No Fossils Older Than 600 Million Years

Still moore prove the hideous lie of evolution is false.  We new that already, but its good to share these things when they come up so when other good Christians get cornerd by athiests we no how to react.  There gonna lie to you, but a lot of them mean well.  A lot of people are athiest because they don’t no any better but these people ar open to reason so if you point out why these things are lies theyll listen.  Theyll no better, and stop telling the lie to more Christians.

Imagine what kind of world we can make!  When people go back an tell whoevr lied to them how they foun out, prety soon well get all he evolution propaganda out of schools!  And stop brianwashing kids!

There are no fossil records more than 60,000,000 years old. Dont take my word for it, its in that evil Richardo Dawkins book my frind read.  Or on Wikipeda.  Dorkins hisself said it looks just like if God made a hole bunch of living things and put them on earth, out of the blue.  Just like it says in the Bible!!  But no, he’s a scientist what hates God, so he needs to find some stupid way that didn’t happen for all these thigns to get there, even tho its obvious God made them, and even all the scientific evidence shows that.

View All Items Pets from Personal Creations

It’s no coinsidence that the oldest living thing looks like its 600,000,000 years old in flawed carbon dating things when we know its really 6,000 years.



  1. 1
    ancientgrains Says:

    Not trying to start out negatively but you need to learn how to spell.

    And I would like to ask you if you believe that the Grand Canyon was formed in only a few thousand years?


  2. 2
    angryxtian Says:

    Probly quicker than that. I dont no why God had to take more than a cuople minuts if He wanted to make the Grand Canyon real fast? Think of an artist at work.

  3. 3
    Ken Says:

    God isn’t random chance. There’s no reason it had to take trillions of years to build a large hole in the ground. The entire planet is a miracle, after all.

  4. 4

    I think we need more Christians like you: if all Christians were illiterate, ignorant, and hateful, people might be more inclined to question their faith. Keep up the good work!

  5. 5
    FastJack Says:

    So what now? 60 million or 600 million years? And if you actually bothered to get your facts straight you would know that radiocarbon dating can’t be used to date objects older than about 60.000 years. Isotopes with longer half-lifes are used for older objects.

  6. 6
    Teashock Says:

    Hello again!
    Obviously carbon dating is unable to date past 60k years even if the many assumptions it is based upon weren’t false, however FastJack this doesn’t stop many Athiests from using carbon dating to support “millions” of years.
    Quite obviously the Grand Canyon could not have been formed over a long period of time otherwise there would be a delta the size of Texas at the mouth of the Colorado river. So where is it? The only explanation for that volume of matter being removed without a sufficiently large delta is that the majority of the material was removed catastrophically.
    Interestingly I believe that Angry’s comment was really to point out that Dawkins admitted that the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in the fossile record (the cambrian “explosion”) would imply that they didn’t evolve.
    The facts are actually far more challenging than this, they could not have evolved. Here is some FACTS for you…
    Do the math and see if you are afraid to go where the evidence leads or are you too religious in your belief about evolution and millions of years…

    <b<Is evolution mathematically probable?
    • Evolutionists speculate that the Earth is 4,500,000,000 years old.
    • Science tells us that the number of data in DNA is 3,200,000,000
    • Evolutionists speculate that life started on the Earth 3,850,000,000 years ago.
    • Evolutionists tell us that the extinction rate of species variety is 99.90% (or 1/1000 survival rate) based on observation of current extinction rates.
    • Evolutionists speculate that humans evolved 25,000,000 years ago.

    The implications of this are as follows…
    • If progressively complex evolution is true then it follows that for every successful new mutation there were 999 failures…
    • In order to achieve a DNA complexity of 3.2 billion successful mutations, there would have to have been 3,196,800,000,000 (3.2 Trillion) total mutations.
    • This equates to 836 mutations per year.
    • If man has been documenting history for 6000 years there would have been 5,014,588 mutations in that time alone.
    • In the 25 million years since man is claimed to have evolved there would have been 20,894,117,647 (20.8 billion) mutations in that time.
    • At 0.1% (1/1000) success rate this would mean that 20,894,118 successful mutations would have come into existence in that time. Yep, that’s 20.1 million new varieties/species of humans or at least higher-level primates as complex as humans.

    If this is true then where are they? If progressively complex evolution is an ongoing process, as some people would have us believe, why has progressively complex evolution stopped? Yet we still see reductions in variety being caused by species extinction.
    Why does progressively complex evolution appear to have stopped around the same time the Bible says God created everything?

  7. 7
    DeviantBone Says:

    Teashock, those mutations are seen all around you, see people with different coloured eyes? see people of different builds? See genetic defects? Evolutions slowed down for us because instead of us adapting to the environment, we adapted the environment to us. We are still evolving, just not as other species, we are getting bigger is an example of human evolution.

    All are forms of mutation.

  8. 8
    Iceman Says:

    The human race came into existence roughly 2.5 million years ago, Teashock. Not 25 million.

    As for the number of mutations that occured: Those numbers are mathematically correct, but you overestimate the significance and severity of the mutations. Think about it; even though the individual mutations were relatively inconsequential, over 2.5 MILLION YEARS, the accumulated effects were very great. Just look at all the different races and ethnic groups on Earth: black people, white people, Asian people, etc… each race is like a sub-species of humanity, with all of them together constituting the human race. When you take into account the fact that the first modern humans, homo sapiens–descended from homo erectus– only came into full existence roughly 200,000 years ago, with the ENTIRE population living in the African savannah(same environment, same parent-species, very similar evolutionary path) you should realized that 200,000 years isn’t enough time for MAJOR differences to develop(like some humans would have 3 eyes, or some stupid isht like that), only skin tone and whatnot.

    To DeviantBone: Isn’t eye color and body-build passed on genetically, as in heredity? I don’t think it counts as a mutation, per se… correct me if I’m wrong.

  9. 9
    DeviantBone Says:

    Yes, but those characteristics(eye colour) were orginally a mutation, that has been passed on genetically.

  10. 10
    Teashock Says:

    Thanks for the comments, it shows you have actually taken the time to at least think about it guys.
    Sorry Iceman but the “scientific” time that humans are estimated to have evolved over has been suffering from exponential growth, every year it inflates slightly. I got my figures from the official Museum “DNA evolution expo” in Wellington’s Te PaPa when it was visited. (it also said that black people were less evolved, by the way, than white folks although in another display it denied this – double mindedness)
    Also if the time is actually 2.5 million that raises the number of changes dramatically (8,360 per year for 2.5 million years) – the eye and hair colours and facial shapes do not account for sufficient DNA informational changes.
    Seriously DeviantBone, look at the actual facts. Where is ther one single, measurable, example of progressively complex evolution?

RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: