It is well-known that many dating methods are unreliable. Additionally, it is becoming well-known that massive corruption exists -- and has existed -- in scientific circles for some time.

I know that you fear the idea of conspiracies (are you a conspiraphobic?) yet, they are all around us and have been throughout history.

You even mentioned previously that you believe that science would make mid-course corrections if it were found to be wrong.

My response to your false belief was this:

"How fantastically naive."

Do you remember that?

The way the world really works is that these deep claims can never be formally rescinded because too much FAITH would be lost in this methodology of control.

I love science, but evolution is not science.

The video that I provided shows the inconsistencies with convention sedimentation claims. Furthermore, you have not supported the ridiculous claim that sediments forms faster away from trees.

You may want to support your claim, because it really appears that "evolution" is again "reaching" to attempt to save its face on this one.



This has been your position all along.

Flood evidence and information on sedimentation.

Keep in mind that these experiments show VERY RAPID formation for sedimentation. These videos also present other evidence that makes evolution-claims "nonsensical", for example, the footprint-claims.

We have to consider the mix of animal tracks that co-exist with land plants as well. We have to look at the evidence that natural presents to us, not attempt to explain in according to a preexisting bias.

It is par for the course for evolution to make desperate claims to support impossible evidence.










"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."

—R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].