Bible verse by verse

[_The Erotic Apologist]

And if the hammer and its handle is recent...

No--they date back to the latter half of the Nineteenth Century.

...how did it come to be embedded in ancient rock?

The "London Hammer" is an example of how minerals in solution can solidify around a foreign object.

Does that mean that such ancient rock may not be as old as uniformitarians think?

No.

OR are you in error concerning the age of this hammer. Which is it?

The hammer dates back to the latter half of the Nineteenth Century. The minerals in the concretion date back to the Paleozoic.

Why do evolutionists fail to mention the Creator?

I'm sure they mention the Creator all the time.

Do they use exclusion tactics to promote their own naturalist theories?

No.

Have uniformitarians proven with repeatable experimentation the "truth" of their declarations?

No, because "declarations" are not the subject of scientific experimentation.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

This is for everyone else to read ---- Please see: http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/1-jesus-real-person

But I'm not disputing the fact that Jesus may or may not have been a historical person. Pay attention next time.

[_LittleNipper]

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/scient ... umans.html

[_LittleNipper]

This is for everyone else to read ---- Please see: http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/1-jesus-real-person

But I'm not disputing the fact that Jesus may or may not have been a historical person. Pay attention next time.

Because that's what the Bible says? You might want to pay attention to what you write.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

But I'm not disputing the fact that Jesus may or may not have been a historical person. Pay attention next time.

Because that's what the Bible says?

Yes, among other things.

You might want to pay attention to what you write.

Please show me where I haven't paid attention to what I write.

[_LittleNipper]

So you have just proven that minerals and rock reputed to be millions of years old can in fact surround and infiltrate bones deposited a mere 6000 years ago making them seem older than they actually are. Thanks for the heads up. So much for fossil dating.....

[_The Erotic Apologist]

So you have just proven...

You're really having a hard time distinguishing between proof and evidence, aren't you?

...that minerals and rock reputed to be millions of years old can in fact surround and infiltrate bones...

No--there are no bones in this pic:

...deposited a mere 6000 years ago...

No--the concretion occurred sometime during or after the latter half of the Nineteenth Century.

...making them seem older than they actually are.

No, not if you understand what "minerals in solution" means, which you don't.

Thanks for the heads up. So much for fossil dating.....

You're a funny little man, Nipper!

[_LittleNipper]

So you have just proven...

You're really having a time distinguishing between proof and evidence, aren't you?

...that minerals and rock reputed to be millions of years old can in fact surround and infiltrate bones...

No--there are no bones in this pic:

...deposited a mere 6000 years ago...

No--the concretion occurred sometime after the latter half of the Nineteenth Century.

...making them seem older than they actually are.

No, not if you understand what "minerals in solution" means, which you don't.

Thanks for the heads up. So much for fossil dating.....

You're a funny little man, Nipper!

The hammer in question is not rusting. And obviously you don't understand that during the would wide Flood minerals and silt were in suspension. And that is called a solution.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

The hammer in question is not rusting.

Different alloys oxidize at different rates in different conditions. So what?

And obviously you don't understand that during the would wide Flood...

Do you mean a world wide flood that may or may not have happened in a parallel universe? Or maybe in your imagination?

...minerals and silt were in suspension. And that is called a solution.

Wrong--"suspension" and "solution" are two different things.

[_Quasimodo]

And if the hammer and its handle is recent...

No--they date back to the latter half of the Nineteenth Century.

...how did it come to be embedded in ancient rock?

The "London Hammer" is an example of how minerals in solution can solidify around a foreign object.

Does that mean that such ancient rock may not be as old as uniformitarians think?

No.

OR are you in error concerning the age of this hammer. Which is it?

The hammer dates back to the latter half of the Nineteenth Century. The minerals in the concretion date back to the Paleozoic.

Why do evolutionists fail to mention the Creator?

I'm sure they mention the Creator all the time.

Do they use exclusion tactics to promote their own naturalist theories?

No.

Have uniformitarians proven with repeatable experimentation the "truth" of their declarations?

No, because "declarations" are not the subject of scientific experimentation.

"Fossilizing" Teddy Bears.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Shipton%27s_Cave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrifying_well#Examples