation in what is now the Indian ocean. That's the reason why it's almost a straight line. It simply indicates the direction in which the planet rotated. And the length of the formation tells us how much the planet rotated, the angle that the planet rotated.
The recovery phase continues today. We still have growth in the nucleus product of displacement of magma towards said nucleus. This produces some of the seismic movements that we observe today. The other earthquakes are the product of displacement of magma towards the surface also producing the volcanic activity that we observe today. The slight bulge at the Atlantic and slight sinking at the Pacific in the central zone of the ring of fire continues today and that is why a small displacement is observed in the continental crusts that is directed towards that area of the Pacific. And the oceans and frozen poles of the planet are planetary flood effects that we still see today.
Your host, that is me, Jose Luis Quiroga, has some differences with the presentation of the hydroplate theory that Walt Brown does in his book “In the Beginning” and with Brian Nickel’s Internet videos, a contributor to the Center for Scientific Creation, the organization that maintains creationscience.com.
One big difference is in what Genesis 1 and 2 includes as part of THIS creation. This should be obvious to anyone who has not skipped the section of this presentation dedicated to creation, and that has read Dr Walt Brown's book, “In the Beginning”.
Fortunately, the hydroplate theory has more to do with what happened during the planetary flood in Noah's time than with what happened during creation.
The biggest difference is in the biblical justification for the initial conditions of the hydroplate theory.
It is completely incoherent to think that the word H8064 704 stops mean heavens, shamaim, that in which according to Genesis 1 the birds fly, just for one single verse of the bible: the one that says that “And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day” 705.
Trying to give various meanings to the word H8064 706, the shamaim, the heavens, in the first chapter of the bible, to then choose the one I like best to fit the two main assumptions of my story, however logical and consistent with current evidence, is theologically untenable.
The bible says that: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were UNDER the firmament from the waters which were ABOVE the firmament: and it was so” 707. And then “God called the firmament HEAVEN” 708. The same word, actually heavens, the word H8064 709, plural, shamayim, is used along the whole first two chapters consistently to refer to a place where there the sun, the moon and the stars are observed, and the place where birds fly.
But no, only when God decided to call the expansion "heavens", which this theory wants to understand as the granite shell, is that it does not mean what it always means, because obviously the heavens cannot be a granite shell.
The bible is also very clear in saying that God said: "Let the waters UNDER the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the DRY land appear: and it was so” 710. That dry land is the granite shell. That dry land came out of the waters that were UNDER the expanse. That dry land was formed UNDER the heavens. That dry land, which is the granite shell, is UNDER the heavens. That dry land is NOT the heavens.
It is perfectly possible that it is precisely this verse that gives support to the two initial conditions of the hydroplate theory. It says: "Let the waters UNDER the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the DRY land appear: and it was so” 711. When the dry land appeared, from the waters that were UNDER the heavens, said waters that were gathered in ONE place, as the book likes to emphasize, they also formed the seas, plural, some in the underground chambers, others on the surface. The “gathering”, quote and quote, is BEFORE the appearing of the land. And the word H6960 behind that “gathering” is different to the word H4723 of what was named “seas”. The “gathering” is NOT what is named “seas”. This allows the interpretation that when the “appearing” of the dry land happened what was “gathered” in ONE place got divided into a plural: the “seas”.
And the fact that the proponents of the hydroplate theory do not find feasible the famous canopy, that water that the bible tells us that was ABOVE the heavens, because of the pressure, and because of the temperature, and because the greenhouse effect, and because... to me they sound like the same kind of excuses that many so-called scientists have with this story in particular, with the theory of hydroplates: that there is too much heat, and too much cold, and that the transfer of heat..., and that a lot of energy...
If Jesus Christ really was resurrected, we may not understand all the details of why there were waters above the heavens, or why the bible is completely true. But that doesn't mean it can't be as the bible affirms, or that I start to adapt it so that it fits with my prejudices.
To imagine tales of a past that fit the biblical description, and what is observed today, that are coherent enough to call them scientific, according to the most popular criteria, NOT the one in this presentation, you just need exactly that: imagination.
Also to explain all the mass that exists in asteroids, meteorites, comets and trans-neptunian objects that supposedly came out of this planet, according to this story, it is much easier with that little water that the bible says it was there, instead of multiplying six times the width of the granite shell so that the data reported by the pagan NASA fits with my theory.
Here we are not talking about technical creativity, the one that in this presentation it is the only one that is accepted to validate a scientific theory. Here we are simply talking about imagination. This is just another story about the past, that which we cannot know.
In this story we only need imagination. Not as much as it’s needed for the tectonic plates tale, but imagination after all.
The bible tells us that all human beings are descended from one single couple Adam and Eve.
Many so-called bible believers tend to read Genesis as if it was poetry. Or as if they were the parables of Jesus Christ. But the hebrew used in Genesis tells us that it is a historical narrative. That what Genesis narrates is exactly as it happened.
Many people find it hard to believe that ALL of humanity is offspring of a single couple. The reason is the tale with which they have polluted our brains since we were little: the tale of evolution.
A first observation is that mathematically it is much more probable for a population growth, consistent with today's observations, to have a recent beginning, than one from hundreds of thousands of years ago.
On the other hand, genetics, that one of which we do not have technical creativity yet, that which has no idea how to create a lung, or a kidney, from a drop of my blood, has recently begun to talk about a genetic Adam and a genetic Eve.
Genetic Adam is identified with a single "Y" chromosome common to all humanity and the genetic Eve with a single mitochondria common to all humanity.
However, this kind of conclusions from genetics, which is a field of study plagued by the story of evolution, is like concluding that because two programs have common functions, or because two machines have equal parts, then said programs and said machines must have a common origin.
We can't even make our own program, or our own biological machines, otherwise make me my liver from my drop of blood, and we pretend to be able to explain, through what we do not understand, how was the process, at the genetic level, with our ancestors. And without believing in the existence of a creator. Absurd, right? But that's where we are.
A model that we see on a day-to-day basis that supports the possibility that all mankind is descended from a single couple just a few thousand years is the reproduction of biological systems.
The 37 million million, or 37 teras, of cells in a human body, they formed in just 40 weeks of gestation. All 37 teras of cells came from just ONE cell: the fertilized egg.
The exponential growth that occurs when each cell divides by mitosis in two others is a process easily comparable to a process similar in a population in which each couple has as offspring two other couples.
And just as complete systems can come out of a single cell, completely different systems as the respiratory, the digestive, the nervous, circulatory, with specialized elements to carry out an specific function, similarly, in a population that starts with a single human couple, all the variety that we observe today in the human population, can come from it.
However, with arguments that presume to understand the genetic process of human reproduction they try to deny this possibility. First BUILD me my lung, and only my LUNG, from a drop of my blood, to believe that you really understand, at the GENETIC level, what happens during the process of human reproduction.
Because if they want me to believe that they understand how the program works, it is not enough for me for they to execute the whole program and then SLICE the result.
One thing is to click on the icon and another thing to write the program executed when you click the icon.
When we make LITTLE CLONS, either in the way that our Creator intended, man with woman, or with other less pleasant methods, the only thing that we are doing is 'clicking' the icon without having any idea how the program works.
To believe them that they really understand human reproduction, at the genetic level, first make me my KIDNEY from a drop of my blood. But without cheating, JUST my kidney.
One of the main facts that must be taken into account whenever we think about dinosaurs is that: every time a Carbon 14 test has been done on dinosaur fossils, it has been found Carbon 14 on them. This means that, according to the assumptions of the radiometric dating, those dinosaur fossils can NOT be more than 60 thousand years old.
No person who believes the tale of evolution likes this fact. Because the only alternative to the existence of the Creator of Heavens and Earth is the tale of evolution. And if we don't want recognize the existence of the Creator, we decide to believe the lies that we were taught in school. The tale of the frog.
However, there is clear evidence that the dinosaurs became extinct recently, that is if they really are extinct. And there is clear evidence that man always lived with these animals, that is if we are not still living with the few that remain.
Nowadays, thanks to the Internet, it is easy to verify that:
But what happens when this evidence is found? Nothing, nothing happens. It is simply ignored, denied or misrepresented because it is not consistent with the story of the millions of years that they taught us in school. It is not consistent with the tale of the frog.
There are several reptilian animals that have the appearance of what we now call dinosaurs. In fact the word "dinosaur" means "terrible lizard". Several of these animals never stop growing.
Now days most of these reptiles don't live long but it's quite possible that they lived hundreds of years before the planetary flood.
There are fossils animals, such as winged insects, which due to their size they couldn't fly in today's atmosphere. These fossils suggest that before the radioactive fallout of the planetary flood, these animals grew much more. Now imagine an 800 year old iguana that never stopped growing. That would be a terrible iguana.
Additionally, the bible describes some animals that resemble some of those that we now know as dinosaurs.
In Job 40 it says that: “See now, behemoth, which I made as well as you. He eats grass as an ox. Look now, his strength is in his thighs. His force is in the muscles of his belly. He moves his tail like a CEDAR. The sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are like tubes of BRONZE. His limbs are like BARS OF IRON. He is the CHIEF of the ways of God. He who made him gives him his sword. Surely the mountains produce food for him, where all the animals of the field play. He lies under the lotus trees, in the covert of the reed, and the marsh. The lotuses cover him with their shade. The willows of the brook surround him. Behold, if a river overflows, he doesn’t tremble. He is confident, though the Jordan swells even to his mouth. Shall any take him when he is on the watch, or pierce through his nose with a snare?” 712.
By that description, the Behemoth closely resembles what we now call sauropods.
In Job 41, concerning Leviathan, it says: “I will not keep silence concerning his limbs, nor his MIGHTY STRENGTH, nor his goodly frame. Who can strip off his outer garment? Who will come within his JAWS? Who can open the doors of his face? Around his teeth is TERROR.  One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined to one another. They stick together, so that they can’t be pulled apart. His sneezing FLASHES out light. His eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.  SPARKS of FIRE leap out.  His breath kindles coals.  There is strength in his neck. Terror dances before him. The flakes of his flesh are joined together. They are firm on him. They can’t be moved. His heart is as FIRM as a STONE, yes, firm as the lower millstone. When he raises himself up, the mighty are AFRAID. They retreat before his thrashing. If one attacks him with the SWORD, it CAN’T prevail; nor the spear, the dart, nor the pointed shaft. He counts IRON as STRAW; and BRONZE as ROTTEN WOOD. The arrow can’t make him flee. Sling stones are like chaff to him. Clubs are counted as stubble. He laughs at the rushing of the javelin. His undersides are like sharp potsherds, leaving a TRAIL in the mud LIKE a threshing SLEDGE. He makes the deep to boil like a pot. He makes the sea like a pot of ointment. He makes a path shine after him. One would think the deep had white hair. On earth there is not his equal, that is MADE WITHOUT fear. He sees everything that is high. He is KING over all the sons of pride” 713.
By that description, Leviathan could easily be some kind tyrannosaurs.
The bible also contains evidence that these animals always lived with humans.
The classification of animals is currently plagued by the story of evolution, with the tale of the frog. The classification criteria are those of a genetic evolution that NEVER happened.
At the beginning of the 18th century, the classification was more evident. Literally. The classification of the father of modern, LISTEN: MODERN, taxonomy was simple and according to the evidence observable with the naked eye.
He classified more than 40 thousand animals in only 6 large groups that translated from latin, because he liked latin, they would be something like:
Of course it is just a name because among the quadrupeds were men and apes.
In their first versions, the quadrupeds had 33 kinds of animals, birds had 47 kinds, amphibians 4 kinds, fish 41 kinds, insects 47 kinds and worms 19 kinds.
He called these kinds of animals “genera” or “genus” in english. Over time, the classification acquired more levels, but in its first versions it didn’t have neither families nor classes for example.
In these first classifications of animals by "genera" can be distinguish names such as “equus”, “elephas”, “tigris”, “canis”, “felis”, “camelus”, “simia”, “pavo”, “gallina”, “falco”, which logically correspond to names such as "equine", "elephant", "tiger", "canine", “feline”, “camel”, “ape”, “turkey”, “hen”, “falco”.
Each one would be a class or kind of animal that resembles each other. Thus, among the "equus" we find the zebra and the horse. It was one logical classification, simple. It was not biblical but it was evident.
In the bible, the classification of animals is even simpler, more evident and ofcourse among the animals it’s not the human being, but there are dragons, that is to say the dinosaurs, those that were already rare in the 18th century.
A first classification is flesh. And flesh in the bible has BLOOD. And the blood in the bible is RED. There is no blue blood in the bible, nor yellow, nor green, nor purple, there is only red blood. Thus, one first classification of animals is given by those that have red blood.
A second classification is whether they live in water, on land, or fly. Amphibians are among those that live in water.
Those that both live on land and have flesh, the bible divides them in two groups: those that crawl and those that don't.
It is a classification that roughly corresponds to the one they teach at school. Two large groups: vertebrates and invertebrates. In other words, “flesh” and “no flesh”, because almost all of the vertebrates are red blooded, so the comparison is approximate.
Vertebrates are divided into fish, amphibians, mammals, reptiles and birds. That is water, land and fly. Where the land ones are divided into mammals and reptiles. And the water ones would be the fish and amphibians because the bible does not differentiate them.
It is a simple, logical and obvious classification. Much more than those of the 21st century.
And why all this explanation?
Well, because if we take into account the classification by "genera" of the father, LISTEN: FATHER, of modern taxonomy, at the beginning of the 18th century, that is to say very recently, we only have a little more than 80 kinds or types of animals to put in the boat built by Noah and his relatives. These would be the same ones that Adam named in a morning because YHWH did not put him to name insects, or aquatic animals, or other supposed animals, according to some EXA-modern classifications, of the 21st century, that cannot even be seen with the naked eye, like viruses or BACTERIA.
The diversification of the animals that came out of Noah's ark, in what are now called species, which is nothing more than the adaptation of these animals to different environmental conditions, occurred after the great planetary flood.
All the canines that we classify as different species are simply the adaptation to a specific environment of the pair of canines that came out of the boat that Noah and his relatives built.
 The same goes for all “elephas”, “tigris”, “equus”, “felis”, “camelus”, “simia”, “pavo”, “gallina”, “falco” from the father of MODERN taxonomy.
Among the evidence supporting this claim is that:
Thus, the total number of animals in Noah's ark is even less than what an average current zoo has and that is maintained by 3 or 4 people in charge of the animals.
The bible tells us that YHWH commands Noah to build an ark made of specially treated wood and 300 cubits long by 50 cubits wide by 30 cubits high. It also tells us that said ark ran aground in the mountains of Ararat after the global flood water level began to go down.
In the year 1948 a series of earthquakes and rains brought out what is now known as the Durupinar Archaeological Site at Uzengili Turkey. It was discovered by a shepherd in the area and later in 1959 identified on an aerial photo by an experienced cartographer named Durupinar and that’s why it’s now known by that name.
 From the air it looks like the deck of a ship. A huge ship.
After blowing up part of what looked like a ship’s deck, the expedition of which Durupinar was part, they came to the conclusion that what it looked like a boat "it was a phenomenon of nature and it was not made by the man”. Popular encyclopedias on the Internet stay with this conclusion. Perhaps it seems to them that BLOWING UP a place, that the government of Turkey now recognizes as archaeological, it’s an efficient way to excavate a site of archaeological interest.
Several people have continued to push the investigation of the place on their own. Without the finantial help of any government but with their own money.
As recently as 2014 a team from New Zealand led by a geophysicist named John Larsen obtained permission from Turkey to scan the resistivity of the ground in the area.
The result is simply undeniable: underneath what has the shape of a gigantic boat deck, there is material of the same resistivity that has the shape of the hull of a boat that would correspond to said deck. It is rationally impossible to think that it is not a boat.
The facts of what has a boat structure are several:
Too many coincidences, of those that accumulate with exponential effect. Actually there are more coincidences but they are not so easy to confirm. Still, these are already too many coincidences. It's almost the same as it happens with Internet searches. Statistically, and careful, I emphasize in the term "statistically" for reasons that will become clear later, it is reasonably impossible to deny that it is the boat described in the bible.
However, if we ignore the two fundamental principles of this part 3 of the presentation, it is rationally unattainable to believe the story of Noah.
Even in the 21st century, assuming current technology availability, and assuming abundant resources, it is difficult to imagine the possibility of such an enterprise.
How to build a wooden ark of that size? How to choose and transport the animals to the ark? How to accommodate them in the ark? How to maintain all those animals, food, manure, temperature, health, etc. for a whole year, without anyone dying? How to explain that in such extreme conditions a ship with such a load achieved its objective? How to explain that the animals survived and then repopulate the planet?
That there weren't so many animals, that wood can be treated with heat and pressure together with oils of vegetable origin and make a material stronger than steel, that they didn't have to go after the animals, that God explained everything to Noah, that Noah took more than fifty years to make the ark, that the animals before the flood were vegetarians including the T-rex, that it was a flood and not a gigantic storm, that the waves in the area of the ark were passive, that they were located in the area of the planet least affected by the great rotation, that before the flood biological systems including humans grew much larger and were much stronger than after the flood, that they only carried baby animals and not adult animals, that before the flood it had never rained on the planet, that everything can come out of a single couple in a similar way to how every sexual animal comes from single cell during its gestation, that before the flood animals and people lived much longer because they did not get sick, that not all the fossils that have been found are from that time because a fossil can be formed in tens of years, that just after the flood the continental crust had not sunk and therefore the crust areas were interconnected, that specialization in feeding and environment as well as infertility among animals of the same kind associated with such localized adaptation occurred after the flood, that that’s why the fossils of already specialized animals are subsequent to said specialization and location, that in just a few tens of years there can be achieved great diversity in appearance for the same kind of animal, that this and that and the other.
It doesn't really matter how much evidence or arguments there are of the possibility that the biblical narrative is feasible and true, if you don't first believe that all those animals and those 8 people, by logical necessity, had to be created by a Creator and designer with an intelligence and knowledge that today’s man, with today's technology, can hardly imagine.
And in order to accept that the story really happened, and that the biblical narrative is historical, it is almost rationally impossible to accept it without first believing that Jesus Christ is alive because after dying on the cross he was resurrected.
The testimony about Jesus Christ is that he spoke of Noah as an historical event, then if the testimony that Jesus Christ was resurrected is true, then the biblical narrative about Noah must be authentic.
That is why when this part of the presentation began, emphasis was placed on these two biblical principles:
If these two fundamental points are denied, ignored, or not taken taken into account, it is almost rationally unattainable to be able to believe that the Noah's story is authentic.
That God, who the biblical narrative says spoke to Noah, was the same one that made sure that everything happened as it is written in the bible. He has always been and will be in control. Nothing absolutely nothing takes Him by surprise. That is the God of the bible.
If you don't believe in that God, only He can make you believe in him and drag you to his Son Jesus Christ. The promise is that, someday, before or after the resurrection of the dead, He will do it, with you and with EVERYONE, absolutely EVERYONE who has lived since Adam, is alive, and will be alive.
A good way to know the past would be to be able to repeat it at will, without affecting it. Something like watching the movie of any past moment in virtual reality and without intervening with its development. But to really know it, it would also be necessary to be able to know what that each person is thinking. What are the intentions of each person. Being able to see inside the human heart.
Human beings still do not have access to such technology and even just a few years ago, video was something that could only be recorded with very expensive equipment. In addition, the human being only had access to video technology until the 20th century. And photography was only achieved until the 19th century. That is why the history before the 19th century is sought to be known with two main types of evidence: written and physical objects.
Only until the 15th century, with the construction of the first movable type printing press, was that the written medium began to get to the masses. Before the printing press, every book had to be copied by hand and therefore they were quite expensive for the average person. The printing press taught the common person to read because it allowed him to have access to the written medium.
The historian, according to popular criteria, must be a scholar, that is, a person with sufficient training for the task. The ideal is that said person has the sole motivation to communicate the facts, the truth, no matter how difficult it is to accept. He must have no political interest, or economic or religious. He must have the ability to summarize without omitting, and to write in a coherent and interesting way.
In written sources, the ideal is that said source is the closest to the events, that it has been written by a person with the characteristics mentioned, that the origin of said source is known, and that in case when a long time has passed, the copies of said source to be as reliable as possible. That said copies have been made by people trained to do so, with the greatest possible fidelity and methodical way. It is also desirable to have more than one reliable source about the same event. In this way it is possible to cross the different sources. It is desirable to have copies, for a given source, of different instants in time, in order to compare them and see if the narration has been modified, thus losing credibility. It is desirable that the names of people and places be completely consistent with the rest of the sources, including the archaeological.
The irony is that when a person or a group of people searches, really research, compare, analyze, collect sources and compare them, and over time he concludes that, by comparison, in each of the points mentioned above, the best compilation of historical written sources that exists is precisely the bible, that person, all of the sudden becomes, in the eyes of those who haven't done their homework, PRE-judgmental.
 He is accused of being "brain washed”, as if it were a bad thing, by those who still have a sick, DIRTY and DEAD mind.
Some who start the task, but do not finish it, and do it halfway, as the most internationally renowned institute of history dedicated to promote the story of evolution, even recognizes that, and I open quotes, “much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact MORE accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories”, close quots. That is what this institute of propaganda of the lie of the evolution, of the story of the frog, has to say about the bible. And of course it does not consider Genesis as included in its comment.
The Book of Genesis, or Bereshit in hebrew, has always been considered by its readers as a historical book with the exception of the two last centuries. The literary style of Genesis tells us that it is a historical narration and was considered so by its readers throughout history. Only until the 19th century, when the lie of evolution got popularized, was that people, even among believers in Jesus Christ, began to see it differently.
But it is not the only case in which the veracity of the bible has been doubted. It has happened with people like Nimrod, David, Balthazar, Pilate, Darius, with cities or empires like Akkad, Ur, the Hittites, and Nineveh, that before being RE-discovered or identified, they were used to discredit the veracity of the bible, only to get later, after being RE-found or identified, being ignored or despised as evidence of Biblical truthfulness by those PRE-judicious.
The bible is first used to discredit its historicity, and when confirmed it gets ignored. Many of the historians who initially doubt the veracity of the bible, once they finish the task, and they come to the conclusion that it is completely reliable, then, they are simply ignored as if they had always held that position.
One of the most important archaeologists and scholars, one of the opponents in the 19th century of the book of the Acts as historically reliable, after finishing his task, he arrived at the conclusion that Luke in each of his mentions of 32 countries, 54 cities, 9 Mediterranean islands and 95 people of historical renown he didn't make a single mistake. Now he is disregarded as just a New Testament scholar as if he was always so.
The bible presents much more rigor and accuracy than what is observed in modern cases. The first year the Encyclopedia Britannica was published it contained so many mistakes regarding places in the United States that it had to be recalled.
Until just the last century, one of the arguments, or rather excuses, against the historical reliability of the old testament was that the oldest copy, the oldest manuscript, was from 900 years after Jesus Christ. Once they found the scrolls from Qumram, near the Dead Sea, in Israel, dated from about a thousand years before, and compared them with the ones we had, the conclusion of the preservation of the old testament became undeniable.
Archaeological evidence? The archaeological record of entire cities, entire empires, entire civilizations, the entire planet in its geological features is evidence of the truth of the bible.
The problem is not in the evidence, that our Creator guarantees that He will preserve, but in the heart of man, that which also guarantees us that He will circumcise in due time.
We were made to worship our Creator, for our own good.
The bible is historically reliable.
In the bible there are a series of verses that give us a column of events. A series of verses that if placed temporally make it impossible to deny what the bible says about the history of humanity.
The date King Solomon began the construction of YHWH's temple can be ratified externally by synchronisms with the chronology of the neo-Assyrians.
In addition to the large amount of archaeological information regarding the chronology of the kings recorded in the books of Kings and Chronicles in the bible they also confirm that Solomon began the construction of the temple in the year 966 before Jesus Christ.
From this date it can be established when the exodus took place according to the bible. In 1st Kings 6 it says that "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord” 714. Mathematical subtraction tells us that the exodus began in the year 1446 before Jesus Christ.
In Exodus 4 it says that: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt” 715. Mathematical subtraction tells us that 1876 before Jesus Christ was the year that Jacob entered Egypt with the Israelites, when Joseph was already second in command in Egypt. At that time Joseph sent chariots to pick up Jacob and his family, who were in Beersheba.
And with the generations given in Genesis 5 and 11, the age that Abraham fathered Isaac, and Isaac fathered Jacob, the age at which Jacob died, and the time that Jacob lived in Egypt, data that we find it all in Genesis, it can be calculated the dates of birth and death of each of the people in those genealogies back to Adam.
This mathematical operation gives us a date on which the events narrated in Genesis 1 and 2 occurred that indicate a few thousand years ago. NOT tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, not millions of years. That is what what the bible says. The one that God promises to protect, keep and preserve.
These three dates establish the biblical column of the history of the humanity on this planet.
The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 add up to a different total of years depending on the manuscript you read. There are 2 large groups of manuscripts, two great traditions of manuscripts, of which derive the texts of Genesis that we read today in our own idiom:
The genealogies of the Septuagint always add up to more than a thousand years higher than the sum of those of the Masoretic. Both cannot be right.
Under the principles of this part 3 of the presentation only one of the two is true.
This means that either:
In the discipline of textual criticism the most important of the fundamental principles, called canons, is that: “in a difference among manuscripts, the manuscript that can best explain the others is the most probably correct”.
The arguments and evidence that allow this host to prefer the chronology we find in the Septuagint are:
Just as in some judicial systems it is established whether the accused had the means, the opportunity, and the motive, to commit a crime. It is clear that the evidence and logic indicates that these aspects are met much more easily for a shortening of the chronology by the rabbis than for a lengthening of the chronology at the time of production of the Septuagint. After the destruction of the second temple, the rabbis had the motive, the opportunity and the means to shorten the original chronology.
On the other hand, the evidence and logic indicate that the text of the Masoretic is explained from a change in the Septuagint much more easily than the text in the Septuagint from a change in the Masoretic. Thus, the main canon of textual criticism points to the veracity of the Septuagint.
The famous story of the tower of Babel is found in Genesis 11.
If we can believe the story of Noah, it is not so difficult to believe a good translation of the story in Genesis 11. Some 50 years after the death of Noah, the people still spoke only one language, the one that Noah and his family spoke. God had commanded Noah to scatter and populate the whole earth, but some rebels did not believed Noah and decided to build a city and a tower so as not to be scattered. YHWH makes them scatter anyway, maybe simply by the death of a certain Nimrod, who was the one who directed the matter, and the construction of the city and the tower stop. The scatter and settle of people in separate places does what it always does and each group forms its own cultural identity including its own language, and retaining something of the grandiose idea of building pyramids and that is why we observe them in all ancient cultures. The city where the rebellion began is commemorated with a name that alludes to the event.
The arguments and the evidence that allow this host to affirm that the ancient city of Eridu, of ancient Mesopotamia, located in the Tel-Abu-Shahrain location near Basra, IS the Babel of Genesis 11 are the following:
The bible allows us to think that some 400 years after the time of Nimrod, that is to say from the time of Babel or Eridu, in the time of Peleg, the granite shell that was torn during the planetary flood, settled or sunk more quickly than it had been doing, let's say in a period of about two hundred years with an average of 10 centimeters per month, and the water ended up covering and separating the points that allowed humans to travel across and expand throughout the planet during those 400 years.
All the evidence indicates that the story of Babel is the story of Eridu.
The year 525 after Jesus Christ was the first year after Jesus Christ, when a monk calculated that Jesus Christ must have been born 525 years ago. From that moment on, the time system used by the entire planet today was generated. System that has no year zero because from year 1 before Jesus Christ you go directly to year 1 after Jesus Christ. And that is also why, according to some experts, Jesus Christ ends up being born in 5 before Jesus Christ.
Before this absolute and global system of the king of kings, of the lord of Lords, of the owner of the planet, the way to identify a date was dependent on the little king reign. Each event was identified by the year of the reign under which it happened. That is to say: the same way as now, only that it was for each little king, because the king of kings had not arrived yet.
This is why the most reliable method to determine the date of an event prior to Jesus Christ has to take into account each little king reign, the number of years that he reigned, if another little king was reigning at the SAME time, the different names by which the SAME little king was known, the different ways of counting a reign, if it was either from the first full ruled year, from the first moment in which he began to govern, or any other method, in which solar or lunar month the calendar year began for the culture of the little king, if the reign was counted from when he began to rule or from the time the father king was dying, or any other way of counting that the culture of the day had. Every chronology of every little king has to account for all these details.
Synchronisms, those relationships that accept that two people, places or events between different historical sources correspond to the SAME person, place or event, are the bridges that allow to establish moments that occurred simultaneously between two chronologies of different reigns. This is the glue, which allows you to join the chronologies of each little king with each other and in this way to put together a global timeline.
In addition to these regional dates and synchronisms, you must also cross this information with that obtained in the sequences established by the layers or levels of ARCHAEOLOGICAL artifacts in the urban settlements of each kingdom, of each culture that suggest a sequence of events.
Details, details, details, that added together can double or triple the total time of a chronology if they are not taken into account or the wrong relations, the wrong synchronisms, are made.
The Rosseta stone was the archaeological artifact that allowed us to begin to decode the hieroglyphs of Egypt because they contained the same text in three different forms including greek and Egyptian hieroglyphs. The archaeological evidence found in Egypt is literally monumental. The gigantic monuments are full of hieroglyphics and being able to decipher them was an archaeological achievement literally monumental.
The French champion who became famous for decoding hieroglyphs in the famous stone, also formulated the most IMPORTANT historical synchronism for the popular Egyptian chronology: That the little king, or better said the little pharaoh, because he is from Egypt, named in the bible, listen: IN THE bible, as Shishak in 1st Kings 14 716, was exactly the same Sheshonk 1st of the 22nd Egyptian dynasty according to Manetho. It seemed to the champion that they sounded alike and therefore they had to be the same person. Shishak is Sheshonk.
The bible says that “in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem” 717, and according to the champion, that should be the same Sheshonk who attacked Israel. The champion didn't even get the memo that Sheshonk went to the north of Israel, not to Judah, where Jerusalem is, and therefore he could not be the same person. The champion, based on the biblical chronology, knew that Rehoboam's fifth year corresponds to 925 before Jesus Christ, and therefore that should be the date that the guy Sheshonk 1st of the 22nd dynasty attacked Israel.
And once the champion said it, that's how it happend. The reason for trusting the biblical date for Shishak, NOT Sheshonk, is that the historical sources, including archaeological information, and in exceptional manner the astronomical records of the Neo-Babylonian reigns, and the neo-Assyrian lunar system of years, have allowed to confirm, verify, ratify, in multiple ways, the biblical chronological information subsequent to Solomon, corresponding to the time of kings and prophets in Israel. Everything post-Solomon has been confirmed in multiple ways. For the champion it was easy to trust the date of 925 before Jesus Christ for the moment when the bible says that Shishak, NOT Sheshonk, plundered Jerusalem.
Based on the champion's synchronism, that Shishak is Sheshonk, it’s based ALL Egyptian chronology prior to 750 before Jesus Christ. AND ALL the chronologies, of the ancient cultures of the Mediterranean, are based on the Egyptian chronology to set absolute dates prior to 750 before Jesus Christ. In particular the Assyrian and the greek, are based on the Egyptian chronology. It's a little snowball.
Before the Egyptologists arrived, the Mycenaean period, from the greek culture, listen Mycenaean, NOT messianic, that of the famous Troy of Agamemnon, the one in the movie, was dated between the year 1000 before Jesus Christ and the 750 before Jesus Christ, because all the archaeological and written evidence indicate so, as well as the synchronisms with the Assyrian culture. But when archaeological artifacts from the Mycenaean culture were found in the middle of Egypt’s 18th dynasty, the champion's Egyptian chronology won and “TAKE IT” that the Mycenaeans were no longer among 1000 and 750 before Jesus Christ but they now were between the year 1700 and 1000 before Jesus Christ. The entire Mycenaean greek period lengthened and was taken back about 500 years on average. The egyptian evidence was monumental, literally, and the champion had to be absolutely right. The validity of the champion’s Egyptian chronology with all the errors of Manetho in chronological sums of SIMULTANEOUS reigns was never questioned. And since the greeks exchanged their pottery with the cultures of almost the entire Mediterranean, “TAKE IT” that these cultures also went back about 500 years on average.
The same thing happened to the Hittites. Archaeological evidence was found that Ramses 2nd of the Egyptian 19th dynasty fought those guys and “TAKE IT” that the Hittites also went back another 500 years and lengthened other much. The Egyptian chronology had to be correct. And despite that the enormous local evidence in the archaeological layer sequences indicates that the culture that inhabited between 1000 before Jesus Christ and 750 before Jesus Christ, in what is now south-eastern Turkey and northern Syria, is exactly the same of these Hittite guys, the current interpretation that we read in the online encyclopedia is that such Hittites lived about 500 years before.
These little errors generated what is known as the DARK AGES of the greeks and the Assyrians. Those periods in which there is supposedly MISSING evidence that they even EXISTED! It’s not that two immediate, side by side, contiguous layers in archaeological sites of urban settlements of these cultures indicate two immediate periods, one prior to the other. Noooooo, that would indicate that the champion’s Egyptian chronology is wrong. What happens is that, between those two immediate, side by side, contiguous layers, THE EVIDENCE IS MISSING, of some 500 little years, that MUST have happened, because it is so according to the chronology on which we base all our dates. Absurd, right? But that's where we are. Says the encyclopedia.
Based on the champion's synchronism and Manetho's cheerful accounts, the exodus would have happened a few dynasties before the 22nd, in the 19th, during the reign of Ramses 2nd, who obviously did not drown in the Red Sea, as the bible affirms that it happened to the pharaoh of the exodus, because we have his MUMMY. Just as we have the mummy of ALL pharaohs of the 18th and 19th dynasties. Is it then concluded that the the champion's synchronism is wrong?, that no little pharaoh of the 18th and 19th dynasties, in Manetho's accounts, may be the pharaoh of the Exodus? and that therefore the Egyptian chronology is shifted 500 years? Noooooo, what most of the academy concludes is that the bible was wrong in that little detail, or that the interpretation of the verses that tells us that the little pharaoh of the exodus drowned in the Red Sea doesn't go that far, that the guy didn't even get wet, and that's why we have the mummy.
On the other hand, based on the champion’s synchronism and Manetho’s joyous accounts, Jericho should have archaeological evidence of having been destroyed during one of the archaeological layers corresponding to one of the pharaohs of the 18th or 19th dynasties. And since there is none, since Jericho was NOT destroyed during ANY dynasty after the 15th, because the archaeological evidence indicates so, is it concluded that the champion's synchronism is wrong? and that there for, the Egyptian chronology is shifted 500 years? Noooo, it is concluded that Jericho was NOT destroyed when they think the bible says it happend, but much before and that when they think Joshua arrived there was nothing to conquer, and everything was already destroyed.
That is to say that the biblical date in which Shishak sacked Jerusalem, it is used to claim when was the date that the guy Sheshonk supposedly sacked Jerusalem, which he never did because the guy went north. To then claim that the exodus of the bible never happened because in the calculated dynasty from that date there is NO archeology evidence found of any exodus. Typical example of circular argumentation, but it is not questioned that the guy Sheshonk was NEVER the Shishak of the bible. Noooooo, the champion was not wrong. The one that was wrong was the bible and only when it serves to discredit it. The exodus never happened according to the champion's bible. Absurd, right? But that's how we are. Says the encyclopedia.
The monumental error of biblical interpretation has served to deny the biblical truth.
The Mesopotamian Neo-Sumerian urban settlement known as Ur has a number of features, consistent with the Ur of the Chaldeans Biblical city, indicating that they are ONE and the SAME. The city from which Abram's father left, because he had not been named Abraham, with part of his family, because Nacor stayed:
Archaeological evidence has been found in Ur that details some of the its technological achievements.
At the beginning of the 19th century, a wooden artifact was found, known as "The Standard of Ur", in the tomb of what is believed a king of Ur’s 3rd dynasty. The artifact is a wooden box that has drawings showing something of the culture of Ur. In it you can see animals pulling wooden cars in which up to two people are mounted.
If Noah's story is true, these animals would be those of which a big part of the equines adapted.
If the bible is true and Ur is Ur, Abraham, when he was still Abram, was in Egypt with his people, almost 25 years before his son Isaac was born, even before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is hard to imagine that his father, who died before Abram finished the trip to Egypt, when he left Ur with Abram, that he would FORGET to put his things, and his people, in those cars that we know Ur’s people had.
However, the online encyclopedia and the vast majority of Egyptologists would have us to believe that the Egyptians did not know about the use of cars for warfare or for transportation until the descendants of Abraham had already left Egypt about 500 years after Abraham had visited Egypt in his cars brought from Ur.
No. That Ur is not Ur. Since they don't find cars around those little drawings among the tombs and mummies, which they interpret to be after the 15th dynasty, they knew nothing about cars. And that glyph that look like a wheel that is observed from the earliest dynasties means nothing to them. NO, they have to see the whole car drawn, otherwise it cannot be a car. That the exodus pharaoh cannot be earlier than the 15th dynasty because only up to that moment they found out that cars existed. That because they do not find archaeological artifacts of all the cars made by people of Sumeria, of Akkad, and all the other Mesopotamian cultures that followed Ur. That NO Egyptian who lived before the 15th dynasty saw cars made by all those cultures. Could it really be that all those cultures NEVER made all the cars that they made?
Ofcourse they won’t find ANYTHING! The vast majority of all those cars were 100 percent BIODEGRADABLE! Can't they see those cars were made of wood? Probably at the time of the exodus, in 1446 before Jesus Christ, in the 13th dynasty of Egypt, only the pharaoh and his personal guard would have cars with metal wheels.
They try to make us believe that never, for more than a thousand years, Egyptians had NO contact with the people who lived in Ur, whether or not they were from Abram, nor with the cultures that followed Ur in ancient Mesopotamia. Noooooo, they were completely isolated, alone, and they never knew about the horse-drawn cars. That no, that it’s a wagon, that those are not horses, anything but cars. That it was the Hyksos guys who finally brought the car to Egypt in the 15th dynasty. That's what we read in the online encyclopedia.
And Abraham? Or rather Abram. He didn’t drive a car? And Ur? It was not Ur? It really doesn't matter, because the ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, that which must be interpreted in any case, the one with which they give so much mallet, indicates the opposite. That since the time of Abram, the Egyptians already HAD to know about the car.
Ofcourse it was not a formula One, but a formula Ur, those made of wood, of whole wheels, biodegradable, those of which we see little drawings in The Standard of Ur, and that in order to NOT call it car, the experts in Sumerian culture, they call it wagon, or cart, or anything but car.
So no wagon, since Ur, the CAR was already used for war and for transportation, a thousand years before the descendants of Abraham got out of Egypt, the same Abram who traveled from Ur to Egypt, in CARS made in Ur, since before the 3rd dynasty.
Sodom and Gomorrah are just the first two cities on the Jordan plain that the bible affirms got burned into ashes by God with burning sulfur rain.
Lot left Sodom for Zoar at the time of Sodom's destruction, but God takes him out of the cities he is going to destroy and finally ends up where God had told him to go in the first place: on the mountain. Since the cities of the plain had been destroyed by rain of burning sulfur and turned into ashes, Lot's daughters believe that there are no more men on earth and decide to have children with Lot.
Along the western shore of the Dead Sea in Israel are at least 4 large unique areas on the planet due to their chemical composition and other physical characteristics that make them distinguishable, at plain sight, from other geological formations around them.
In them, large structures composed mainly of calcium sulfate and calcium carbonate with geometric shapes consistent with what would be expected to be found if large constructions made of LIMESTONE were destroyed by burning SULFUR RAIN in those areas. Shapes consistent with what would be the remains of walls, doors, windows, ziggurats, sphinxes and constructions originally made of LIMESTONE.
The arguments and the evidence that allow this host to affirm than the remains of the cities of the Jordan plain, described in the book of Genesis as destroyed by Jehovah with rain of brimstone burning, ARE the structures that are observed in these areas along of the Dead Sea are the following:
White it is, hen lays it, fried and with bread we eat it. These are too many coincidences, those that have an exponential effect when accumulate. And if you want to dismiss all the evidence by saying that the Biblical narration is assembled based on pre-existing structures, you would still have to explain the number of tombs found in the area and its content.
Seeing the evidence today is as easy as entering the famous web page for maps of the popular search portal and enter the coordinates 31 18 30.03N, 35 22 20.69E and drag the yellow man tool to put the green dot over the blue circles and see high-quality, 360-degree panorama, pictures of what was once Gomorrah.
Synchronisms, those relationships that establish that two people, places or events between different historical sources correspond to the SAME person, place or event, are the bridges that allow to establish moments that occurred simultaneously between two different kingdom chronologies. That’s the way the global chronological ladder of what happened in the past gets built.
Due to the great problems with Manetho's cheerful accounts, with the little mistake of the champion, and with the lies about the reign that each pharaoh of turn commanded to put in hieroglyphs on gigantic monuments that could be destroyed by his successors, the Egyptian chronology finds, almost from its inception, a critic of turn who proposes his own synchronisms.
Recently there are like 5 or 6 Egyptologists trying to bring down the champion. However, the champion's synchronism is still there: Shishak is Sheshonk. Says the encyclopedia on the Internet. There must be a reason. The bible explains it to us by saying that: “the WHOLE world lieth in wickedness" 718.
Below, the following synchronism is sustained: The Imhotep, of what it is known as the 3rd Egyptian dynasty, he is the same Joseph of the book of Genesis in the bible, the son of Jacob.
To do this, the champion's little mistake, Manetho’s cheerful accounts, and the biblical chronology column, presented before, are taken into account.
The main argument for not accepting the synchronism, that Imhotep is the biblical Joseph, has been that the date for Imhotep in the Egyptian chronology, based on the little mistake that Shishak is Sheshonk, cannot correspond to the Biblical date for Joseph. If Shishak is not Sheshonk and the champion was wrong, said argument is without support.
Since this synchronism, that Imhotep is Joseph, is not new, they have raised arguments against it based on the myth of Imhotep: that he had unattainable knowledge for Joseph, that he was the representative of Egyptian gods, and this would be incompatible with a hebrew believer in the God of Abraham, that Imhotep was a god not a man, that he accomplished things that one would not expect from Joseph.
The truth is that if the Egyptians themselves made a myth out of Imhotep up the point of making him a demi-god, all the supposed Egyptian data of Imhotep that is not supported by different sources is also not very reliable.
The coincidences mentioned between Imhotep and the biblical narrative are of widespread acceptance in academia, that is why the argument against the synchronism was the temporal discrepancy. If the synchronism is temporarily feasible, it is very difficult to deny that Imhotep is Joseph.
Unless you want to explain the biblical phrase from Exodus 14 that tells us that “The children of Israel went into the middle of the sea on the DRY ground; and the waters were a WALL to them on their right hand and on their left” 719, listen, a WALL of waters to the right and a WALL of waters to the left of those who cross, unless you want to explain that, the SAME way that some people want to explain the biological systems that we observe in plants, animals and people, that is, wanting to explain those WALLS by MAGICAL processes, sorry SPONTANEOUS, which is basically the same, and out of pure LUCK, without acknowledging, without accepting, therefore DENYING, the hand of the Creator of heaven and earth and of ALL biological systems on the planet, taking action to separate these waters into WALLS, it is relatively easy to accept which has to be the sinchronism of the biblical place, or toponym, where the crossing of the badly-called Red Sea happened.
The crossing of the Red Sea happened almost in the middle of the Gulf of Aqaba in what is now known as Nuweiba.
The logical reasons and evidence that allow this host to assert the synchronism are:
According to the bible, something really spectacular happened on Mount Sinai or Horeb.
It says in Exodus 19 that: “And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that ALL the people that was in the camp trembled. And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.  And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a VOICE” 720.
Then YHWH begins to enunciate, with a voice of thunder, all the commandments, but there comes a time when Exodus 20 says that: “And ALL the people saw the THUNDERINGS, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God SPEAK with us, LEST WE DIE” 721.
Unless you want to explain this description of what happened at Mount Sinai through a volcano, without recognizing, without accepting, therefore DENYING, the VOICE that enunciated the commandments, and that the story says that ALL people of Israel listened, and therefore DENYING the direct intervention from the Creator, of heaven and earth, in the event, is relatively EASY to accept what has to be the synchronism of the Biblical place where Mount Sinai or Biblical Mount Horeb is.
For the purposes of this presentation the two contiguous peaks that have similar characteristics will be referred to by the biblical name Horeb.
Biblical mount Sinai or Horeb is the mountain in Saudi Arabia known such as Jabal-al-Lawz or Jabal-Maqla.
The logical reasons and evidence that allow this host to assert the synchronism are:
When we analyzed in this presentation the 500 years shift that generated the champion’s synchronism, that Shishak is Sheshonk, with the rest of the historical evidence of the Mediterranean and the Middle East, including biblical and archaeological evidence, no alternative synchronism was proposed.
Actually the monumental mistake demands establishing a new chronological mapping that DO match Egyptian evidence with all other historical evidence, including the biblical and archaeological evidence.
Today a growing number of Egyptologists accept that the Egyptian chronology needs a, quote and quote, “revision”, although not all of them accept it’s 500 years, quote and quote, “revision”.
This is why more than 6 different proposals have been presented on how such revision should be done. Now it seems that every Egyptologist revisionist has his own idea of how such a revision should be done.
Your host in this presentation, that is me Jose Luis Quiroga, based on the evidence presented by a growing number of scholars on the subject, considers that the chronological correspondences that best establish a pattern of biblical historical coherence with Egypt are the following:
And more specifically:
The logical reasons and evidence supporting these correspondences are the following:
Thus, the correspondences of that:
And more specifically that:
These are the correspondences that allow establishing an Egyptian chronology that does not generate archaeological gaps of 400 and 500 years in other cultures, and a logical coherence between the chronology of Egypt and the other three chronologies that are already consistent with each other: the Assyrian, the Greek and the Biblical.
Question 1:
Consider an equilateral triangle inscribed in a circle. Suppose a chord of the circle is chosen at random. What is the probability that the chord is longer than a side of the triangle?
Question 2:
There is a certain quantity of liquid. All that we know about the liquid is that it is composed entirely of wine and water and that the ratio of wine to water is between 1/3 and 3. What is the probability that the ratio of wine to water is less than or equal to 2?
Question 1 is known in probability by the name of "the Bertrand paradox”. A French namesake of this host because Bertrand's proper name is Joseph Louis.
Question 2 is known as the “Ludwig Von Mises’ water and wine paradox”. Ludwig was a Jew born in the territory of present-day Ukraine that had to run to the United States.
These two questions are not really paradoxical at all, they just point out the impossibility of generically applying what is known in fundamental probability as “the principle of indifference”.
To the first question formulated in 1889 they have tried to find solutions, that is, they have tried to shake it off, in various ways. To the second question they simply have not been able to give answer, that is to say that they have not been able to shake it off. The last attempt was in 2004.
All these attempts fail because they try to answer the questions as such and not the point they seek to make.
The point is that there is NO so-called "fair coin", a coin 0.5 and 0.5, that which was already discussed in this presentation. All REAL coins are loaded to one side and every coin that can be described with an ALGORITHM is pseudo-random.
In the case of fundamental probabilities, those that are based on the principle of indifference, these probabilities depend, listen “DEPEND”, on the way to choose that which supposedly has a random distribution in a, quote and quote, “indifferent” way.
To really try to describe a behavior with probabilities it’s necessary to determine, define, establish the function of selection, the one they call random, the one that will never be really random but pseudo-random, meaning almost random, because such a "fair coin" does not exist.
In the case of fundamental probability, to be able to say that it describes the functioning of a system, we must define the CHANCE function, the random function. It is necessary to know the operation of the selection function. Thus, said, quote and quote, “indifference”, of the supposed "principle of indifference", of all fundamental probability theory, only exists in cases where such a function is known. It cannot be assumed that it’s known, it must be effectively defined or known in order to FULLY describe the system.
Probability theories are born with card and dice games. They seek to predict an event from past events, assigning a value to the possibility of it happening.
In statistical probability, probability is understood as what it really is: a relative frequency. I take my real coin, then I toss it a million times and count how many times it came up heads, how many times it came out odds, and how many times it came out standing on the edge. Then with those counts I calculate the frequency of each possibility, and thus determine the probability that my next toss will come up with each possibility.
Thus, such "relative" of any frequency is always determined by prior knowledge about the problem. This knowledge is used to establish functional RELATIONSHIPS between the variables of the problem to study. That prior knowledge is defined in terms of math functions.
In statistics the partial knowledge that we have about the operation of a system is used to try to predict a future event. It assumes, or it pretends, or it effectively ignores, the complete operation of the system.
These types of theories are used in all types of systems where you only have a PARTIAL knowledge of the global system, of one which includes subsystems that I do know, and can control, and others that I don't.
When my creation, that part of the system that I can describe deterministically, that part that I can control, has to interact with what I do not know, I seek to try, listen: TRY, to predict how that interaction will be, in a probabilistic way. That's why in this type of creations, which interact with external systems whose operation is unknown, such interaction sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.
It serves nobody to have a probability of whether the parts of a creation are or are not in the place where they are supposed to be, and it is no use for anyone to have a probability that the parts of a creation will or will not have the speed they must have for the creation to work.
It is no use to anyone that the parts of their machinery might or might not be where they should be and might or might not do what they should do. You cannot build MACHINES in terms of knowing only probabilities about, where its parts ARE located, and MOVE, and DO, and the speed, and the momentum, that they MAY have or NOT. All of them which they MUST have in order for the MACHINE to work.
Probability theories are completely useless to create a MACHINE because they are not deterministic systems. They only serve to TRY to describe a CREATION, once created, as if it had no CREATOR, that is, pretending NOT to know the deterministic model that describes said creation. They serve only to analyze a creation pretending, or assuming that its complete operation is unknown. Pretending to use a probability theory to explain the fundamental functioning of a creation is simply to deny its CREATOR.
Every quantum ideology is, in its mathematical aspect, a probability theory. They seek to calculate the probability that one, misnamed, “elementary particle” has a given position, velocity, or momentum.
In the case of fundamental quantum ideologies, the same problem of fundamental probability theories applies. That supposed "principle of indifference" is false. The "fair coin" does not exist. We must define the random function in each case. It can not be applied to try to explain the fundamental functioning of matter. Assuming the supposed, quote and quote, "principle of indifference" it’s a fundamental error from a strictly mathematical point of view.