Quote: whothefeckisalice "These fossils cannot be dated accurately. The original living material, and the material that is used to produce its fossil, are often two different things, and thus the ages of both are different as well. Most alleged ancient fossils are found near the surface of earth, and are dated by the age of the rocks near where they are found. If a modern-day animal was to die and its remains found in the same location, would it be dated the same age of the alleged ancient fossil ? According to Margaret J. Helder, Ph.D., in her book Completing The Picture, A Handbook On Museums And Interpretive Centres Dealing With Fossils, "Scientists used to be very impressed with the potential of radiometric for coming up with absolutely reliable ages of some kinds of rocks. They do not feel that way anymore. Having had to deal with numerous calculated dates which are too young or too old compared with what they expected, scientists now admit that the process has many more uncertainties than they ever would have supposed in the early years. The public knows almost nothing about uncertainties in the dating of rocks. The impression that most people have received is that many rocks on earth are extremely old and that the technology exists to make accurate measurements of these ages. Scientists have become more and more aware however that the measurements which the machines make, may tell us nothing about the actual age of the rock." Margaret J. Helder continues to explain Didn't Stan say that copy and paste answers weren't allowed: loveforlife.com.au/content/10/09 ... saurs-scie Note who the publisher was of Margaret's book: Creation Science Association of Alberta. Of which she is/was vice-president. Basically you're quoting a creationist, who's area of expertise is botany. and an associate editor of a Christian magazine. Any quotes from anyone without a vested interest in the subject?

Quote: whothefeckisalice "These fossils cannot be dated accurately. The original living material, and the material that is used to produce its fossil, are often two different things, and thus the ages of both are different as well. Most alleged ancient fossils are found near the surface of earth, and are dated by the age of the rocks near where they are found. If a modern-day animal was to die and its remains found in the same location, would it be dated the same age of the alleged ancient fossil ? According to Margaret J. Helder, Ph.D., in her book Completing The Picture, A Handbook On Museums And Interpretive Centres Dealing With Fossils, "Scientists used to be very impressed with the potential of radiometric for coming up with absolutely reliable ages of some kinds of rocks. They do not feel that way anymore. Having had to deal with numerous calculated dates which are too young or too old compared with what they expected, scientists now admit that the process has many more uncertainties than they ever would have supposed in the early years. The public knows almost nothing about uncertainties in the dating of rocks. The impression that most people have received is that many rocks on earth are extremely old and that the technology exists to make accurate measurements of these ages. Scientists have become more and more aware however that the measurements which the machines make, may tell us nothing about the actual age of the rock." Margaret J. Helder continues to explain Didn't Stan say that copy and paste answers weren't allowed: loveforlife.com.au/content/10/09 ... saurs-scie Note who the publisher was of Margaret's book: Creation Science Association of Alberta. Of which she is/was vice-president. Basically you're quoting a creationist, who's area of expertise is botany. and an associate editor of a Christian magazine. Any quotes from anyone without a vested interest in the subject?

[iWell Attenborough and the elite have got a vested interest haven't they.[/i

Exactly. Their Darwinian Mythology evilution link.

A vested interest that creationists/conspiracy theorists have made up.

1. Fossilization is impossible, if each particle of a body would transform itself from flesh to stone, it would not be able to re-order itself with the other particles to re-form any definite shape
2. Sea shells on mountains are faked by religious freaks, tourist guides, fossil merchants
3. No one ever discovered a dino before the 19th century
4. They were all made with bones from zoos, circus and different kinds of whales, all mixed together
5. Only the museum people found them

Darwin was a writer of fiction, he did not travel himself on the boat called the beagle to get fossils from south American guides, he just wrote very credible fiction of beautiful discoveries that were in fact made by simple and unknown sailors and merchants of fossils that he had interviewed in the London harbours, he was a fossil collector himself and he was selling them all around with the complicity of the British museum in the tradition of the french revolution propagandist science of cuvier, who invented from pure imagination all kinds of monsters to teach evolutionism-humanism, where the human being is proposed as an ideal, a concept, a prototype [like platonism, humanism is trying to put every individual in a frame of unreality]

Darwin was a theologian graduate, he was against the old styled theology where legends are to be believed exactly, and as much as he could not deny the shells on the mountains to be real because he was selling them, he had to explain that Noah's Ark was a legend but nevertheless the big legendary flood did happen all the same

Twenty years after his supposed voyage, he was in the middle of the discussion about evolution, he finally took the good party, that proved to be the more credible, and evident. it was not his own private idea, but he was famous, and he was chosen to support this theory in the press, that he could explain pretty well being a good writer, then the controversy was all faked up by the press, to build up this mediatic creature [Darwin] to take all the space

At the same time in North America, marsh and cope, faked, named and produced the dinosaurs. Utter fabricated masonic garbage and the sheople lap up the Dino pooh. Unbelievable.

You surely can't believe that, can you?

It takes a special kind of 'special' to even type that.

In 20 years that is THE most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on the internet. In fact it's so stark staring bonkers barking mad I'm going to print it out and pass it around.

Come on now, honest answer, you're on a wind up.

The Galapagos Landings were a hoax! Darwin never went!

Now come on folks, you simply couldn't get this level of comedy anywhere else!

I now realise there ARE no Galapagos islands! The many documentaries I've watched were all in fact filmed in a fake island built in the middle of a fake ocean hidden somewhere in Hollywood! The giant tortoises - some of which you can "see" in zoos around the world - are just animatronics!

How could we all have missed this?

Come on Stan, your audience awaits!


Does this look like a "whale bone" to you?