Hi RAZD,

thank you for your understanding! Yes, it was frustating to say the least.


Agreed. But first, would you let me know how you have tested this site for it's invalidity? And how you come to that conclusion and by whom? Let me know and I will get in touch with the site owner and invite him on the forum to refute the accusation himself. He has left his email, so hopefully he will respond. Being accused that his content is questionable at best (or rubbish) after the enormous amount of information he's given deserves his attention. Particularly when he's backed up the information and quotes with the people in question, the dates, the times and the sources and the fossil pictures themselves. That does not mean I agree with all his content either, I too have my own beliefs.

I agree with your statements however, but where does that leave the layperson RAZD? How do any of us know exactly what is being presented is factual or bias? On either side? Surely you haven't simply disregarded and ignored the fallacies and hoaxes from the evolutionists have you? They are well known. They do happen, they have happened, and many have been fooled. Should we not then be wary of this? Or does one accept anything because they are the side with the biggest and loudest voice?

One is usually going to gravitate to the side they on, be it evolution or creation. I really enjoy that site because it does more than many others - it gives the visible! seeing these fossils, not just "hearing" or 'reading" about it. An example is one of the pictures I posted up there was actually presented on National Geographic. Though that was not mentioned on his site. The presentation was misleading and deliberately so. In the ancient footprints depicting giraffs and other animals, they painted a picture accordingly. However, in the footprints that showed to be no different from human prints, they instead painted a creature resembling something along the lines of a baboon and human mix. Yet having nothing more to go on other than footprints. I cannot really equate that as being honest science can you?


How do you know it was? I don't wave away somebody simply because they're a creationist. But I am well aware the evolutionist does......We've had fallacies in science textbooks, yet nobody would have suspected they were at the time. Do any of us really know what is being presented to us is factual and unbias?


How does one ultimately test for truth? Everybody has a belief in what they think is the truth and testing stems from that. It seems to me that he believes in the same creator/Father God...I say this by reading his site and finding much of their basic foundational beliefs fit in with the old testament. They fail however to acknowledge the "person" of God as being Jesus Christ (as us Christians believe). And this is where we part ways. And much of this is down to personal faith also, and doing ones homework on biblical history, miraculous events/healings etc. One can never push somebody to believe, it is very much a personal journey, grace and faith.

But when it comes to observations of our world? Our origins and trying to prove the past by the fossils and interpretations of the present? that is another story.