I always want to give both sides, I want to give the evolutionist a sporting chance.
And so we're going to go ahead and play this video and see what the evolutionist has to
rebut the arguments that I've presented and we'll see if they line up with logic, science
and reason.
So here we go.
The tree died and began to decay.
As it did, its base became covered by about 18 inches of sediment.
These plants were in turn embedded by a coarser sediment gradually enough to allow other plants
to start up, with the mud and sand eventually attaining a depth of 9 feet.
At that point the hollowed out rotting top of the tree was easily broken off by something.
Apply pressure, mineralization and plenty of time and that storied piece of Canadian
earth was preserved to be read as plainly in 1868 as it is today.
Now I'd like you to notice this guy's diagram.
On the diagram, let me pull it up here, he has the tree, you can see the roots at the
bottom.
Now in his mind the tree was slowly covered by sediments over a period of time, whether
it was millions of years or however long.
Well interestingly enough, we actually find all over the world, and what this guy is leaving
out is that we find these trees upside down with the trunk on the top layer with the youngest
part of the tree at the bottom.
So do trees grow upside down?
Still in place in the cliffs that was clearly buried upside down.
Mackay has documented a few upside down stumps.
I have encountered three myself personally.
So what these evolutionists leave out, they'll say well the tree could have stood there while
the layers slowly gathered around it over millions of years.
Well how do you explain a tree that is upside down with the trunk at the top?
There is no other explanation other than the fact that it was pulled up, it was yanked
up by some type of catastrophe, a flood, and it flipped itself around through hydrologic
sorting.
And so this atheist, he uses a cartoon, which doesn't surprise me because most of them like
to use cartoons to explain things because their audience that they're targeting are
little children.
They know that little children like to watch cartoons.
I liked to watch cartoons when I was growing up.
And so his argument is the tree stood there for millions or for however long while layers
gathered around it.
But if you look elsewhere in the world, you see, and he's just using one example of one
tree that was standing, when you look elsewhere you see that the tree was actually yanked
up and not in the original position that it grew at.
So not only are the trees that we're finding not in the position or not in the spot that
they actually grew at, a lot of them are missing their roots, which means that they were completely
broken off by a catastrophe.
So once again it's an evolutionist that we have here using information control, not giving
both sides, making it sound like these trees were just sitting there peacefully while layers
gathered around it.
These trees were not sitting there peacefully, they were yanked out, they were yanked all
over the place, and they were even in some instances flipped upside down.
Trees do not grow upside down.
I've never seen that, nobody's ever observed that, it's not science, it's part of your
religion of atheism.
Once again we find them all over the world and we don't just find them in peaceful patterns,
we find them in disrupted patterns, we find them upside down.
So your evolution theory has just been turned upside down.