BONES IN STONES-- TWO IDEAS---ONE TRUTH.

BONES IN STONES.

TWO IDEAS..WHICH IS TRUTH?

This is no attempt to change your mind, but asking only to look at the same evidence is s different way.

1st: Would would YOU, disagree, that unless YOU know another beginning in time, their date of birth, You can only guess at their age, agree?  Well it IS, the same for the age of this earth. For there surely was NOT a scientist present at the foundational beginnings of this earth, right? Therefore ANY age given by anyone, is only subjective human thinking, thus nothing more than human ASSUMPTIONS!

2nd:  Then, if we have no specific "birth date", and whatever materials we are using to read any date/time/age, until and unless we know each of these values or levels at "birth", any age we say, can NOT have a bases of fact! Nor can we measure, the rates of loss of the measured materials, over times past, due to our own ignorance of the sciences involved.
     Thus, if we have unknown levels of decay, and know not the levels at or in the beginning, then what value have reading for us today, NONE! In fact Mt St. Helen's blew in 1985, and rocks sent to lab for age dating came back with each lab's date differing from all others, from 10.000 to 2.5Milliom years old! Yet the same science holds that we can't measure a rocks age, from an eruptions, no closer than 5 years apart.
     What do these fact do to the "Earth is 3,5 Billion years old idea"?

3rd.  Who has seen/heard of "Dinosaur" Jack on any so-called "Learning Channels"? One of his assistants, exclaimed "How can these red blood cells be here, how can they survive for 160 million years?" She had found soft flexible tissue inside a T-Rex bone, and asked for help, Old Jack said, "How about trying to prove they ARE NOT red blood cells"? 

4th: Fossils are dated by the rock layers they are found within , BUT rock layers are dated by the fossils found within them. Now if this is NOT circular thinking, please, tell me what it is! A=B=A=B=A!

5th: Evolutionists tells us that humans evolved from a now lost line, that also produced the apes. Therefore we live, and if lucky we love and are loved, then we die, the end, right?
A. How hopeless it this?
B. How does evolution's 'survival of the fittest' come to explain the facts about human conscience, and how it evolved, and how was this a help to survive?
C. Suicide, for teens to age 26, sees an alarming increase with each passing decade, why? Well the "Experts" proclaim its increasing population and the ever growing pressures of competition. Perhaps there's another explanation: they all have been taught, for tree generations that we came from nothing but slime, and are the uncles of apes, thus we live, we die good bye! But instead of putting up with all of life;s hurts, ills, and angers, seeing there's nothing but death, why not die now as save themselves much pain?

6th: Most of us have heard speeches about or of the KT boundary, well for years past the German language was the mother's tongue of Sciences, and K came from the German word for chalk, as in writing chalk Well it is a established fact, that there's a line of chalk, as in the English white cliffs of Dover chalk, around the entire world, in various thicknesses!
    So what's it consist of, and how was it laid down or made?
    It is the remains of sea creatures that have died, leaving behind their shells if you will, so if earth is in truth 4.5 billions of years old, how come we still have deep oceans? These shell like remains, dissolves in deeper ocean waters, but not in shallow waters, thus we can see the mountain tops of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the tallest of them are covered in white just as snow on peaks, on land.
     Then ONLY way, this around the earth layer, could possibly have been formed is during a world-wide flood, that destroyed all surface life and vegetation. Science just can NOT allow for this to be accepted, because under their evolution idea, all life would have to begin again from the slime to the Zoo to you and me, and that earth would have to double in age to 11 billion year old!

7th: How can anyone with only a very few bone fragments, 1/4 of a jaw, three or four pieces of a scull totaling less than 2% of the whole skull, still draw a complete form and have it nearly human looking? Or they tale a fossil skull of a human, move the jaw bone 12 inch forwards, and take a picture of if and call it a caveman?  Does all this not stick you the least bit dishonest?

8th: Does not all these facts and questions make YOU ask WHY? Why are they doing this?

Check back again, and find out what this and Karl Marx, Engles, Hitler, and the French Revolution have in common!
Check back soon
john servant@frontier.com