Look at you stirring up those pesky evolutionists again.

LMBO Your Dad cracks me up! you stir 'em up & I'll pray their slimy hineys into Glory!

Of course I am doing some stirrin' up MY LIL"O SELF.... ..bc Spin Dr. Anoninting 4 is up & its the finale' 

oh my goodness, i had never read that before but even as a young child being taught evolution and the big bang theory and all that has to do with figuring the age of fossils (as i let some of it go in one ear and out the other) i even questioned (at six or seven years old mind you) how do they know the effect that the flood had on the fossils and whether or not that would have aged them more? The Word of God is forever settled in Heaven. thank you for this post

There's the other fish, the celocanth or something like it that was caught about ten years ago. It's crazy that these people are getting away with lies because they don't want to admit that the things they can't explain is because God made them that way to make them look uneducated. They are uneducated about the truth because they choose to be, and it all comes from and goes back to God.

To me it just takes common sense to disprove a lot of that stuff. When someone starts dealing in millions and billions of years, there is NO WAY man can figure things out like that, I don't care what kind of method they say they use. Only God know's all the answers. I think God gets a good laugh at us sometimes Great stuff there Shorty

~Grampy~

Thanks for your comment.  I really is a shame that people have nothing better to do than to torment others.  It is a shame, also, that they are so sick in mind, soul and spirit that they make comments like they do.  Thanks for your encouragement.  Both comments he made were untrue, but hurtful.  The one was blasphemous.  I trust that he understands the truth and repents prior to the time when he stands before the Lord and it is too late.

Again, thanks for the encouragement Jennifer.  Bless you.

What's up Shorty? I haven't come by and spoken to you in a while!!

Hey Jen

Hope your Wednesday was a good one

I'm assuming you are putting up what Kent Hovind has spoken on the subject matter.

//They date the fossils by the layers and the layers by the fossils. //

Clearly Kent Hovind screws up again. Index fossils are not the primary means by which a layer is dated. Radiometric dating is one of the better ways of dating ages of sediment layers.

//Now a lot of people have the misconception that radiometric dating is what dates the fossils.  That is simply not true.  There are no cases (except for modern archaelogy) where radiometric dating has actually been used to date a fossil. //

Absolute rubbish. Radiometric dating is commonly used to date a fossil.

// In fact, J.E. O'Rourke said in the American Journal of Science (vol. 276 in Jan. of 1976, p. 54) that "Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."  //

Quote mining. Here is the quote in context -

"Even after the analyses are calculated as dates, they have no geologic significance until placed in the context of previous work on maps. Otherwise each anlysis represents only its particular sample. Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.

The technique having passed its pragmatic test, some enthusiasts are already talking about its replacing stratigraphy entirely. They even say that radiometric dates calibrate stratigraphy (Vita-Finzi, 1973 p. xi, p. 1-3).

The axiom that no process can measure itself means that there is no absolute time, but this relic of the traditional mechanics persists in the common distinction between 'relative' and 'absolute' age. How can age be anything but relative, when it requires comparison of at least two points, whereas absolute means existing without relation or qualification? 'Absolute age' is a self-contradiction. For this reason, and for giving an exaggerated impression of certainty, the term was deplored by the very man who did the most to make radiometric dating practical (Holmes, 1963, p. xx-xxi)."

//Now, evolutionists will tell you that the "lowest layers are obviously the oldest."  Well, no, that's not necessarily true.  In still water, the soil settles on top of each other, true.  But in moving water, five or six or even ten layers can form simultaneously with the current.  In this instance, it's possible to have a fossil on the bottom that is younger than the one on the top.  (We will talk more about this when we talk about the flood...)//

I smell hydrologic sorting, which is absolute BS. Hydrologic sorting was a creationist theory put forth to explain post-flood global fossil distribution as well as stratification. Problem? If such a disturbance occurred, it would be based on levels of density, something that we do not see happening. He puts too much faith in the power of tidal energy, which won't do much more than affect the top layers.

//Now, evolutionists will claim that trilobites make great index fossils, becuse they believe if it's found in a rock layer that rock layer is 500-600 million years old.  I don't think so.  There's a human shoe print out there where a guy stepped on and smashed a trilobite. //

He's referring to the Meister Print. See this link for details -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/meister.html

//The trilobite has the most complicated eyeball ever.  Trilobite eyeballs are unbelievable.  Now, this is one of the first creatures to evolve and it already has the most complex eye?//

False. Trilobites were not some of the first creatures to evolve.

//Folks, there are some trilobites still alive today. //

This claim is based upon Morris and Whitcomb's book The Genesis Flood, which cites from the 1957, Vol. 42 issue of Science Digest, from an article called "Living Fossil Resembles Long Extinct Trilobite". This article makes no claim that trilobites exist today.

//One man sent a jar full of trilobites from an oil factory in northern Alaska to Dr. Hovind in Pensacola, Florida.  They were baltic isopods.  Some were still alive in the jar.  And you're telling me these things are 500-600 million years old???//

Baltic isopods are not trilobites.

// Graptolites were found still alive in the South Pacific a little over ten years ago.  (Earth Magazine, Sept. 1993)//

Again, the cited article makes no such claim.

//They will tell the kids in school the lobe finned fish is the index fossil for the devonian period, 325 million years ago.  That's another lie!   Lobe finned fish are still alive today!  They are swimming around in the Indian Ocean.  When they found the first one in 1988, one scientist said, "Wow, would you look at that?  They survived for 325 million years."  Please... it doesn't even occur to them that they are not that old!//

He's referring to the modern coelacanths (family Latimeriidae), which are of a different family than most of the extinct ones. Even so, the fact that they survived with little change points out that they had adapted to an almost optimal point in their environment. In other words, they were the fittest for their environment and any other changes would have been superfluous and eventually weeded out by natural selection. No surprise, given that the same has happened with many shark species.

//That's a lie.  In 1997 a dinosaur bone was found with blood still inside the bone.  (Earth, p. 55)  Soft tissue was discovered in the bone of a dinosaur, in March, 2005. //

Both claims are explained here -

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html