Is Age Dating correct?

For age dating to be correct, time has to be a “constant”. In other words it has to pass at the same rate from the time that time began. If time can be altered along with the Laws of Physics that mostly require constants, then aging is not a constant either.

Watch the video below given by AreoSpace Engineer to get a better idea of how time and age can be altered then you will understand the rest of what I am about to discuss below.


Now, if you listened to the video above then you heard him talk about the Atomic Clocks and how they differ in time keeping because they are at different elevations. Time is different at different elevations for 2 reasons.

1) Gravity is different because the further away you move from the center of the earth, the less stronger gravity becomes. And the lesser the strength the more time becomes altered compared to how it works from our stand point.

How does gravity work? Watch the video below, it’s not how you think because it’s not an attraction.

2) Motion also alters time. The faster you go the slower time passes. And because the earth is rotating the further out from the center you are the faster you are moving

How does this work? In the video below they use a bicycle wheel as a demonstration model to show that the further out you are on a spinning object, the faster you must move in order to make the same rotation as objects closer to the center.

In the Atomic Clocks, what made time pass differently? Because the altering of time through Time Dilation is not out perception of time (an illusion), the reality is that the radiation cycles of how a Atomic Clock works is altered aka the Laws of Physics gets altered (not an illusion). Time Dilation can be observed and repeated which makes it empirical evidence. There is even a math equation to working this out so that time displacement can be measured.

The way the earth orbits the sun, along with the moon is not what you think when put into actual reality that one thing is orbiting another thing that is orbiting something else. Even the speeds of orbital motion and rotation are not totally constant as the video below shows.

If we take and add the Fossil Record to the bicycle wheel, it becomes more apparent the point I am making. The fossil record as one piece, is 24 miles deep. At 24 miles down the gravity would be stronger, and the motion would be slower. Which means the record is time dilated.

But this does not just apply to the fossils. The sediments that make up the geologic column would be time dilated also. And all the magma that is in the earth’s core that comes up through volcanic activity, would be time dilated as well.

Why is all this important? If we apply what we observe on earth concerning how time passes without taking into factor that everything is in motion and they do not all move at the same speed. Most every object has gravity, and that gravity is not the same. Then we really do not understand how the universe works, or we choose to be ignorant, or because of our arrogance. We have chosen not to admit we were wrong about everything which includes: Time, age dating, and evolution.

Here are just a few examples (going into more detail).

1) The orbital speed of the earth going around the sun is: 108,000 km/h, ~70,000 mph.
2) The sun and the whole solar system that contains all of the planets moves with the spiral arm of the Galaxy we exist in at: 720,000 km/h, 450,000 mph.
3) The Milky Way Galaxy in which we live in one of it’s spiral arms, the whole moves through the universe at: 1.3 million miles per hour (2.1 million km/hr)!
4) The rotation speed of our planet is around 1,000 mph.


1) Gravity of out planet itself.
2) Gravity of our moon.
3) Gravity of our sun.
4) Gravity of our galaxy.

The bottom line is, you take away the ability for Evolutionist to use the excuse of millions and billions of years and the whole theory falls apart.

Creation Memes you can use for debates!

Click on images to see text fully, and for the link to the articles that go with them that you can use. You can also get an idea of what kind of responses you will get from such an article and how to respond to them. If you use the articles make sure you put them in your own words. Unless you are sharing copy and pasting an exact copy is considered parroting from another source which is frowned upon on the internet. It’s one thing if you are quoting or sharing to copy directly. But another when you are not. Not that I have a problem with this but if you are debating and someone actually look up the original source. They will point out that you are using someone Else’s argument because you can’t think for yourself (an atheist tactic). So just change the wording a little (put it how you would say it). ~ Issac

Richard Dawkins dumps Fossil Record

In my research of the fossil record, it brings up more questions than it answers. As to the reason I believe Dawkins has decided to give it up as evidence for evolution.

  1. Living fossils: There are over 30 known living fossils of plants and animals, yet each one has the same problem. They are found in one layer of the supposed record, and alive. For some fossils that is a gap as big as 10 layers. These gaps exist for “every living fossil”. So 30 times there are 30 gaps of the record not recording the fossils surviving until present time.
  2. The layering of the Geologic Column: There is no observable or explainable mechanism to show how the layers the fossil are found in got laid over millions of years. Yet water will sort the layered sediments like this and is observable and repeatable (empirical evidence).
  3. Polystrate Fossils: Trees that run through several layers that are supposed to take millions of years to form. How does a tree not rot away while waiting to be buried in the millions of years it took to do this? It could be explained away if only a few were found but these Polystrate Fossils  are found all over the world.
  4. Cross contamination of dating markers: Fossils can be cross contaminated by the layers they are buried in. Example: If you bury a bone that dates 1000 years bury it in a layer that dates 300 million years. Over a period of time the markers from the layer will cross contaminate the fossil and make it date the same as the layer even though it never was the same age. This raises several questions and answers why all fossils will “always” date the same age as the layer. There is no other option after so many years.
  5. The Geologic Column or the fossil record does not exist in one piece anywhere in the world. It is estimated that if it did it would be just under 15 miles deep. So the record is only connected together by the age each layer dates and the fossils found in that layer. So an assumption has to be made here.

If Evolution Theory is true…..

If Evolution theory is true why does every documentary on how it happened contain 80-100% animation?

If Evolution theory were true and had tons of evidence why does that evidence require so much interpretation? Because if you take away the interpretation of all supposed evolution evidence what would you have left? But because the evidence requires interpretation without actual observation of what really happened, the interpretation is actually an assumption. And this assumption is based on evolution being a true proven fact which bars any other idea from ever being considered or even pondered. It also means that assuming evolution is a true proven fact as so many evolutionists will claim means that the supposed science that it’s based on is more about conformism than anything else. Conformism is not science.

Example: Let’s say this is like a horse race. Evolution and all the other ideas are set to race. The horn sounds for the race to begin but the only door that opens is the one that allows the evolution horse to run the race. The other horses (ideas) are not even allowed on the track. So evolution horse not only gets to run the race but is the only idea that is allowed to win every race. In an actual horse race that would be known as cheating (conformism).

If Evolution theory were true, why do evolutionists make complexity sound easy? If you think about it, that is an oxymoron statement. Complexity means exactly what is says and there is nothing easy about it. Here are the problems to making complexity sound easy for evolution to achieve concerning evolution of the eye.

  1. The more complex something is the more mutations required to achieve the final goal.
  2. With mutations, each mutation has to mutate in the correct order to eventually evolve the final product. What is it in evolution that guides each individual mutation to be just right? Because if even one mutation if off it will affect all the mutations that come after it which in turn affects what it is that evolves. Example: Let’s look at the evolution of the eye as a scientific flow chart in an experiment. To get to the last stage of this flow chart and get the desired result, you have to follow the flow chart exactly. Which means you cannot have one deviation or even one mess up or the experiment is ruined. So what is it in evolution that makes every mutation perfect, regardless of how many it takes, to achieve the finished product? The reason this question is avoided is because to venture here would make one realize that only intelligence can have a guiding hand in what happens. Random chance and mistakes don;t do that.
  3. Which evolved first? The eye or the vision center of the brain? The reason this question is so important is because one cannot work without the other. So an eye without the vision center of the brain would be useless. The most common answer is that they evolved at the same time. For evolution to be able to know when to evolve 2 things at the precise moments they are needed is to say evolution can tell time. Which again means there was intelligence involved. So this answer does not go along with random chance and accident mechanism of evolution.
  4. What programmed the vision center of the brain to be able to process what is seen by the eye so that we could process it and react to our surroundings? The vision center of the brain with no programming to process the information sent to it by the eye is like having a computer that has no operating system on it. It won’t work. Programing by random chance and accident is like claiming windows 95 evolved into windows 8 by accident while the computer sat in Bill Gates office for 20 years and no one touched it. Not going to happen.
  5. Claiming that the eye is not a design when it’s made just the right size, and the lens is curved at the right angles for us to focus and see, is like saying the Hubble Telescope is not a design either.Design: A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.

The math that can be used to show how the eye is the right size, and the lens is curved at the right angles so things are in focus shows by math itself that the eye was designed. And if not then evolutionists need to show how math that includes size and angles is done with no intelligence.

  • If we the most intelligent life on this planet cannot duplicate what exist or even life itself, why would we think that a non-intelligent force could do it? If you think about that, that’s an oxymoron logic. To claim that non-intelligence can do what intelligence cannot. So is being dumb smarter than smart?  Does not make any sense now does it?
  •, a fake Christian site?

    As the atheists get bolder and more cunning in their ways to convert the believing to disbelief comes a trend of fake Christian ministries. These ministries are run mainly by x-christians who know the christian lingo and can pass off the ministry as real without much effort. These fake ministries always have the same thing in common.

    • They allow atheists, in certain sections of the forum, to have free run. This is to weaken the faith of the believing.
    • They allow evolution to be spoken of as fact while God’s creation to be mocked and made out to be lies.
    • They will be full of supposed Christians that love to compromise the word of God and will try to promote it in others.
    • They will allow conversion to disbelief on their forums and will refuse to lift a finger to stop it.
    • They will have sections of their forums that they can call Christian, where they will allow Christians to congregate, because they need to have these sections so they can always use these section to hide behind when someone points out what goes on in the other sections that is not Godly.
    • The rules will be enforced more so on the side of the atheists, while Christians get bashed constantly for believing the Word of God on areas the atheists have the most problems with.
    • If you point out the problems to the forum admins and mods they will either have excuses to justify what they do, or ignore what you say as if nothing was said at all. You might even get into trouble as you may get accused of challenging their authority.
    • They will allow Christians who live a certain lifestyle that God makes clear is an abomination to push their agendas as if it’s right. And to try and recruit others to live the same way to make sin look righteous and Holy.
    • They will allow new age believers to have free roam to spew there new age beliefs and fool the unsuspecting, and the new in Christ.
    • etc…

    There are many forums ministries such as this that are not interested in being a place of protection for the believer, but a place of danger where Satan is allowed to rip one’s faith to shreds. If you are Christian and have run into such a forum use the message center to the right to send me the link of such a forum so I can check it out and leave the link here so Christians can beware of such ministries that have nothing to do with promoting God, but everything to do with promoting Satan.

    Now some of you might get offended by this page because maybe you have become attached to this forum or another that will be listed here as people send me links. But any ministry that allows discouragement of it’s followers, and allows atheists to mock God and believers for believing in the word is doing the work of Satan. Example: If you brought you children to church, and they went to Sunday school while you went to another function. Would you expect your child to end up in a class full of just as many atheists that will challenge you child’s faith, call God and His creation a lie, and make fun of them for what they believe? What would you call a church that allowed that? Would you take your child back for another dose or until their faith was destroyed?

    Just because a ministry is online does not give it leeway to misrepresent itself while having other agendas. And because getting a website, running a forum etc… is so easy for anyone to do. Do you not think that atheists would soon be using it just like this? So if you don’t believe sites like this exists go to the one listed above and join it and find out. Bring up a subject that has something to do with same sex marriage and watch who comes in there to defend the subject and calls themselves believers. Post a subject on God’s creation in the evolution section and watch how many atheists jump in to try and destroy what you have posted with pure hate more so than any evidence. Call you a liar over and over and if you say anything back you get into trouble not them. And if you post a really good thread and debate them really well, how they will gang up on you to get everything you posted removed.

    In a supposed Christian forum evil is given the advantage at every turn. Would you go to a church that operated like this? Would you even call it a Christian church? If your answer is no then you have also answered what such ministries are really about, Nothing about God. Any ministry that allows that promotion of what Satan uses as tools to weaken the faith of the believing is doing Satan’s work which means they are Satanic. And every person involved will have the blood on their hands of any person that lost their faith and ended up in Hell because of the supposed ministry.

    Lucy display at the Smithsonian a deception?

    How much of Lucy is real and how much is implied fabrication? The pic below shows just how much evolutionists had to fabricate Lucy to make her support their beloved theory.

    Lucy is the perfect find for evolution. Why? Because there are no real exacts in the evidence in what the bones tell us, it allows the evolutionists to speculate. Example:

    1. Lucy has no feet. This allows the evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by putting fully formed human feet on her.
    2. Lucy has no hands. This again allows evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by putting fully formed human hands on her.
    3. Lucy has no facial bones. This again allows evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by putting a near fully formed human face on her.
    4. Lucy pelvic bone and hips are not complete and broken. This again allows evolutionists to speculate, and form Lucy to support evolution by claiming she stood upright.

    How far would evolutionists go in their speculation in the attempt to make Lucy look like a missing link to support evolution? Let’s take a look at a wax figure that is in a museum and show what they already had in mind even though no real evidence without speculation supports the picture below.

    But this is not the worst of the desperation to form Lucy to support the evolution theory. On a NOVA program Dr. Lovejoy, a well known evolutionist. Took a cast of the pelvic bones and hip and reformed them with a power saw so that they would work for Lucy to stand upright. Here is the video which starts out with Dr. David Menton speaking then goes to the NOVA video.

    So what real evidence was there to add all these things to Lucy to make her nearly human to support evolution? Just imagination. To those of us who do not know the background of Lucy and how much real evidence there really was, would be fooled by this representation (deception). So actually in a comparison I can compare this method to selling used cars. A used car salesman is only going to tell and show you what he wants you to see (because the rest would ruin his attempt to sell you the car). He will never tell you the real history of the car he wants to sell you if he wants you to buy. So using his imagination and deception he’s going to plant positive thoughts into your imagination to make you buy what he is selling. He will even use the tactic of appealing to your ego by saying:

    • You would be stupid not to buy this deal today.
    • There are a couple of other prospects that want to buy this item I’m selling.
    • You’d really look cool and be in the in crowd if you buy this item.

    It’s all a con game. Because if they were totally honest as they will always claim to be. Beside the display at the Smithsonian and beside the wax figure would have been what was actually found. Giving the onlooker a chance to make up his or her mind as to whether the actual evidence was what they implied it to be or not. But because they know that the actual evidence does not support their speculation this was not done on either display. Proving that it is more important to sell the idea of evolution then it is to prove it.



    Atheists run scared of creationist Ken Ham?

    1) You make sure that only atheists are allowed to determine anything in science.
    2) You put atheists in all-controlling positions.
    3) You put guards at the door to make sure no one but atheists ever get in.
    4) And you form organizations that make sure any opposing views from any opposing group get removed so they no longer have a voice.
    5) And then you attack anyone whom would dare challenge evolution to try to shut them up.

    Can any atheists name one person that did not suffer character assassination trying to challenge evolution? Just one person. You guys cannot because you attack relentlessly until the person is destroyed.  The one thing they fear most in this world is not death, but that they might actually be wrong and have to admit they were wrong. Most would rather die then have to do that, and that is why in their arrogance print such an article in the paper.

    You see atheists believe there are to many gullible people in the world that might not agree with them and become ignorant and agree with the opposing side. Atheists….I think that’s called freedom of choice. But they do not think so. what they do think is that anyone, even with any education whom dares to disagree is retarded, brain-damaged, etc…

    My rule of thumb is: The more desperate they get the more of a fools they will make of themselves as they expose their real agenda through evolution. I’m going to show with examples what this agenda is.

    You see from the very beginning the goal was to remove anything to do with Christians from ever being considered as science. That is why one of the very first court battles that involved evolution was removing creation from schools. A theory cannot be falsifiable if what opposes it is silenced. What are atheists afraid of?

    Added: The story now even goes further to prove a point. Bill Nye AKA The science guy on PBS. Has decided to speak out against creation and all Christians. He made comments that any parent that teaches creation to their kids is making them illiterate and to do so should be considered child abuse (a crime that a parent can be arrested for and their kids removed from the home). His one mistake like so many atheists is that he makes statements that he is unwilling to back up. Some creation scientists from Answers in Genesis challenged him to a debate because of his comments. Bill Nye, like so many atheists do as of lately, cowardly declined. So Ken Ham (owner and CEO of AIG) made some videos along with the scientists who challenged Bill Nye.

    Ken Ham himself:

    And then we have the response from Ken Ham on the hatred, name calling and outright cussing from the people who support what Bill Nye said and did:


    • Update: There is a rumor going around that Bill Nye will accept the debate challenge from one of the Answers in Genesis scientists. But until confirmed it just a rumor.


    Their idea of changing the world is corrupting it. The example here is to exchange the Bible for Porn.

    This is a button that is for sale on one of their websites. And this is just the mild stuff. Some is very X-rated. Atheists hate not only God but all Christians. And they use the tool of evolution to spread that hatred. Now you might get an atheists who says: But I have some really good Christian friends so I don’t hate them. Really? Name one atheist that speaks out against this stuff that goes on…It cannot be done. And when men do nothing there are just as guilty as doing it themselves.

    And after seeing what this site promotes listing in the pic above, here is what the site says on the issue of hatred: the intent of this site is not to spread hatred for those who believe in Jesus as God; end of quote. They lie so much they no longer know what an oxymoron is.

    I have archived on my old site some of the worst stuff that they have. And yes some is X-rated. So you have been warned before you click on this link. Also make sure to click next at the bottom of each page. That will take you to the next page in that section. The stuff gets worse as it goes.

    Why do atheists want so much control? This is how communism, socialism, fascism etc… work. They have to have total control and take away the freedom of the people. Yet while all along claiming that what they offer is more freedom when in actuality it’s not. Don;t believe me? Name one government that was ever a communist state that was Christian? History shows that they were “always atheists”. Even unto this day. So for atheists to gain control to push their communist agenda they have to do what first?

    1) Remove the freedoms of the opposing side to take away their voice while along claiming to do so will bring more freedom.
    2) Putting their people in all key positions of control in every facet of propaganda that can be controlled so that their side always gets their message across in a positive light while either telling lies about the other side, and not reporting anything bad about their own side. They have control over the TV media but don’t have control over the radio media. But because the radio media is a huge thorn in their side they would like to pass legislation (the fairness act) to get that control. Notice how their control always sounds harmless. Taking control over radio media is an example of fairness? etc…

    They also like to blow stuff out of proportion on the other side so that there side looks like some type of saint hood. They often like to bring up the Christian crusades as to what kind of control would dominate. The fact of History is that Constantine controlled the armies that were supposed to be Christian. Constantine objective was to bring out of hiding the Christians so the government would know who they were and their number. He never went against Caesars rule. In fact he secretly worshiped the sun-god Sol. The soldiers he commanded were not saved but were made to believe that they were and that sprinkling holy water on them gave them protection and the authority to do what they did in God’s name. Yet no part of God was ever in it. The goal was to make sure the Christians got blamed for what happened so to ensure that everyone would deem this to be true they made shields with crosses on them as their symbol of in whose name they did their killings, rape etc… So basically we have an atheist who duped other atheists into believing they were doing God’s will and were saved. Only the top men in the military with Constantine  had any idea of what he was doing.

    Truth be told, Constantine took the Christians that he thought were the most dangerous to Caesar. Who had them dipped in oil, tied to a pole and burned alive at night so to light up Caesar’s rose garden. Caesar would often play the violin why they burned to death. So this was all a deception to bring out the Christians while in the mean time making sure the Christians got blamed for all the bad stuff they did. Under the history of their it has been recorded that over 100,million people have been murdered for the sole reason they would not concede to total dominance and rule by the current government in power. Here are the murders we do know about.

    61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State.
    35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill.
    20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State.
    10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime.

    5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military.
    2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State.
    1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges.
    1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State.
    1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing.
    1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State.
    1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse.

    1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea.
    1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico.
    1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia.

    The objective to rule effectively once control is taken is to always rule with fear. The fear that offers the most control over a multitude of people is the fear of death and imprisonment. To basically have prisons similar to the holocaust conditions where no one ever leaves alive.  The numbers above you won’t find on any of their own websites. In fact these numbers are so well hidden that almost all on their side have never even seen this much less even know this exists. The propaganda they are constantly fed is that one side is totally evil while their side is not. To do this they have to run a massive deception machine which not only includes out right lying, but suppressing of the truth.

    Want another example of how atheists in the past have told lies to make an opposing side look worse than they were? Atheists often like to use the term Flat Earth believers when it comes to addressing Christians. This idea extends from the supposed historical fact that the main reason it took so long for Columbus to get approval from the Queen to sail around the world was that the Christians had instilled this fear of flat earth and that if they sailed to far they would fall the end of the edge of the earth and never been found or seen again. And many of you reading this were actually taught this as historical fact in school and believed it. What if I told you that this supposed historical fact was actually more propaganda thought up by a writer named Washington Irving?

    Who by the way was an atheist who did not like Christians. He even admitted to adding this fiction to his book for the cause of making all Christians look stupid. And because of this he has lost his historian status and his fiction about Columbus is slowly being removed from all modern books and any updated books. Just Google “Washington Irving flat earth” and read all about it for yourselves. Major encyclopedias like Britannica have removed all mentions of the fiction that was in Washington Irving book as historical fact. The historical fact was that the Queen did not want to invest in such a voyage because of the money involved. Columbus goal was to convince the queen that the money would be a good investment that would show a shorter trade route that would allow their ships to trade more often giving them an advantage in the trade market. This would equal more income for the government and would pay for itself. After many attempts by Columbus to convince the queen she was finally convinced and gave Columbus the okay and the money needed to do it. There is no mention of Flat Earth being a problem.

    YouTube Creation vs Evolution debate example.

    In the past I have debated quite a bit. Being kinda burned out on it I don’t debate that often anymore. And there are several reasons for that.

    1. It’s 99% of the time a waste of time unless there is another creationist you can help out.
    2. There is really no winning a debate from either side.
    3. The object of the YouTube Christian haters is to run everyone off along with showing how much they hate you just for what you believe. This I will actually show in the examples I will use.
    4. The only thing that you can hope for while debating on YouTube against the Christian haters is that you plant seeds in those whose hearts are not full of hatred and are glad they are bound for hell.

    Once the debate started, one Christian hater went and got his friends because he could not hold up to the one creationist (me) he was facing.  Surfing their forum I have often seen them come in while a debate is going on asking their friends to help them. What I find ironic is that if they can prove creation so easily wrong using science it should only take one person. I have debated up to 10 at one time as they tag team me because one could not handle me. Now I’m not bragging here is just a fact that once a creationist learns how to handle the evolutionist-Christian hating atheists they have to send out the smoke signals for help.

    Here is where the debate started: is what I posted that started it all: Sorry to burst your evolution bubble here. But the Bible does admit that fish and birds came from the same place: Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven…So it would only be logical that some fish could fly as there are birds that can swim underwater. And some fish that can breathe air. Both were created from the water.

    Now did I insult anyone in anyway here? Nope. But watch what happens while the Christian haters get wind of this. First there are a couple of polite posts but it soon gets nasty as I post things the evolutionist-atheist Christian haters get mad at one creationist. In fact I can count on one hand how many comments were not hateful. The cussing starts almost immediately. Along with lying about the Bible.

    Atheist: that’s the best shoehorning I’ve ever come across.

    Me: And you cannot deny that it fits can you?

    Atheist: See, this is the funny thing about some christians claiming atheists (and basically only atheists for some reason) don’t see the beauty in the world because we.. Came from.. Nothing? I don’t fucking know. But then again I flipped my lid when I found out about Mimosa pudica. Nature is awesome! And evil. But mostly awesome! Sure, ostriches evolved from haddock according to the bible, makes perfect sense.

    Now more atheists join in:Atheist: Living things aren’t “built”, they “grow”. That’s the fundamental difference that creationists can’t seem to grasp. That’s why all the car and plane examples fall on their faces. No-one built a tree, it grew from something simple without any interference. Evolution of species was similar, biology at its basic is the study of how complexity arises from simple beginnings, and if you mention thermodynamics here you’re more of a moron than I already thought…

    Me: Ever heard of building blocks? If things just grow that way then we should be able to grow what we want. So do we? No because DNA and RNA have limitations. And more than a ,01% in change at any given time can be deadly. Don;t believe me? Go get an organ transplant where the organ has a greater difference then what can work and see what happens. Also I like that you called me a moron because it means that name calling is the only way you can win a debate. So keep it up you just prove my point.

    Atheist:The standard sturgeon general-type warning to creos: if your position requires you to be ignorant or dishonest about alternative positions, your position is sh*t. *yes, of course the T was on purpose

    Side note: How you can tell your argument is doing any good is when they resort to calling you names, insults, stereotyping, cussing etc… This is done when there is not counter. And to cover up for their inability to debate you they have to do this. It’s either that or accept defeat which by the way would never happen. So from this point forward it only gets worse as they show their hate for someone they have never met, yet only hate for what i believe.

    Me: What’s funny and ironic is that some claim that believing in God is stupid yet when it’s all boiled down it only their opinion. Because if science makes you so smart why did you not use it in your post? Like when man builds a plane to fly does he just do it with no intelligence, or does it take several steps of intelligence to build one to actually fly? Now explain to all of us how evolution just does it without any intelligence.

    Atheist:That would be a waste of time. You are unwilling if not able to learn. Much better idea: you tell me what *you* think the evolutionary explanation is. At least one of us will get some belly-laughs out of that.

    Me: That’s what you will always get, is that all evolutionists will ignore not being able to explain the specifics yet call us stupid. I guess when they cannot do any better than that calling someone else stupid to cover for it is all they have left. Which is ironic because I see more of that in debates than science. says a lot.

    Atheist: They were the primary food source of the now extinct crocoduck.

    Atheist: If I don’t get to hear your comically moronic version of what the ToE says in about 5 more minutes, I’m gonna track down your sister, accost her, and tell her she smells like cheese. Don’t make me do it, man. Make with the funny!

    Atheist: Nah, mate, everyone knows the Earth is circle-shaped. Like the Bible says, right?

    Atheist: we’re not debating, trust me. And before spouting off bollocks statistics it would help if you knew something about genetics and how DNA/RNA actually works. Replication, translation, transcription, learn how proteins fold and function, learn how the cell cycle acts, learn the fundamentals of biology. If every mutation resulted in instant death then individuals of any species would be identical, there would be no variation whatsoever, and then kiss my hairy MC1R mutated arse

    Me: And that’s the best you can do for a cop-out when you cannot address what was said? How lame. But please do it again and prove my point. Maybe some people did not get it the first time.

    Atheist: I need not address what was said. Eve
    ry single thing we know about biology looks exactly like it should if all extant life evolved from a common ancestor. If that’s not how it all got here, then why was your god so very, obsessively careful to cover up the real story and create the impenetrable illusion of evolution? And why should I buy the explanation of a creation followed by a magical cover-up when I can just accept that what it looks like happened, happened?

    Me: Exactly what is that suppose to prove? Cheetahs are clones? Clones can do the same thing because they are exact replicas.

    Atheist: Cheetahs are NOT clones, Cheetah’s are inbred, really inbred. You are a moron 😛

    Me: Never said they were clones. And calling me a moron just shows you cannot really address this. So keep it up and prove my point. But you can think of much worse names to call me, right? So show how much an expert you are in name calling when you cannot address the subject at hand. Come on you know you want to.

    Atheist: Nah, mate, everyone knows the Earth is circle-shaped. Like the Bible says, right?

    Me: What’s ironic is that it was not Christians who thought up the flat earth idea. It was an atheist named Washington Irving. He later admitted to his book on the voyages of Columbus being partly fiction due to this fact. So the idea of flat earth is not even connected to Christians. Irving wanted to discredit Christians back then so he lied to do it. Google flat earth Washington Irving and see for yourself.

    Me: Education is just another lame cop-out. Ben Stein has several degrees did anyone listen to him? Nope. And these degrees were obtained from schools like Harvard. So it has nothing to do with education you are just trying every which way to wiggle out of answering any questions that make you ponder evolution might be wrong. So keep up the good work of making my points that you are an expert at avoidance. Make sure to bring up some more off topic things to show you cannot address anything said.

    Atheist: Ben Stein is an economist. Would you go to Ben Stein to get your colon checked? No?? Why not? He has “several degrees,” right? Oh, that’s right. He is an economist, not a super genius with answers on every subject known to man. Seriously, at least come at us with someone like Behe or the like. That has more credibility than Stein. Worlds more credibility, not that Behe has a lot, but that is another matter.

    Me: The other problem is sorting of the layers. You guys have no mechanism that involves time that sorts layers. Water will sort layers again and again which means it’s observable and repeatable which makes it empirical, And what do you have to compete with this? nothing.

    Me: The second problem is that if you take the aquatic section of the fossil record and set it next to the ocean living habitats of where fish live in the ocean. The fossil record matches each habitat area. 1) bottom dwellers first, 2) mid dwellers second. 3) Top dwellers last. You see this is consistent with a how it would happen if life where buried quickly were it lived because of a flood. there is not reason for evolution to work in this exact order.

    Side note: Here is the picture illustration of what I was talking about that I cannot post on YouTube.

    Me: I see no body tried to address the problem with the fossil record I pointed out yet avoided the issue by trying to change the subject. If you cannot address those points there is no point in me continuing debating here because I’m wasting my time with people who have no answers. If you want to convince me show me. Avoidance only reaffirms my position in believing creation.

    Atheist: you link me to the sources about those living fossils where you got your info, and I’ll answer. In turn you can answer how you think there’s variation within species to begin with if mutations aren’t possible or hereditary.

    Me: Credibility is a matter of opinion. We were speaking of education. The opinions of atheists concerning creationists will always be negative. Anything beyond that would be the same as it snowing in Hell. So your point is lame.

    Atheist: Oh, so when some quack comes on the TV and tells you the Earth is flat, you think that person’s credibility is a matter of opinion?

    Atheist: I never claimed to be an expert. I just asserted that you are a moron because you suggested Cheetahs are clones. Cheetahs reproduce sexually. Regardless you asserted organ transplants, and Cheetahs disprove that man is only 6000-10,000 years from a population of 2. Sorry Charley.

    Me: Explain just how long it takes and provide empirical evidence to prove this. If you cannot them what you claim is only an assumption that is not based in any empirical fact. So you prove nothing. Sorry Charley. I’m not a push over and green behind the ears in debating. If you are going to present evidence to debunk creation mere words are not going to do it. But then again mere words make it easy for me.

    Atheist:“The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching.” — James Hannam. I’m sure most of us are aware that Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth (40,000 km) in ~250 BCE, so what’s your point?

    Me: What ironic is that after I proves Washington Irving who is an atheist lied about this, you want me to believe another atheist is telling the truth about this? I’m not about to buy ocean front
    property in Arizona so your sell is a no sell.

    Atheist: You “proves” it to me? Ahh, that doesn’t sound like good philosophy to me. Who’s the other atheist you’re referring to? And am I expected to accept your “Google it” source when you’re so dismissive of my source? I don’t see why I should accept yours either; and I don’t really care if you accept mine. Also, if you think atheists are liars, & Irving was a lying atheist, at what point did you decide he was telling the truth? Maybe his admission was a lie too.

    Me: If you are so truthful and everyone else are liars as you try to imply. Why was it that no atheist ever wrote a moral code that sets the standard for what atheists should follow? It’s because if a standard did it exist then you could be held accountable and therefore look bad. But omitting this allows you to look good regardless as to the reason you would rather defend and justify lying then using it as an example of what not to do.

    Atheist: If there were a world-wide flood then the carcasses of all species would be totally mixed up together. The mud (which would not have had a chance to dry for a year) would have been churned up by the mega tides that would result from the lack of continents to bump into. BTW, when the flood was drying out the Ark would have been smashed repeatedly on the bottom leaving no survivors.

    Atheist: Species’ groups that remain in an unchanging environment are under no evolutionary pressure to change. They replicate as things normally do. Just because you’ve seen fossils of them doesn’t mean it didn’t take evolution for them to get to the stage when they first hit the scene. Find something OUT OF PLACE like a Cambrian whale

    Atheist: The first problem with the second problem is that you utterly made it up out of thin air.

    Atheist: UNLESS… you just want to say, “God did it.” At which point, I then am forced to ask, “Why would the God who claims to not be the author of confusion (1st Cor 14:33 KJV) create things in such a way as to look like they evolved over millions of years in direct contradiction to His holy text?” Seriously, at some point, when the evidence does not comport with your story, you are going to punt with “God did it” or something of the like, and run into this question. Might as well jump here now.

    Atheist:The layers of the earth are not just stratification of a single liquified layer. That would produce one course to fine layer, but this is not what is there. It is course>fine>course>fine>course­>fine>course>fine>…consistin­g of water born sediment, ash from volcanoes, sand, silt, clay, etc. alternating repeatedly which could not happen in one flood. I expect you will just ignore this and say it make no difference.Me: do living fossils exist or not? Are they found in more than one layer showing they survived or not? And the reason everything looks related is because everything that is alive uses the same template for life (RNA DNA). So what would one expect to find in creation that is being claimed as evidence for evolution? Google list living fossils. Show one that is found in other layers that proves it survived until present time.

    Atheist: I prefer you stay a dumbass creatard. Its way more fun. Notice how you play the persecution card. No please stay a creatard, your not smart enough or brave enough to be an atheist. Your life is based on something for which there is no evidence of. I actually care that what I believe is true you don’t. Its that simple.

    Atheist: No, he/she claims its an argument from ignorance, because it is. Know the term, the correct definition of the term, and understand why the term applies here.

    Atheist: Common template doesn’t work, buddy. If it did, why are there so many different types of eyes? What about ERVs, which are viruses inserted in our DNA that we have in the same places, in the same way? Why is it that whenever one looks at inheritable traits or genes and traces them back, one gets the same nested hierarchy called the tree of life? Why do we not see a mammal with blue blood, like octopuses have? Why would the “designer” use a four legged mammal template for dolphins and whales?

    Atheist: i dont imply a damned thing about it being absolute, its a method that has always been found accurate for the stuff we do know, and no one has come up with a reason it wouldnt be accurate for the stuff we dont. dont believe it all you want, it is the more trustworthy option and it does discredit YEC, no absolutes needed. I asked for a citation, and some EVIDENCE for your assertion. You seem to assert because Egypt had a religion, and Darwin studied religion, that Darin pulled his ideas from Egyption religion. You would need some evidence of that, like a history of his education in seminary. And I didn’t offer a rebuttal, I asked for a citation. You don’t have fine, then your assertions are dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

    Me: Darwin also plagiarized just about everything he claimed as his own. Most of his ideas came from his grandfather’s book named: Zoonomia, the laws of organic life. Natural selection was thought up by Edward Blythe. He made racist comments and hung around racist people (Huxley and Haeckel). His theory was used to put Indians and Africans on displays in zoos and not one evolutionist spoke out against this why it went on.

    Atheist:”Where do you think he got the idea while studying other religions for that degree?”  What EVIDENCE do you have Darwin even studied Egyptian Mythology, or the study of other religions was required at Cambridge in the 19th century. That seems just a little far fetched. Near as I’m aware he majored in ANGLICAN THEOLOGY and naturalism, but if you have evidence he deviated beyond the required Greek and Latin required for theology, PROVIDE A F**&!@$ CITATION. PS blocking you until morning.

    Atheist: You’d have to ask a biologist on this, but if you want a phylogenetic tree of the trilobite you can hit the library, or google it. Like everyone else, I have NO fucking idea what the hell you’re talking about.Oh, if I block you, don’t mind it, I was a dumb ass and got a smart phone and your comments are waking me up damn it.

    Me: The evolution idea actually came from Egyptian religions. They believed all humans came from animals. And what animal you came from determined you race and status in life. they also had a form of abiogenesis belief. Where they believed all life came from the slime ar
    ound the Nile River. Being that Darwin had no scientific degrees but had a degree in theology. Where do you think he got the idea while studying other religions for that degree?

    Atheist: That isn’t hate dude, that’s really was the alternative to evolution, alligators forming from logs. That IS what we believed well into the middle of the 19th century. And you’re just projecting on this fear business. You assert evolution precludes god(s), which is actually untrue, so evolution is false. In reality, you need to formulate a theory with empirical evidence, publish, and accept criticism. “And now everyone knows why evolution is not falsifiable” It is falsifiable 😛

    Atheist:”Naturalism requires” Let’s review 1. Everything has a cause 2. Nothing can cause itself 3. Causes can’t be infinite 4. So there has to be a first cause. 5. God = first cause, god exists This is your assertion in a nutshell, and I personally don’t propose god’s exist or don’t exist. I dunno, and I don’t care. But 5 is a non sequitur. But this is so far outside the scope of this video which is evolution, not gods, creation, or naturalism.

    Me: Now let me guess what you are going to say next. Let’s see…. something about actually proving something exists, right? I find this argument pops up when atheists have nothing left in the science to present so they go for the broad spectrum cop out response. Lame.

    Atheist: Well, I mentioned “pre” Cambrian strata, which ought to clue you in to the fact that the Cambrian is not the oldest/lowest stratum. Trilobites are dated from the Cambrian to around 526 mya, but simpler, eyeless forms exist, like Spriggina floundersi from the Ediacaran period, which precedes the Cambrian, dated 550 mya. The earliest, single-celled organisms are dated to 3.5 bya. So, is three billion years long enough for you?

    Special side note: What every evolutionist ignores or does not realize is that dating markers from the layers will cross contaminate the fossils in the layers. So if the flood sorted them and put them in that order, they will date the exact age of the layer not the exact age in which they lived. Why? Because there is more dating markers in the layer than the fossil. So the dating markers in the later overwhelm the ones on the fossil and change the date of the fossil so that the layer and the fossil match in every instance.

    Example: If you bury a bone that came from a dead animal 20 years old in a layer that dates 3 million years old. Over time the bone, regardless of it’s age, will soon become cross contaminated by the layer and will now date the same age as the layer. This is why a fossil found will always date the same as the layer. All fossils have been in the ground long enough to become cross contaminated. This is also why they find blood and soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that date millions of year old. The date is wrong because the layers cross contaminated the fossil. And anyone with any sense knows that blood and soft tissue is not going to last that long regardless of how it’s protected. Because unknown to most evolutionists the same people who made the find which was deemed as a fluke, have reconfirmed the find on several other fossils as well.

    So the find is not observable and repeatable which means evolutionists have a lot to explain here:


    As the debate progresses forward more join the debate and the insults and name calling and stereotyping and cussing increase. At some point in the middle of all this where it now seems every response has some type of insult or name calling I decided I have made my point. Because I keep pointing out that this (cussing etc…) is the only thing they seem to be good at so keep it up and prove my point. And they did page after page. This debate was about 15 pages long. And once I left of course they all had to take their last little back stabs with more insults and name calling. The only thing I can gather is this is how you prove evolution. Don’t use science use bullying tactics.

    So to counter such tactics one has to just point them out and how lame they really are. then encourage them to continue and show everybody how unscientific evolution is that all evolutionist must resort to this. So why do they hate someone they have never met? Their bias and need for absolute control and power over everyone’s thoughts and beliefs makes to where they have to hate anyone who disagrees. After all do you call a friend all the names and insults they made to me? Nope.

    And people wonder why I don’t get involved in many debates anymore and this is why. The debates are no longer about any science. It’s about who can insult or call names better. And what does that scientifically prove? nothing. Only that evolution is moving towards teaching all whom believe it to hate all who don’t. Because if you ask them why they hate they suddenly don;t have an answer but will respond: I don’t hate you. But their actions never match their words.

    Also the reason everything looks related is because of this:

    Evolution debate will soon be history?

    Evolutionists will try to say that Darwin was not racist. Yet Darwin never made a comment in any of his writings or book in defense of any human of a different race. He made racist comments himself and had friends that were outspoken racists. The fact is, if you are not racist you don’t make racist comments and hang around racist people. Darwin was not naive, he was living in a time when racism and slavery was everywhere. So he knew what his idea would do in fueling of current feelings towards other races. And to this day you can see what Darwin’s idea has done and that racism is still very much a part of it. White man is always the end of every human evolution chart. It would be unthinkable for a black man to be the final human evolution result because evolution makes the white man superior.

    Don’t believe that evolution is about racism? Point these facts out to any evolutionist and see how they respond. Instead of saying they made a mistake and that this should not be repeated. They will “defend” the past actions of these people and try to make it sound justified. This is also why you won’t ever see this racist history printed in any evolution text along with why this should not be done or repeated. Or an apology to any race that was hurt due to these actions. So if evolutionists are not racist then what is their problem of making sure their idea is never used for that purpose and to expose the ones who did in past history as an example of what not to do? It’s because they would have to admit that even Darwin was involved and have to face the fact that their theory may not recover in the people’s eyes if they knew all this. So this history is omitted from every textbook that teaches evolution. I find it ironic that evolutionist are quick to point out everyone Else’s bad past history yet hide their own. I believe that’s called being a hypocrite.

    Also the way they try to debunk evidence that does not support evolution. Instead of acknowledging this, they go into attack mode. First attacking the creditability of the person who discovered it, then making false accusations along with numerous deceptions and lies. Where is the science in doing all that? No where. So anyone whom has any credibility they have built up over many years risks getting it destroyed if they dare challenge evolution. So through fear and intimidation evolution gets to stay top dog. Real truth and reality does not need all these tactics to protect it. that’s because real truth can stand on its own.

    Does anyone know why evolutionists always look right? It’s because there philosophy of how science is supposed to work allows them to be right and wrong at the same time. Example: Let’s say today a evolutionist uses evidence on a major tv debate between me and him and more or less says I’m lying because this evidence is a true proven fact. Tomorrow that same evidence gets proven wrong, who was really lying? But yet what will be the excuse instead of “we wrong”? It will be: “That’s how science works”. And even though they called me a liar with that now proven wrong evidence, this accusation never has to be retracted and no public apologies made. But instead the creationist will always look like the one whom was wrong regardless. So even their lies and deceptions are true. Now if they can tweak this ability to look right all the time to the point to where everyone is too stupid to realize it, then yes the debate could be over in 15-30 years.

    Evolutionists like to claim evolution is so observable. Yet when a film illustrating how evolution works how much of it has to be animated in order to show people how it works? Over 90% of it has to be animated. Is animation now empirical evidence because the animation can be repeated in a lab? Want an illustration on how much animation is needed to show evolution is any evolution video? Go to YouTube and just type in evolution into their search engine and see for yourself. Or here is an example:

    Yep, evolution is now proven because we can see it through animation. And I can make a very long list of all this stuff that has nothing to do with science that is called science and proof of evolution. There is a reason that only evolutionists are allowed to interpret evolution evidence. It’s because evolutionists want to make sure that they always 100% get evidence to support evolution. And doing it this way while barring any whom would disagree ensures this 100% of the time. Their interpretation is the only one that counts or will ever be accepted. Being that atheist-evolutionist control science and control all interpretations and what is accepted as evidence and what is rejected means they have absolute control. Control to this level can only breed corruption. Besides what would be wrong with having outside sources look into things to make sure everything was being done right? It’s because they would be exposed so that would never happen. And to make sure that never happens they have an unwritten rule that states regardless of your education, if you don’t agree with evolution  you will never be accepted in scientific circles. As one professor said:

    So proven by scientific discovery, or bias through absolute control and corruption?

    Challenge to YECs? Part 8

    Before I start answering questions in this section, I want to point out what was written at the end of this section where the person who wrote this was indirectly admitting that the age dating process is not accurate. And was making an excuse as to why and justifying why it’s used anyway. The reason this was done is because this person knows very well what is going to be pointed out by most creationists. But this creationist (Me) also approaches from a different angle not only pointing out what has already been established by us that the evolutionist cannot address but like to instead ignore. But that simple logic proves that one cannot trust the current age dating methods. Here is what was said at the bottom of this section of the questions.

    Like all scientific methods of analysis, radiometric dating techniques are not perfect and are subject to interferences that can sometimes produce false results. Analysis of inappropriate and/or improperly prepared samples gives erroneous values. Nonetheless, how does the YEC model account for the high level of consistency observed from using a variety of methods of analysis that place the age of the Earth far in excess of the biblical limit of about 10,000 years.

    If you have been reading this since part one you will remember an analogy I did where I proved that evolutionists can be right and wrong at the same time. I will do it again because what is said above is an illustration of a person justifying they can be right and wrong at the same time and it does not matter.

    The analogy: Let’s say an evolutionist is using certain evidence today to claim I am lying about my belief being true. Tomorrow that same evidence gets proven wrong, who was really the liar? Yet the evolutionist will justify his being wrong by saying: That’s how science works. Never having to admit to being wrong but always being able to justify that even though he was wrong it does not matter so actually he was right regardless and on both counts. So in other words the logic is that the old evidence made him right and the new evidence made him right as well. So the evolutionist will always be right even when wrong because their logic allows it. This is how science has rewritten what truth and lies are because in science they are both on the same level. But yet they will use the standard of right and wrong when judging or comparing themselves to everyone else. Basically science through evolution has a double standard. Where they can say and claim evolution is true but never really have to prove it to the same criteria they will require of everyone else. They cannot even define truth scientifically so why should they be required to tell it?

    If a teacher would take this same logic on grading tests, where the truth can change so one can be right and wrong at the same time. The whole class would ace the test regardless of what their answer was or if they answered at all. While the class next door applies the criteria of what truth really is so therefore people will be right and wrong so some will pass and some will fail. In real reality do we live in a world where truth does not matter and there is no right and wrong questions or answers? Or do we live in a world where the real reality is what we live, what we see, not what we want to be true? So with really no criteria of ever having to meet real truth on any level, how could evolution or any of its support mechanism ever look wrong, or be wrong? There is a reason only an evolutionist can point out something that is a fraud in evolution. It’s because on all matters of evolution a evolutionist is close minded to anyone whom does not agree. This is also why only evolutionists can be scientists because first you have to believe there can be no absolutes so that therefore truth can be whatever you want it to be.

    The reason that science requires different rules from real reality is so their ideas can look like another reality or truth if you buy into the supposed fact that there is another reality that is made up. Why else go to all the trouble to sell such logic and philosophy if the evidence itself is supposed to be empirical? It’s done this way because the real truth of the matter is that less than 5% of evolution can actually meet the real criteria of being empirical. Being empirical means the evidence has to be testable in a lab. The results and conclusions repeatable under real world conditions. The supposed fossil record that is often implied to be empirical evidence cannot meet being empirical. Neither can more than 95% of the rest of evolution. Why is it this way? Because 98-99% of evolution has to be interpreted. Which means words are the only real thing that says evolution happened. Why do you think it takes soooo many words to explain it? And when someone disagrees after soooo many words are used they are referred to as being ignorant and uneducated.

    How can one tell that something is a made up reality? It’s when in its defense one must go outside the realm of actually proving it to actually making you feel that if you don’t believe you are lower than pond scum. And that is what we observe in every aspect of anyone whom dares to not believe, or dares to challenge evolution. How often does this occur? 100% of the time anyone dares to do either. It also has several names that has nothing to do with science. Bullying, which is what evolutionist like to do with the new in Christ to convert them (conversion is not science). Peer pressure which is to appeal to one’s ego, pride, or self-confidence. And then there is just plain hatefulness. This is where person is hated solely for what they believe that does not conform to evolution and nothing else. Which is another form of peer pressure that basically states that to belong and be accepted you must believe evolution. What is also used to convince more than using evidence is that the idea that “majority view” of what is considered the smartest minds in the world makes it so regardless of what anyone else may or could prove. They exalt themselves as the elite in everything they do while looking down upon everyone else except their peers (Stereotyping to belittle) . When something makes a person feel superior to everyone else, this is the example of the attitude that evolution breeds from a superiority complex. This is also why they will never accept anything a creationist says because to do so would be lowering themselves to pond scum level (in their opinion). Which is bigotry at it’s finest Now to the questions:


    • Essentially all radioactive isotopes with half-lives shorter than half a billion years are no longer in existence. For the most part, the only radioactive isotopes present are those with half-lives close to a billion years or longer. The only radioactive isotopes present with shorter half-lives are those that are being constantly replenished by natural means. This distribution of isotopes is in good agreement with the other evidence that shows Earth is about 4.56 billion years old. How does the YEC model account for this current isotopic distribution?
    • Response: 1) If something is no longer in existence how does one tell it was ever there? 2) So one point the isotopes are accurate because they have half-lives  close to a billions years, yet on the other hand they can also be replenished by natural means? Does anyone besides me see the problem here? 3) How does one tell by the isotopes that the earth is 4.56 billion years old when: a) they can be replenished. b) They don’t last 4,56 billion years. c) How can one tell how long one isotope has been replenished?

    YECs can accept the age dating as accurate because we know the Creator had to create with age in order to make what was created work under the laws that existed before and after sin. You see time without sin is eternal or infinite. Which means creation was done under different laws of physics because the first 6 days where without sin and therefore infinite. This is the main reason when we use the laws that exist after sin they cannot explain it nor will it make any sense. But when one realizes what has to be different in the laws of physics to make an infinite time-line work, then the pieces and evidence for creation start to fit. So what has to be different to make an infinite time-line work?1) You first have to understand that time exists in the infinite time-line which is proven by this verse: rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour…. Time cannot be measured where time does not exist.
    2) Time and aging are two separate processes. In other words time continues while age remains a constant (the age of all matter remains constant). In this way all that is created has to be created with age already added. This is because as long as the infinite laws exist, nothing get’s older. We are so used to time and age moving as one that it is hard to comprehend time moving forward yet nothing ages.
    3) This is why all matter, both living and dead, were created with age already added. Ageless matter passing from the infinite time-line would not work under finite laws that we currently observe. Adam and Eve plus all the plants and animals were created with age. This is shown in the Bible because all were told to go forth and multiply right after being created. Offspring cannot do that.
    4) Why create the whole universe with age already added? Because man had a choice to sin or remain sinless. God had to make a creation that would work under the laws that would exist in either time-line (infinite or finite). If not, man’s sin would have destroyed what was created which would have made for an imperfect creation.
    5) Would not that make for a deceptive Creator? No. This is because in the infinite time-line, time does not have to pass for age to increase. So leaving the dating markers on how old God created everything was relaying just how creation was done. The attempt here to make the Creator sound deceptive is only justification to continue disbelieving because this method fits and explains everything so their only come back is to say this. These types of answers are only used when science cannot debunk what is claimed. Because if there were any science to use they would have used it.

    • There are in excess of forty different radiometric dating methods, and a number of other methods such as those involving thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, and tree-ring, varve, and ice-core measurements. These methods are in agreement the great majority of the time covering time spans encompassing millions of years.
    • Response: The only methods used and accepted are those who support evolution. 1)There are no trees that have tree rings that go beyond 10,000 years because trees don;t live that long. 2) Ice annual rings are not made by seasonal changes only like a tree because ice is not a biological life form. So because of this the rings are formed through temperature changes that go from above freezing to below freezing. And because this can happen from night to day and not years, a supposed annual ring can be made in a 24 hour period. Besides that was there ever any test done to confirm one ice core ring takes approximately one year to make? No. it was accepted as fact only because claiming it takes a year makes it fit in the evolution time-line. Because if there was a test done to confirm this the test results and how it was done would have been released. But there is zero confirmation on this. And if not any evolutionist can send me the test results and how it was done and I will post it right here. But because this was “never” done I don’t have to worry about this. But this does bring up an important question. How was it established that rings found in ice are annual? Being that there is not test to confirm this means it was based in opinion and not fact. And because it’s still accepted as fact, makes one wonder just how science can let this continue when it’s actually fraudulent? Of course like I said before they can be right and wrong at the same time so using fraudulent evidence makes not difference. It’s how science works.
    • Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly lend support to the old Earth model. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth scenario. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating are normally published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals in a year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
    • Response: You see here is the perfect example of majority view makes new truths and reality. Hundreds of laboratories agree so it’s true. Peer review by other evolutionists agree the evolution is true. Problem is with all of this is that age dating is flawed from the beginning. According to their origins of everything, all matter came from the same source 15 billion years ago. So should not there be a trace back to that age if all matter is related to the source? of course. But does it? Nope. In fact not one planet, not one star, or anything else date as old as 15 billion. This is because age dating markers are not left until the said matter cools down enough to leave them. So our planet that came from a source 15 billion years ago will only date 4.5 billion years old means there is 10 billion years to account for. Get the picture?

    So to cover up the possibility that God created everything with age, which the evidence of age dating supports, they ignore this really big difference in age dating and treat it as if the problem does not exist. So what accounts for 10 billion years of missing age? So what this means is that the matter that made the earth is actually 15 billion years old because it’s source (the dot) is supposed to be that old even though it only dates 4.5 billion years.

    • When radiometric dating techniques are applied to meteorites, they consistently give values close to 4.6 billion years.
    • Response: But the actual age dating back to the supposed origins of matter is 15 billion, so the age dating is wrong again/
    • Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. Radioisotopes commonly used in dating techniques have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and corrosive chemical treatment without causing any significant changes in rates of radioactive decay. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.
    • Response: Still wrong since the source of all matter is supposed to be 15 billion years old.
    • Using the current, observed rate of motion of the Pacific Plate and the distances between the modern Hawaiian Islands, it is possible to calculate the relative age differences between the Islands.  The ages determined by this method are in good agreement with those obtained by K-Ar radiometric dating.
    • Response: That is if one could prove that the plates moved at a constant rate throughout all time. That cannot be done.
    • Carbon-14 dates of about 38,000 years ago have been correlated with several other methods (ice layers, tree rings, uranium-thorium isotope ratios, etc.) to within about 5% agreement.
    • Response: So there are now trees that date 38,000 years old through tree rings? I’d like to see that. And again, ice is not a biological life form to seasonal changes from summer to winter don’t make the ring, changes in temperature does. And all matter comes from a 15 billion year old source so all matter is actually 15 billion years old.