Creation: The Proof

  (Slide 6).

This report is sourced from "Archaeology Proves The Bible", which gives a vivid account of Leonard Woolley's amazing discoveries in the ancient city of Ur in modern day Iraq....

Woolley had his men continue to dig, even below the graves of the kings: In his diary he wrote concerning this further effort: “Almost at once discoveries were made which confirmed our suspicions [that the tombs were not located on virgin soil]. Directly under the floor of one of the tombs of the kings we found in a layer of charred wood ash numerous clay tablets, which were covered with characters of a much older type than the inscriptions on the graves. Judging by the nature of the writing the tablets could be assigned to about 3,000 B.C. They were therefore two or three centuries earlier than the tombs.”

So Woolley instructed his men to continue their digging. As they went deeper and deeper, new strata, with fragments of jars, pots, and bowls, kept appearing. However, the pottery remained the same. It was exactly like that which was found in the graves of the kings. The experts gathered from this that Sumerian civilization had remained essentially the same for a long time. Their high level of civilization was reached at a very early date indeed.

Finally, as the men continued to dig, some of them reported to Woolley that they had found ground level—the virgin soil. Woolley made a personal inspection and found, as he thought, that the report of his men was correct. But as he prodded the ground himself just to make sure, he received a great surprise. He discovered that it was not the nature of the ground common to the area, but sand—pure sand, of a kind that could only have been deposited by water.

How could there be mud in a place like this, he thought. At first he concluded that it must be the accumulated silt of the river Euphrates at a time when it flowed near the ancient city of Ur, for it is believed that this river did at one time flow very close to this ancient and famous city. But upon further reflection he ruled out this possibility, one reason being that the level of the sand deposit was much too high to permit of this explanation of its being there. Woolley said, “I saw that we were much too high up. It was most unlikely that the island on which the first; settlement was built stood up so far out of the marsh.”

No, the mud could not be river deposit. Woolley could not find an explanation, nor could his associates, so he decided to have his men dig down into this mud deposit. Deeper and deeper they sank their spades, with nothing but pure mud showing up. When they reached a depth of nearly ten feet the layer of mud ended as suddenly as it had begun.

Naturally the diggers supposed that now at last they had reached the real virgin soil, but instead, what they found was rubble, ancient rubbish, and potsherds. What did this mean? Simply that below the mud deposit of nearly ten feet they had discovered evidence of human habitation. There was pottery there, not like the pottery found above the mud deposit, which gave evidence of having been turned on a potter’s wheel, but handmade pottery.

Woolley, without doubt then reached the proper conclusion, a conclusion that was confirmed by Prof. Langdon, that the mud deposit had been laid by the biblical Flood. This was a find that warranted publicity, and the day that Woolley reached this conclusion he flashed the information back to his home base, “We have found the Flood.” Here again, and in this remarkable manner, the truth of the Bible had been attested, as the archeologists dug deeper and deeper into one of the cities of ancient Mesopotamia.

  (slides 3,4,5).

Justinus Lahama was fishing last Saturday off the Sulawesi Island in Indonesia when he hooked this 4' 110lb Coelacanth, a fish that until recent years was thought to have died out 65 million years ago. The first specimen retrieved from the deep was in 1939, then again in 1998 and 2000, but all were dead. This one was kept alive for 17 hours! The limb-like pectoral fins are clearly visible in the photo.

Given that the supposed gene for evolution exists in all creatures, an explanation for the Coelacanth's identical appearance to it's own 65,000,000 year old fossilized brothers has not been forthcoming from the Darwinian school of thought. (Photo Source: Yahoo! News)