It's a fool's game

[PIX]

So science is Man's answer to his existence? Evolution is as every bit a farce to me as you see the Bible. If birds came from reptiles, surely there must be ONE existing transitional fossil of the intermediate lifeform. Surely there MUST be intermediate lifeforms from birds to mammals SOMEWHERE? NO...there are NONE at all. There is no fossil proof of ANY transitional species that had to existed during this 'natural' metamorphesis of random life. And why do you think humans have been around longer than the Bible says so? Ah...I forgot ...science must have the answers. First off...the Bible puts the age of the earth at 6000 years if all the lineages are counted back to Adam (yes you can count their ages). Written history for mankind ONLY goes back 5000 years. But ALAS....we have science and the infalible Carbon-Dating to tell us the true age of things.

1. The Carbon 14 dating procedure is only good on objects that are dead...that were once living. Carbon 14 is absorbed and ingested by all living plants, animals and humans and only begins to diminish after death. The Carbon-14 dating method measures the decay and converts that decay into years.

2. Rocks, minerals and fully mineralized fossils cannot be dated by the "radiocarbon" method.

3. Even ardent proponents of Carbon-14 dating know that past 50,000 years, the Carbon-14 remaining in a once-living object would be so minute that no reliable measurement could be made.

4. Many scientists doubt Carbon-14 dating's accuracy beyond 3,000 years.

The ridiculous long ages of into the billions are not a product of radiocarbon dating. The two most commonly used methods to date rocks and minerals are the Potassium-Argon and the Uranium-Lead methods. As in all the radiometric systems of dating two familiar false assumptions are in their equation. Remember, if your computer says 2 + 2 = 5, no matter how scholarly, the math computation will always be incorrect. The following are the two false assumptions and the excerpt cited is from the book titled, The World That Perished, by John C. Whitcomb:

Many scientists claim to have nearly infallible methods for determining the age of the earth and its various formations. But all of these methods are built upon two basic and unprovable assumptions: (1) the assumption of starting point or original condition and (2) the assumption of a uniform rate of change from that starting point to the present.

The following statement has been taken from the Anthropological Journal of Canada:

The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a "fix-it-as-we-go" approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.

No matter how "useful" it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.

It is important to keep in mind that dates and ages of most rock strata were assumed, based on evolutionary theory, before radiometric dating was invented. If the dates measured are contrary to evolution's preconceived positions, then the date is often rejected.

In a publication titled, Contributions to Geology, this paragraph was found:

In general, dates in the "correct ballpark" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.

The dating discrepancies in the radiometric field are daunting. Example: wood which was buried in lava flow that formed basalt in Australia was dated by Carbon-14 at about 45,000 years old. The basalt it was found in was measured by the Potassium-Argon method at 45 million years old. Potassium-Argon said it was a thousand times older than Carbon-14.

The following paragraphs are found in a book authored by Morris and Morris titled Many Infallible Proofs:

As in the case of uranium dating, potassium dating also commonly yields great ages on rocks known to be very young.

The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent...it is possible to deduce that these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old.

And again we ask how it is possible to be sure that potassium ages are correct when determined for rocks of unknown age, when the same method gives ages 100,000 times too great for rocks whose age we know!

Evolutionist F.B. Jueneman in Industrial Research and Development stated:

The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.

The following statement is from evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State:

It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock."

Shall we go into the hard scientific evidence on the so called Ape Men and the monkeys we supposidly came from? I spent 5 years studying 'science' in college. I spent another 6 years working in labs and doing research, biological and physics. Don't let PHD's and
men blind you. Get ALL the facts first.