The Flickr Secularhumanism Image Generatr

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Photographed: 26/07/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Radiometric dating based on unverifiable assumptions.
scienceagainstevolution.info/v8i8f.htm

Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

Atheist myths debunked.
The development of order.

One of many questions’ atheists are unable to answer is:
Why is there order in the universe?
Order denotes purpose. Purpose requires a purposeful creation, which atheists deny.

There are several laws of nature and principles of science that atheists dearly wish would not exist.
Among these are:
The Law of Cause and Effect, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis.
These laws frustrate all attempts by atheists to replace God with ‘naturalism’ - their extraordinary belief that everything arose from nothing of its own volition, progressively increasing in order and potential, by entirely, natural processes.

Every natural, origin scenario (naturalism) defies explanation of the existence of order in the universe.
The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the building blocks of the universe, matter and energy, cannot be created by natural means.

The Second Law tells us matter/energy does not increase in order and potential. It tells us that, over time, the natural tendency is towards disorder and decreasing potential, from an obvious, original peak. There cannot be any natural, ongoing, development of order. This is an inconvenient fact for all atheist, natural, origin scenarios, which require the exact opposite; a simple, natural origin of matter/energy from nothing, progressively increasing in order and potential.
In addition to this inconvenient truth is the fact that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. A simple, random, chaotic, or disordered origin cannot naturally lead to a complex, ordered result. This causality principle endorses the Second Law.
The Second Law tells us order/complexity/potential does not increase naturally, but tends to decrease, and the Law of Cause and Effect tells us the result of a process cannot be superior to the totality of its original cause or causes. There cannot subsequently be more potential or order in an effect/entity than that which was intrinsic to its origin. Furthermore, the tendency, over time, is for this potential to decrease.

The absolute killer for atheist, origins mythology is that: even if progressively increasing order/potential in the universe was possible, it would still denote purpose.
What inherent principle could support increasing order/improvement as a likely outcome of purely, natural processes?
For example: If, as atheists are compelled to believe, matter/energy automatically progressed, of its own volition, from its origin, to acquire an inherent predisposition for the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis), which (incidentally) violates the Law of Biogenesis, they have to explain how such a predisposition/blueprint for life originated in an unconscious, unplanned, purposeless universe?
They may argue that the origin of life is a just a chance event, but the mechanism/constituents of any chance event must have the intrinsic capacity or capability to produce the chance outcome. A random, number generator may generate an unlikely combination of numbers by chance, but it cannot generate any numbers at all unless it is devised/constructed with the ability to do so. An unlikely event may happen by chance, but only if such an event is intrinsically possible. The atheist ploy, of just ignoring laws of nature, spectacularly fails.
How could the potential for constructive improvement develop autonomously in unplanned, unconscious, purposeless, dumb matter, which originated from nothing? The obvious, rational answer is that it couldn’t.

Atheists often employ bizarre arguments to justify their denial of the universality of laws which refute their beliefs. One of these, which has attained common currency among atheists, is the idea that snowflakes and crystals are examples of natural development of order. And that they somehow contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Here is an exchange I had with an atheist which illustrates this:

An atheist (Aimless Alliterations) in answer to part of my original post where I cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics, wrote this:
“Oh, goodness gracious. You tied yourself up in all sorts of knots a while back with this one . You really need to read the science and understand it before making statements like this.
Quoting me:
"The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. "

“Really? Where does it state this?”

Quoting me again:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered."

“Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system”.

My reply:
You wrote:
"According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered." Okay then..............account for snowflakes, rock crystals, the grading of sediment in a river system."

I am afraid it is you who doesn’t understand the Second Law. What I said is perfectly correct.
There are only 2 ways the effects of entropy can be temporarily decreased, halted or reversed by an input of energy. Either by a directive means or agent guiding the energy input, OR a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way.
Raw (unguided) energy (such as random heat) tends to increase entropy and time makes it worse.
Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings, rather than the opposite, which evolutionists require for abiogenesis.

Regarding the grading of sediment, I am surprised you mention that, because we know that is how most strata are formed, which effectively demolishes the uniformitarian interpretation of the geologic column and the fossil record. In this case, the grading is guided by the physical properties of the particles (size, shape, weight etc.) obeying physical laws. And, it will in time, be eroded and disorganised by the same forces that created it.

Abiogenesis (life arising of its own accord by natural processes from sterile matter) certainly does violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it requires a reversal of the effects of entropy.
Atheists and evolutionists often argue that abiogenesis doesn’t violate the Second Law because the Earth is an ‘open system’ which allows an input of energy from outside itself, namely the Sun.
They claim that the law of entropy only applies to ‘closed systems. This claim is obviously spurious, because firstly, we can observe entropy happening all around us. We are in the open system of the Earth, and yet we are well aware of entropy. We see that the Sun does not halt or reverse entropy, in fact we see the opposite. The raw energy and heat from the Sun, unless harnessed, does damage, things all around us obey the law - they deteriorate, rot, erode and decay, they do not naturally improve. If you paint your house, the Sun, and the weather effects caused by the Sun, will eventually damage the paintwork, it will crack and peel after a few years. The hotter the Sun (the greater the energy input) the quicker it will happen.
Secondly, even if it were true that in an open system, things can defy the law of entropy, natural laws are laws for the whole universe, and the universe, as a whole, is a closed system.
So, what can we deduce from this?
Can the effects of entropy ever be reversed of halted?
Obviously, when you paint your house, you are reversing the bad effects of entropy for a short period, but you have to keep doing it, it is not permanent. Moreover, the energy you are using to repair and temporarily reverse the effects of entropy, is directed and guided by your skill and intelligence.
So, the atheist argument about the Earth being an open system is clearly not a valid one.
To conclude: We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life.
Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?
We certainly don't see abiogenesis happening naturally today, it doesn't even happen artificially in contrived experiments. To claim it happened long ago as a one-off phenomenon in some imagined scenario is not science, it is just pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
“Snowflakes, rock crystals etc. do not violate the Law of Thermodynamics, although atheists who hate all natural laws that interfere with their ideology dearly wish they did. They act only according to their pre-coded, atomic structure, and furthermore they are formed by the removal of heat, being transferred from them to their surroundings...”

“So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?”

My reply:
“You wrote:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible.
You certainly don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics......or maybe you do but are simply lying about it to justify your absurd claims?"

Oh, for goodness sake! I warned you about scouring the internet searching for answers from quack, atheist websites. They are presented by people as clueless and gullible as the people they are trying to convince, or by people who are deliberately trying to deceive the public for ideological reasons.
Atheists should know that snowflakes, crystals etc. are not examples of the development of order. By regularly presenting them as such, they reveal either their deceitfulness or their complete misunderstanding of science.
There is NO reduction in entropy, the Second Law is NOT, and CANNOT be, violated, as you claim. If you knew even the basics of the Second Law, you would not make a fool of yourself by saying it is.

Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the increase in complexity/order required for the origin of life.
Snowflakes, crystals etc. are simply reverting to the natural state dictated by their atomic structure as they cool. If you knew anything about the Second Law you would know that the natural, intrinsic order of matter is highest at lower temperatures. You would know that the application of raw (undirected) heat/energy increases entropy.
The natural, intrinsic order of substances is greatest at absolute zero.
That does not mean cooling causes a decrease in entropy overall, the heat/energy is transferred from one substance to its surroundings and the entropy is increased in the surroundings.
Snowflakes have absolutely no relevance to abiogenesis, because there is no increase in order above or beyond that which is intrinsic to the inherent, atomic properties of water. By lowering the temperature, the apparent increase in order is not an actual increase in, or the development of order, but simply a restoration at the atomic level to the original, natural, ordered state of water at the lower temperature.

If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed, and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?
According to the ridiculous, atheist analogy of snowflakes and crystals it would be. It only goes to show that atheists will clutch at any straw, however silly, to justify their ideology. They have the audacity to challenge and attempt to undermine natural laws with their nonsense and then accuse those who uphold them of being unscientific and ignorant. Their barefaced cheek never ceases to amaze me.

I repeat my question, which you have failed to answer:
We know that the energy input to the so-called Primordial Soup would have been raw, random, unguided energy. So the only other possibility to reverse the effects of entropy is that a directive or conversion mechanism was possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way, i.e. that basic matter (chemistry) is somehow inherently predisposed with the potential/blueprint for creating life and the information for life. Please explain what that directive mechanism for the constructive utilisation of raw energy is - and where that inherent potential for the reversal of entropy and the construction of life comes from?

The basic, inherent, atomic structure of water, and of all matter, along with natural law, is part of the initial order of the universe which became present at the moment of its creation. It is not developing order, such as that which would be required for abiogenesis or cosmic and biological evolution.”

Atheist reply:
“You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.

Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance.

But I'll tell you what .........rather than carry on with this nonsense I'll refer you to a very useful site that you (and anyone else) can access and it'll tell you what entropy is and how it relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't talk about origin of life or anything like that. It uses quite simple language and you need to read it and UNDERSTAND it.
entropysimple.oxy.edu/”

My reply:
You wrote:
"You asked for references to self-replicating information. There are many to choose from but here you go. Enjoy the bed-time reading."

There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun. So please stop insulting my intelligence, I have seen all this stuff before. I asked you to give me examples yourself, a simple enough request. I don't want links to internet sites (or long copy and pasted tracts) which can be found on the internet to justify virtually anything. What is your problem with actually answering questions yourself?

You wrote:
"You really, really don't understand The Second Law of Thermodynamics and you shouldn't write any further drivel which relies on this.
Let's look at you original claim: The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Fail - The Second Law of Thermodynamics is nothing to do with chance."

You accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law, after your astonishing, earlier statement:
"So in other words they become MORE ordered despite become cooler? So the Second Law of Thermodynamics is violated because there is a REDUCTION in entropy? According to you this should be impossible."
You, who wants to claim that (what Einstein called the premier law in science) can be violated have the audacity to accuse me of not knowing anything about the Second Law. Unbelievable!
The reason I used the word 'chance' is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows anything about the subject, which obviously doesn't include you.
Only DIRECTED energy can enable a temporary decrease in entropy, it does NOT HAPPEN by CHANCE. There has to be a guiding principle or agent either: 1) acting directly on the energy source - or: 2) a directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy. A decrease in entropy doesn't happen randomly or as a 'chance' event.
You believe the atheist nonsense that snowflakes/crystals are an example of an increase in order, which demonstrates your dire knowledge of the subject.
If you knew anything about the Second Law you would not have cited such a spurious example, apparently you are willing to believe anything you read on atheist/evolutionist websites as though it is gospel.
Perhaps you can address the question I asked in my last post: If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape? But I doubt it, answering questions is not exactly your forte. You would rather nit pick about the qualifications of anyone who disagrees with atheist pseudoscience.

Atheist reply:
Quoting me:
“There you go again - giving me links to internet sites, which I am quite capable of accessing myself. I am well aware of how to Google endless points of view on virtually every subject under the Sun."

“Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself.

If you were aware of such research would you have written the nonsense you pour forth? ............Probably.

You also appear to have some sort of cognitive dissonance as far as the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy. I provide you with an excellent resource and you fail to take advantage of it to understand the subject matter properly.
That really is astonishing!
All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy.”

My reply:
You wrote:
"Well you asked for examples and I provided these for you. These are references to well-respected research which provides evidence which you appear to be either too lazy or unwilling to research for yourself."

No! You are either too lazy to answer any questions yourself, or you are unable to. I suspect it is the latter, because you have already demonstrated from previous remarks that your knowledge of the subject is absolutely dire. Yet you insist on continuing to try to bluff it out, by either copying or pasting other people's work or posting links to anything you think supports your argument.
I'm afraid you have been sussed.
You have already put your foot in it - big time, by citing snowflakes and crystals as an example of developing order.
You mistakenly thought all you had to do to win an argument was to parrot stuff direct from an atheist/evolutionist website. When, in fact, parroting the sort of pseudoscientific rubbish that atheist/evolutionist websites are filled with, is a sure way of making yourself look extremely foolish.

You wrote:
"All your rubber ball example does is illustrate the law of conservation of energy"

What sort of damn-fool answer is that?
I asked: "If a rubber ball is squashed (made asymmetrical) by applying a heavy weight to it, would it be classed as an increase in order when the weight is removed and it returns to its original, symmetrical shape?"
IS IT AN INCREASE IN ORDER OR NOT?
Please answer the question.
Because if it isn't an increase in order, it completely demolishes both your snowflake/crystal argument and the credibility of atheist/evolutionist so-called 'science'.
No wonder you don't want to answer.

**************************************************
Four and a half years later.
I am still waiting for any atheist to answer the rubber ball question?

The full debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/16208667768
___________________________________
Another argument employed by atheists to justify their denial of the Law of Cause and Effect is ‘quantum mechanics’.
Their claim being; because quantum effects appear to behave randomly, they could also be uncaused.
This is complete nonsense, quantum effects may appear random and uncaused, but they are definitely not uncaused. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED, physical universe.
The idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous, because whatever caused the whole universe, is the original cause of everything within it.
Furthermore, just because directly traceable causes cannot be determined, doesn’t mean a direct cause doesn’t exist.
For example:
It can be compared to the randomness of a number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc., we could predict the number in advance.
So, just because, in some instances, direct causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the result, doesn’t mean there is no cause.

Quantum effects - The smoke and mirrors trick.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35908166441

Evolution, multi-million year timescale refured.
Rapid strata formation - field evidence.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/albums/72157635944...

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

The progressive lie in science and society.

‘Progressive’ politics originates from the ‘progressive’ evolution lie in science and society.

The essence of the ‘progressive’ lie, in science and in society, is a denial of both the intrinsic natural order, and the natural tendency towards physical and cultural/social entropy.

In hypothetical science, progressive cosmic and biological evolution deny the basic principles of causality and universal entropy, effectively undermining truth in science.
Although presented as science, they are both scientifically incongruous.
If your initial paradigm relies on the denial of fundamental scientific principles or natural law, it spectacularly fails. To call it ‘science’, discredits the perception of science as an objective search for truth.
To present an hypothesis wherein an effect is greater than its cause, and which requires a naturally occurring, autonomous increase in order, is preposterous fantasy.
Negating the effects of entropy, both physically and culturally, requires an active, sustained input, or renewal of, directed or guided effort/energy. (i.e. energy/effort + information, instructions or rules).

In the social and political field, indifference to, and denial or encouragement of, cultural entropy, masquerades as progressive.

Progressive politics derives from, and is allied to, this denial of intrinsic natural law and fundamental principles. By opposing or negating those guiding principles and rules, which are based on maintaining the natural order, it encourages and supports an insidious, social entropy, which inevitably undermines and ultimately destroys civilised society.

Just as the atheistic purveyors of physical evolution, cosmic and biological, posit the progressive development of order in the universe by denying the laws of cause and effect and entropy, which are fundamental principles of the natural order and science. So, the social allies of physical evolution, the purveyors of cultural and societal evolution, propose a progressive improvement of society, based on a similar denial of the natural order.

False equality and unjust denial of genuine equality:
Rejection of the natural order has spawned an insidious, egalitarian deception.
Demands are made that things which are clearly not equal should be treated as equal, and things that should be equal are denied their rightful equality.

Proponents of so-called, progressive policies seek to impose socially, and even legally, ideas of equality which ignore the natural order.
Equating things which are not equal, demanding equality for things which can never be equal, is quite bizarre, irrational and unscientific. That which violates the natural order is thereby elevated to parity with that which is in conformity with the natural order, diminishing the perception, approval and societal support of the latter.
It is a gross injustice to undermine and degrade social recognition and acceptance of the benefits of compliance with the natural order. Truth and error are not equitable, regardless of any legislation which decrees they should be treated as though they are..

A couple of examples:
False equality.
Same sex marriage...
Traditional marriage is undeniably compatible with the natural order, socially, scientifically and theologically.
Biologically, the reproductive, and only, purpose of complementary, sexual characteristics is irrefutable. This scientific fact has been traditionally recognised, socially and theologically, in the institution of marriage, throughout history. The only reason marriage exists is because of this biological fact. There cannot be legitimate equality for any so-called marriage/sexual partnership which is not based on this fundamental principle of the natural order.

The unjust denial of genuine equality:
Abortion...
Biology, through the study of genetics and embryonic development, decrees (without doubt) that a unique, human life begins at conception. There are no ifs or buts, this fact of the natural order is supported by science and, traditionally, through theology and the legal system.
Any denial of equality for unborn, human babies is illegitimate, grossly unjust, and contrary to basic human rights.
To ignore or dismiss the right to life of another human being, of any age, by claiming it is a matter of choice, is a diabolical distortion of truth and the natural order. There can be no cogent argument for legitimising abortion, because it is a fundamental issue of natural justice; which is beyond the jurisdiction of any authority. If a government does so, it is guilty of endorsing and encouraging a crime against humanity.

Progressive policies have undermined and devalued life, marriage, the family, national identity, financial independence and Biblical values, in the name of equality, freedom and choice.

Human institutions attempt to counter social entropy and maintain order through social constructs; tradition, convention, etiquette, customs, religion, contracts, charters, treaties, laws etc., but the enduring success of these depends on how closely they conform to the natural order.
The success of Western civilisation was mainly attributable to its clear understanding of physical and cultural entropy. Christianity was rightfully endorsed as the supreme antidote to cultural/social entropy.
This is perfectly logical because, as the Bible makes clear, physical entropy is the result of an originally, perfect creation sullied by sin.
Likewise, in society, sin is the cause of social entropy, it undermines the natural order and ultimately destroys civilisation. If you break rules which serve to maintain the natural order, you inevitably wreak havoc.
Christianity seeks to retain and, where necessary, restore natural order in society, combating the tendency towards social or cultural entropy by instilling principles and rules which respect and actively defend the natural order. Just as physical entropy is only negated by a sustained input of directed energy/effort, so social entropy is only negated by an enduring adherence to binding rules and principles. The adherence to such rules and principles by humans, who have a propensity to rebel against the natural order (behavioural entropy, inherited from our first parents; Adam and Eve), can only be reliably maintained by an input of spiritual energy/divine, sanctifying grace.

It is a perverse society, which applauds as ‘progressive’, those who rebel against, and deny, the natural order and laws, while appropriating science and culture to suit their regressive, ideological agenda (contrary to fairness, justice and basic human rights). Their denial of fundamental principles appears to be scientifically and socially legitimatised through corrupt, propagandised education, media hype, and intense political lobbying.

The arrogant claim of ‘progressives’, to hold the rational, scientific and ethical high ground, is bogus and dangerous.
The opposite is true.
To rail against the natural order is irrational and unethical. It undermines truth and unjustly denigrates everything which is compliant with the natural order. True science, morals and ethics must wholly respect fundamental principles and the natural order. Christian teaching is the supreme antidote to social entropy, being based on loving, maintaining, respecting and honouring the basic truths of the universe, evident in God’s creation.

ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe scenarios are false.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/32557999087/in/dat...

If and then - the atheist dilemma.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/46553358861

The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda of the globalists.
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...

…civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience. Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. —St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.

Former Satanist: “I Performed Satanic Rituals Inside Abortion Clinics”
www.lepantoinstitute.org/abortion/former-satanist-i-perfo...

Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...

why liberals care about climate change but not abortion?
www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/why-liberals-care-about-climat...

Abortion is murder 100% proof.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrl9QQHY2vA&feature=youtu.be

Atheist myths debunked - the development of order.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/48113810438

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk


A LEXICON OF INSTRUMENTS USED IN PERFORMING ABORTIONS OF HUMAN INFANTS.
abyssum.org/2019/06/22/a-lexicon-of-instruments-used-in-p...

Who trusts the MSM? Their lies are not just fake news, they deliberately set out to slander those who don’t agree with the liberal left, globalist elite. Their lies are positively evil. Everyone should watch this video and they will never trust the media again: banned.video/watch?id=5f00ca7c672706002f4026a9

The progressive lie in science and society.

The essence of the ‘progressive’ lie, in science and in society, is a denial of both the intrinsic natural order, and the natural tendency towards physical and cultural/social entropy.

In hypothetical science, progressive cosmic and biological evolution deny the basic principles of causality and universal entropy, effectively undermining truth in science.
Although presented as science, they are both scientifically incongruous.
If your initial paradigm relies on the denial of fundamental scientific principles or natural law, it spectacularly fails. To call it ‘science’, discredits the perception of science as an objective search for truth.
To present an hypothesis wherein an effect is greater than its cause, and which requires a naturally occurring, autonomous increase in order, is preposterous fantasy.
Negating the effects of entropy, both physically and culturally, requires an active, sustained input, or renewal of, directed or guided effort/energy. (i.e. energy/effort + information, instructions or rules).

In the social and political field, indifference to, and denial or encouragement of, cultural entropy, masquerades as progressive.

Progressive politics derives from, and is allied to, this denial of intrinsic natural law and fundamental principles. By opposing or negating those guiding principles and rules, which are based on maintaining the natural order, it encourages and supports an insidious, social entropy, which inevitably undermines and ultimately destroys civilised society.

Just as the atheistic purveyors of physical evolution, cosmic and biological, posit the progressive development of order in the universe by denying the laws of cause and effect and entropy, which are fundamental principles of the natural order and science. So, the social allies of physical evolution, the purveyors of cultural and societal evolution, propose a progressive improvement of society, based on a similar denial of the natural order.

False equality and unjust denial of genuine equality:
Rejection of the natural order has spawned an insidious, egalitarian deception.
Demands are made that things which are clearly not equal should be treated as equal, and things that should be equal are denied their rightful equality.

Proponents of so-called, progressive policies seek to impose socially, and even legally, ideas of equality which ignore the natural order.
Equating things which are not equal, demanding equality for things which can never be equal, is quite bizarre, irrational and unscientific. That which violates the natural order is thereby elevated to parity with that which is in conformity with the natural order, diminishing the perception, approval and societal support of the latter.
It is a gross injustice to undermine and degrade social recognition and acceptance of the benefits of compliance with the natural order. Truth and error are not equitable, regardless of any legislation which decrees they should be regarded and treated as though they are.

A couple of examples:
Same sex marriage...
Traditional marriage is undeniably compatible with the natural order, socially, scientifically and theologically.
Biologically, the reproductive, and only, purpose of complementary, sexual characteristics is irrefutable. This scientific fact has been traditionally recognised, socially and theologically, in the institution of marriage, throughout history. The only reason marriage exists is because of this biological fact. There cannot be legitimate equality for any so-called marriage/sexual partnership which is not based on this fundamental principle of the natural order.

The unjust denial of genuine equality:
Abortion...
Biology, through the study of genetics and embryonic development, decrees (without doubt) that a unique, human life begins at conception. There are no ifs or buts, this fact of the natural order is supported by science and, traditionally, through theology and the legal system. Any denial of equality for unborn, human babies is illegitimate, grossly unjust, and contrary to basic human rights.

Human institutions attempt to counter social entropy and maintain order through social constructs; tradition, convention, etiquette, customs, religion, contracts, charters, treaties, laws etc., but the enduring success of these depends on how closely they conform to the natural order.
The success of Western civilisation was mainly attributable to its clear understanding of physical and cultural entropy. Christianity was rightfully endorsed as the supreme antidote to cultural/social entropy.
This is perfectly logical because, as the Bible makes clear, physical entropy is the result of an originally, perfect creation sullied by sin.
Likewise, in society, sin is the cause of social entropy, it undermines the natural order and ultimately destroys civilisation. If you break rules which serve to maintain the natural order, you inevitably wreak havoc.
Christianity seeks to retain and, where necessary, restore natural order in society, combating the tendency towards social or cultural entropy by instilling principles and rules which respect and actively defend the natural order. Just as physical entropy is only negated by a sustained input of directed energy/effort, so social entropy is only negated by an enduring adherence to binding rules and principles. The adherence to such rules and principles by humans, who have a propensity to rebel against the natural order (behavioural entropy, inherited from our first parents; Adam and Eve), can only be reliably maintained by an input of spiritual energy/divine, sanctifying grace.

It is a perverse society, which applauds as ‘progressive’, those who rebel against, and deny, the natural order and laws, while appropriating science and culture to suit their regressive, ideological agenda (contrary to fairness, justice and basic human rights). Their denial of fundamental principles appears to be scientifically and socially legitimatised through corrupt, propagandised education, media hype, and intense political lobbying.

The arrogant claim of ‘progressives’, to hold the rational, scientific and ethical high ground, is bogus and dangerous.
The opposite is true.
To rail against the natural order is irrational and unethical. It undermines truth and unjustly denigrates everything which is compliant with the natural order. True science, morals and ethics must wholly respect fundamental principles and the natural order. Christian teaching is based on loving, maintaining, respecting and honouring these basic truths of the universe evident in God’s creation.

ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe, scenarios are false.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/32557999087/in/dat...

If and then - the atheist dilemma.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/46553358861

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk


The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda of the globalists.
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...



Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. Formed 31/01/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The field example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident,
Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. photographed 04/06/2018, formed several months earlier and in the early stages of consolidation.
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

"A team of Russian sedimentologists directed by Alexander Lalomov (Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Ore Deposits) applied paleohydraulic analyses to geological formations in Russia. One example is the publication of a report in 2007 by the Lithology and Mineral Resources journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It concerns the Crimean Peninsular. It shows that the time of sedimentation of the sequence studied corresponds to a virtually instantaneous episode whilst according to stratigraphy it took several millions of years. Moreover, a recent report concerning the North-West Russian plateau in the St. Petersburg region shows that the time of sedimentation was much shorter than that attributed to it by the stratigraphic time-scale: 0.05% of the time."
www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence – on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.” President John F. Kennedy, in his address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association, Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961

'The New World Order' - a book by A. Ralph Epperson. Exposes the globalist plot for world domination.

Sinister Sites, The EU Parliament Strasbourg - Return to Babel
vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersites/sinister-sites-the-eu-p...

Globalist agenda - World government.
The return to Babel.
thewildvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/the-wild-voic...

The European Union - the return to Babel
The irrefutable evidence in plain sight.
youtu.be/2l1RhAI-rRQ
Also see:
youtu.be/aY7MLWrMBQ8
AND:
EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...

Empty seat number 666
www.jesus-is-savior.com/End of the World/seat_666.htm

the-reason-the-elite-hate-trump-so-much-is-because-he-is-opposed-to-the-one-world-agenda-of-the-globalists
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...

‘Imagine there’s no Heaven, it’s easy if you try
No Hell below us, above us only sky”
John Lennon.
‘Imagine’ a nightmare, world dictatorship.

European Union project, undemocratic, expansionist empire. Prototype and fledgling, World Government.

Brexit - The anti-globalist struggle against the NWO globalists.

Aaron Banks:
Asked if he would back the Leave side in a rerun of the 2016 referendum, Mr Banks said: “The corruption I have seen in British politics, the sewer that exists and the disgraceful behaviour of the Government over what they are doing with Brexit and how they are selling out, means that if I had my time again I think we would have been better to probably remain and not unleash these demons.”

Maybe Mr Banks didn't realise that he hit the nail squarely on the head when he described the incredibly fierce opposition to Brexit as the unleashing of "demons". The globalist agenda is truly demonic. It is no surprise that the globalists, and their puppets in the media and liberal establishment, are so desperate to stop Brexit interfering with their diabolical plans for world domination.
See: ‘Brexit, The Movie’ - available on YouTube.
binged.it/2GEouvR

The EU, mystery Babylon. www.biblelight.net/tower-painting-parliament.jpg
The EU parliament in Strasbourg is modelled on the Tower of Babel.

thewildvoice.org/mystery-babylon-european-union/#comment-...
The symbolism of the EU in plain sight, is the desire of its advocates to return to the spirit of Babel.
The Council of Europe's poster produced to promote the European Union and the EU Parliament building in Strasbourg grandmageri422.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/europe-many-to... is filled with occult symbolism: a tower of Babel, 11 inverted stars (pentagrams),, the 12th pentagram is behind the top (head) of the tower. This is a Satanic parody of the 12 stars surrounding the head of the Woman (Church/Mary) in the book of Revelation. The inverted pentagram is an occult symbol designed to represent the head of Baphomet (Satan or the Goat of Mendes), illuminati pyramids are also evident in the background (since when have Egyptian pyramids been part of Europe? Square, blockheaded (indoctrinated) people (useful idiots) are featured, building a tower designed for their own enslavement and suppression, with a round-headed baby, who is too young to have been indoctrinated.

The dangerous, climate change scam:
A high level of Co2 is essential for our survival. The exact opposite of what we a led to believe by the popular, eco- fanatic narrative which is designed to convince people of the necessity for globalist control.
See the truth here:
youtu.be/TjlmFr4FMvI
youtu.be/U-9UlF8hkhs

The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda globalists.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-10/reason-elite-hate-trump...

Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...

Common Purpose, Extinction Rebellion, Agenda 2030, sustainable development, WEF, Davos, Google Camp, World Economic Forum, ‘fiat’ money, SWIFT, World Governance Council, G7, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, Bank of International Settlements, Institute of International Affairs, New World Order, Globalism, European Union, EU Commission, ECJ, European Empire, evil empire, global conspiracy, United Nations, League of Nations, NAFTA, Freemasonry, Edward Mandal House, Thule Society, Kabbala, Kaaba, fractional reserve banking, Company Interbank Financial Telecommunication, internationalism, IMF, World Bank, ECB, European Central Bank, usury, Ruling Elite, Liberal fascism, Euro, EU cartel, EU empire, EU single currency, federalism, EUSSR, global elite, Federal Reserve, Paul Warburg, globalists, world government, WGS, World Government Summit, liberalism, Situational ethics, moral relativism, cultural imperialism, Bribery, Corruption, blackmail, slander, assassination, Moral relativism, Propaganda, project fear, fake news, Liberty, National Council for Civil Liberties, selective democracy, Illuminati, Bilderbergers, False religion, Maitreya, false ecumenism, World Council of Churches, Cultural Marxism, Censorship, Ted Turner, Timothy Wirth, Hilary Clinton, Club of Rome, Treaty of Rome, Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, climate change scam, global warming, EU federalism, liberal establishment, Multiculturalism, EU Army, Palmera Arch, Temple of Baal, Nazis, National Socialism, Red Flag, hammer and sickle, useful idiots, globalist puppets, quislings, internationalism, Internationale, anti-Brexit, anti-Putin, FBI, people’s vote, EU army, Islamisation, Multinationals, multinational conglomerates, nationalisation, Fake News, Bellingcat, Bureaucracy, Climategate, chemtrails, Deep State, Council on Foreign Relations, CFR, Trilateral Commission, GM seed, GM food, quantitive easing, Bilderbergers, Eco-fanaticism, Greenpeace, eco warriors, Chatham House, Bohemian Grove, New Age, Illiberal Undemocrats, EU, Open Society, Open Britain, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Clinton foundation, John Podesta, John Dewey, Socialism, Humanists UK, Young Humanists, National Secular Society, British Humanist Association, neo Darwinism, Darwinism, evolution scam, CNN, New York Times, NBC news, PBS, MSNBC, BBC, liberal media, Drug legalisation, Money manipulation, IG Farben, quantitative easing, punitive taxation, Green taxes, progressives, Transgenderism, Social engineering, Communism, arch capitalism, Social Darwinism, Marxism, neo Darwinism, Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Bertrand Russell, James Hutton, David Hume, National Socialism (Nazism), Racism, international socialism, Gay mafia, gay adoption, rainbow alliance, UFOLOGY, global warming, Yakov Sverdlovsk, Red Terror, new age, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Jacob Schiff, Adam Weishaupt, Alistair Crowley. Albert Pike, Theosophy, Antichrist, Abortion, Population control, Karl Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, Euthanasia, Eugenics, Atheism, Soviet Union, USSR, People’s Democratic Republics, ‘People’s Vote’, Secularism, Andrew Copson, False science, Scientism, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Nye, Gary Kasparov, Pussy Riot, radical left, atheist naturalism, pagan naturalism, A C Grayling, militant atheism, secular humanism, atheist pseudoscience, Cloning, Surrogacy, Fabianism, Central Banking, Fiat Currencies, banking cartels, LGBTQ agenda, Political correctness, liberal establishment, propaganda, progressive evolution, Hollywood, State control, Labour Party, Democratic Party, Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Fabian society, Secular Society, Antifa, BHA, FFRF, RDFRS, ACLU, gay priests, gay Bishops, gay pride, child abuse, gay fascism, sodomites, Stonewall, indoctrination, LGTB, LGBT, left wing feminism, lesbianism, homosexual agenda, Redefined marriage, Gender fanaticism, transgenderism, gay marriage, political correctness, hedonism, false equality, gender reassignment, surrogacy, Gay adoption, perverted sex education, Embryo experimentation, sperm banks, IVF, cloning, useful idiots, globalist puppets, UN, snowflakes, quislings, internationalism, liberal media, pornography, quislings, fifth column, Trojan horses, Sankt Galen Mafia, infiltrators, modernism, amnesty international, UNICEF, CIA, cyber surveillance, CCTV, Neo Darwinism, cultural Marxism, social Darwinism, atheist naturalism, paganism, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Christianophobia, Secular Humanism, Militant atheism, abortion, Margaret Sanger, Moloch, Planned Parenthood, pro choice, Klu Klux Klan, Southern Poverty Law Centre, progressives, Christophobia, Newspeak, Satanism, Hate speech, political correctness, women’s march, False Ecumenism, election rigging, mass migration, Green taxes, climate change scam, global warming scam, carbon credits scam, debt enslavement, international bankers, Arch capitalism, Kuhn Loeb, Goldman Sachs, John D Rockefeller, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan, Max Warburg, Order of the Skull and Bones, Extortionate taxation, class war, gender war, ageism, divide and rule, centralisation, climate change scam, mass migrations, cultural imperialism, Marie Stopes, Cultural war. human trafficking. Liberal Democrats, liberal media, Socialist Workers Party, Morning Star, Emmanuel Macron, Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International, BPAS, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Satanism, Wicca, Witchcraft, Luciferian. Lunar Society, secret societies, Annie Besant, Helena Blavatsky. Alice Bailey, Marxist Social Democratic Federation. Alliance for Global Justice, Malthusian League. House of Sulzberger-Ochs, House of Meyer-Graham, Mike Bloomberg, Pierre Omidyar, Sheldon Adelson, Brzezinski, Benjamin Creme, George Kennan, James Baker, Carroll Quigley, Strobe Talbott, Lev Dobriansky, PNAC, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Walfowitz, Robert Kagan, Professor Joseph Nye, Lester Mondale, American atheists, British Humanist Association, Outright Action International, National Secular Society. Abolition of nation states, NWO. World dictatorship, Tower of Babel, European Parliament. European Commission.

The war against anti-globalist Putin, and the globalist demonising of Russia.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/43042520105

The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda of the globalists.
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...

Ending the crime of abortion is crucial in curbing the power, of Satan.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/43172544140

Ending the crime of abortion is crucial in curbing the power, of Satan.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/43172544140

IF and THEN, the atheist dilemma
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/46553358861

Satan demands human sacrifice.
The horrendous, baby killing crime against humanity legalised, sanitised and masquerading, through Satanic deception, as ‘pro-choice’ has given an unimaginable increase in power to Satan and his human agents.
Make no mistake, Satan’s human agents, the multi million dollar, baby killing industry and their deluded supporters, will try every trick, device, deceit and subterfuge they can to keep the wholesale, callous slaughter of the innocents continuing.
The lust for blood of the Satan inspired, pro-death lobby is insatiable.
This brutal crime must be stopped, and stopped now, for the future of civilised society.

The truth....
"Now, at the end of the day, every day, satanic groups do like a Black Mass service, usually around midnight, and it will be an extended service that will last about 2 or 3 hours where they dedicate all the babies that were killed that day to satan. It doesn’t matter why women go in for the abortion, all the babies get dedicated to satan at the end of the day."
Former, Satanic, High Wizard, Zachary King.

Abortion is murder 100% proof.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrl9QQHY2vA&feature=youtu.be
___________________________________________

In light of the recent videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of the organs and tissues of preborn babies, the Lepanto Institute interviewed former satanic High Wizard, Zachary King. Zachary was an average boy from an American neighborhood who grew up in a Baptist home. He began practicing magick at 10, joined a satanic coven at 13, and had broken all 10 Commandments by the time he was 15 years old. From his teen years to adulthood he worked his way up to High Wizard in the coven and actively pushed satan’s agenda including ritualistic abortions. Zachary is currently writing about his experiences in a new book titled, “Abortion is a Satanic Sacrifice.”

Lepanto Institute – Zac, you’ve got quite the story to tell. Could you give us a little bit of background on how you fell into Satanism?

King – It started with a strong curiosity, wondering if magick was real. This came after watching movies about sorcerers and wizards back in the 1970’s when I grew up. We had a game at school called “Bloody Mary,” or “I Hate You, Bloody Mary,” where you’d go in a bathroom and chant that phrase a certain number of times with the lights off. Every time my group did it, we always saw a demonic face in the mirror. We had no idea that this is what we were looking at, just that all of a sudden there was this scary thing in the mirror and everybody would run out of the bathroom, scared to death … except me. I always thought it was pretty cool. Now, in the same time-frame that I’m doing this, I played campaigns of Dungeons and Dragons every weekend, and I’m always the wizard or the sorcerer in that. Eventually, I wondered if I could do magick for real and tried a couple of spells for money. They both worked, but it could have been just a coincidence so I did it a third time, and the third time I did it, I cast the spell in front of the demon in the bathroom [from the “Bloody Mary” chant] and thought I’d up the ante a little bit to see what happens. I got $1,000 bucks the next day. From that, I was convinced that magick was real.

When I was about 12, a friend introduced me to a group that played Dungeons and Dragons that also believed that magick was real. It turned out that this group was a satanic coven. A lot of people ask me, ‘wouldn’t you run and hide at that point?’ I remind them that I grew up in the 70’s where satanic covens on TV are really scary, but … I love pinball machines, video games, and science fiction, like Star Trek and Star Wars, and these guys had almost every science fiction and fantasy movie you could ever want to see. They had pinball machines, an in-ground pool, a big barbeque pit, and it was just like a boys and girls club, and it was just a lot of fun. Let me put it this way, they knew how to recruit. They knew everything that a kid would want to do, so I got involved with it that way.

That was my first cult. I was in there until I was about 18, and then I joined the World Church of Satan, which is a much bigger, world-wide cult. The position that I attained is called a High Wizard. In a big satanic coven, they are the people who do the magick for the coven. There could be as few as one, and as many as 10. The general number [of high wizards in a coven] is between 2 and 5, and our job was to travel around the world doing whatever spells people want you to do. Now, when I say people, I mean rock stars, movie stars, political figures, rich people … there’s no limit to who will want a spell and what they’re willing to pay for it.

Lepanto Institute – So, you were a High Wizard within Satanism … just very briefly, how did you happen to become a High Wizard?

King – Rumor has it that [High Wizards] are hand-picked by satan. I don’t know what the criteria is. I had done magick from the age of 10 and became a High Wizard when I was about 21 years old. I had been in the World Church of Satan for about 3 years. I had seen a High Wizard back when I was a child, but I didn’t know that that is what I was looking at. The look is very unique. It’s a top-hat, a wand or a cane, the face painted like a corpse, and an old-school tuxedo of sorts. If you go to YouTube, and look up Pink’s Like a Pill, there’s a High Wizard that appears in her video four times. The third and fourth time the wizard appears on the screen, you can see that he’s casting a spell. A lot of people seeing that video would see him, but not recognize what they’re looking at. But that’s the look.

Now, satan picks you, and for a cult that big, there’s a CEO and a board of directors. So, the CEO sends word to you, you meet with the CEO and the board of directors, and they tell you that you’ve been chosen. You’re given a book that tells you what your job duties as a high wizard are, and you decide whether you want to do it or not, though I’ve never known anybody to turn it down.

L.I. – So, you were called before a high council of sorts, and they offered you the position, and you became a high wizard at that point?

King – Right, and I did that for about 10 or 12 years.

L.I. – What role does abortion play in satanic rituals, and when did you first get involved in abortion with regard to Satanism?

King – Just after I turned 14, the coven members came to me and said that I was going to be involved in an abortion in about 9 months. There was a sex party with all the male members between 12 and 15 and a female member over 18 and her purpose was to get pregnant, and then she was going to have an abortion in 9 months. When I was told this, I said “cool” out loud, but had no clue what an abortion was. In my family, I think I heard my parents whisper the word abortion once when talking about somebody else, so I thought it was a dirty word because they whispered it and I had never heard that word anywhere else. When I asked about what an abortion was to the coven members, I said I don’t know what I have to do here, they explained that there’s a baby in the womb and you are going to kill it. There will be an abortion doctor there to help you and there will be a nurse because it’s a full medical procedure. My first question was, “is that legal?” The response was, “Yes it is, as long as it’s in the womb. As long as the baby is still inside the woman, you can kill it.”

That’s how it was explained to us. It was also explained that, ‘You are killing a baby.” They didn’t say that we would be killing a fetus or killing some cells in a body. None of that. It’s a baby.

Now, I don’t think I would have been okay with killing a baby outside of a woman’s body, but knowing that I could kill as much as I wanted to if someone was inside the body … in satanism, killing something or the death of something is the most effective way of getting your spell accomplished. As far as trying to get satan’s approval, to give you something that you want, killing something is the best way to go. Killing something is the ultimate offering to satan, and if you can kill an unborn, that is his ultimate goal.

L.I. – Tell me about the first abortion you ever did as a satanic ritual.

King – The first one I did was about 3 months before turning 15. It took place in a farm house that was surprisingly more sterile than many of the other abortion clinics I had done abortions in. There was an abortion doctor and an abortion nurse. There was a woman in stirrups about to have a baby who was surrounded by 13 top members of our coven, which were all high priests and priestesses. I was inside the circle with the woman and the abortion doctor. All the adult members of my coven were there. There were several women kneeling on the floor, swaying back and forth chanting “our body and ourselves” over and over again. Off to the side were several male members of our coven all chanting and praying. The ritual started at 11:45 at night, and the spell began at midnight, which is the witching hour, and the actual death of the child happened at 3:00 am, which is called the devil’s hour.

My whole role in all of this was to insert the scalpel. I didn’t necessarily have to do the actual killing … what was important was that I get blood on my hands. So, I had to get somebody’s blood on my hands, whether the woman’s or the baby’s, and then the doctor finishes out the procedure. In that particular one, which was probably one of the more heinous abortions I had ever done, the doctor reached in, ripped the baby out and threw it onto the floor where these women were swaying. The women looked like they were possessed, and when the doctor threw the baby out to them, they cannibalized the baby.

L.I. – Dear Lord! How many ritual abortions have you participated in?

King – Prior to being a high wizard, I did five. After becoming a high wizard, I did 141 more.

L.I. – Have you ever done a ritual abortion at a [high profile abortion facility]?

King – Yes I have. I’d estimate I’ve done about 20 ritual abortions inside these facilities, but I never counted. I just know that I’ve been in a lot of them. About two years ago, I went inside one to do some research for a new CD I was working on, and that was one very clean and the people were super-nice. But all the ones I went to, doing abortions in them, were terribly unsanitary. They looked like a house of horrors, with blood all over the place, including in some rooms with blood on the ceiling.

L.I. – How did you get invited to do satanic abortions at these [high profile abortion facilities]? Did someone call you call you? How did that come about?

King – As the high wizard, you’re the go-to guy in the satanic coven, so most people either call someone that they know in that coven or they’ll call because we did a lot of work with the Illuminati as well, so they’ll call them. This is all, obviously people that have to be in the know of these kinds of things, but you get invited to participate. The World Church of Satan isn’t the only organization that does satanic sacrifices in [these facilities]. There are other witchcraft organizations, such as wiccans, who are really involved in committing abortions inside these [high profile facilities]. You sometimes get invited to do the ritual abortion by the director of the facility or some high-up administrator, or sometimes the doctor is a satanist and they’ll invite you to come in and participate in an abortion or they will want to do a ceremony at the end of the day.

Now, at the end of the day, every day, satanic groups do like a Black Mass service, usually around midnight, and it will be an extended service that will last about 2 or 3 hours where they dedicate all the babies that were killed that day to satan. It doesn’t matter why women go in for the abortion, all the babies get dedicated to satan at the end of the day.

L.I. – What would happen when doing these ritual abortions? What general events would take place during these rituals?

King – There are kids that come to these events, but they’re generally not in the room when the abortion is taking palace. They’re in a separate room and they have contests to see which one of the kids can stay up until 3:00 am, and the kid that can stay up that late gets a reward. The men who are not a part of the top 13 are doing spells and chanting. They also are casting spells to protect them against anyone who might be praying against them, like a Christian praying against them. Also, whoever we have in our pocket for protection, so if we’ve paid off a sheriff’s deputy or cop or something like that, then no one is investigating us at that time. There are women chanting and swaying. The 13 members are surrounding the woman about to have the abortion, and they are the ones conducting the actual magick spell. In one instance, the one asking for the spell was the mayor of the town. He came to us because he wanted to pass some ordinance for his town, and he had tried it two or three times and it never went through. He had been a member of the coven for quite some time. He had tried every legal avenue to get this thing through, and it never worked, so he got somebody to agree to have an abortion and for it to happen at our satanic coven and during a night where we could do the abortion and do the spell at the same time. Generally, in a small-town coven, which is what that was, everyone would show up to the event. In a bigger place, like when I was a member of the World Church of Satan, you would get the high wizard, the people who want their spell to take place would be there. There would be the abortion doctor and his nurse. Many times, at [high profile abortion facilities], there’s a whole lot of them because a lot of the people that work at those places are witches or Satanists. So, you’ll get a lot of the people there willing to participate in the satanic event.

L.I. – Would you say that [high profile abortion facilities] attract members of the occult because of the opportunity to perform ritual abortions?

King – I would say that yes, that is absolutely a true statement. You know, you’ve got the people that belong to NOW [the National Organization of Women], and a lot of those people are wiccan, and the wiccans, though they profess to have a stance for the preservation of life, they’re allowed to “smite” or “smote” anyone who goes against them in any way, which is to say that they’re allowed to destroy them by any means necessary, which is through magick for them. For instance, as Christians, we pray for their conversion. Well, they see that as open season on Christians. They as well see the female figure, the woman, like Mother Earth, or Gaia. So, they have this womanly figure that they worship and they imagine that she as she is the goddess, a child takes away from that, and so abortion is a satanic sacrament so to speak.

So, just as Catholic men will join the priesthood because they are attracted to holiness and to working for God, an abortion facility attracts Satanists for the satanic priesthood.

L.I. – Have you ever experienced an inability to complete an abortion or the effects of your ritual due to people praying outside of an abortion facility?

King – More than once, we’ve had a baby defy the odds and survive the abortion. One time, I arrived at the abortion facility and there were people on two sides of the street. On one side, there were people praying and calling out against abortion, and on the side I was on were people who were obviously for abortion, and they were yelling all kinds of obscenities at the people across the street. When we went inside and looked across the street, we saw all the people on the other side of the street on their knees. That day, the abortion we had scheduled for a ritual did not go through. I think this happened to me about three times, and all three times … it’s funny, but that never really clicked for me that all three abortions that were thwarted by what can really only be attributed to the prayers that were going on outside.

L.I. – What advice do you have for people that are praying outside abortion facilities, especially if they suspect that there is some sort of occult activity going on inside?

King – First of all, don’t stop! There’s nothing that is happening in that abortion clinic that can hurt you. Sure, there will be demons all around, but you have to think of satan like a dog on a leash; if you don’t get within the leash, he can’t bite you. Be in a state of grace when you go. Take a bottle of Holy Water with you. Don’t spray it on the people that are there or the people that are there to oppose you because you’ll find yourself in court. You know, these people will sue you over the silliest things. But absolutely, sprinkle yourself when you get there and when you leave. Sprinkle it on all the members of your family. If you can receive Holy Communion before you get there, that would be ideal. If you go to Mass that day, after Mass spend a few minutes to ask Our Lord to send His Mother with you. Bring a Rosary with you and beat the devil to death with it. There are things that the devil is afraid of, but mostly, he’s afraid of a well formed Catholic; a Catholic that understands his faith and who knows what spiritual warfare is about. He does not want to do battle with someone who has all their armor on.

In January 2008, while working at a jewelry kiosk, Zachary had an encounter with Our Blessed Mother which changed his life. In the middle of the mall, through the power of the Miraculous Medal, Zachary experienced a peace that surpasses all understanding. That peace was Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. Our Lady’s love rescued Zachary from hell and brought him straight to the Heart of Her Son Jesus Christ. He started going to St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Vermont and in May 2008 (the month of Mary), Zachary King entered the Catholic Church! After 26 years of involvement with the occult, Zachary has become a warrior for Jesus Christ and wants to share his knowledge for the protection of God’s people. Zachary’s testimony is an inspiration that proves how great God’s mercy & forgiveness truly are and above all shows the depth of His love for us. Zachary King is currently living in Florida with his wife. He is an international speaker spreading the story of his miraculous rescue from satanism anywhere he can.
www.lepantoinstitute.org/abortion/former-satanist-i-perfo...

Zachary’s website is www.allsaintsministry.org

Satanists are becoming a leading public voice for abortion rights. In their mockery of Christianity they reveal the dark heart of abortion-on-demand: the radical worship of self.
Read more at: www.nationalreview.com/article/422999/meet-new-public-fac...
www.nationalreview.com/article/422999/meet-new-public-fac...

Abortion is murder 100% proof.
youtu.be/lrl9QQHY2vA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrl9QQHY2vA&feature=youtu.be

Why liberals care about climate change but not abortion?
www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/why-liberals-care-about-climat...

The globalist agenda. The EU, fledgling, world government. World dictatorship. A return to Babel.
The irrefutable evidence in plain sight: youtu.be/2l1RhAI-rRQ

EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...

Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...

The War against Putin. A book by M.S King.

The propaganda war.
The globalists versus the anti-globalists.

The elitist, globalist establishment targets anti-globalist Vladimir Putin and Russia.

Why Putin is being demonised by the globalists and liberal left establishment.:
youtu.be/Y4I7Cnpirw8 This video is no longer available. (Censored by YouTube?)

youtu.be/8EVMIEGfmRo

The European Union - the return to Babel
The irrefutable evidence in plain sight.
youtu.be/2l1RhAI-rRQ
AND:
EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...

'The New World Order' - a book by A. Ralph Epperson. Exposes the globalist plot for world domination.

Globalist agenda - World government.
The return to Babel.
thewildvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/the-wild-voic...

The European Union - the return to Babel
The irrefutable evidence in plain sight.
youtu.be/2l1RhAI-rRQ
Also see:
youtu.be/aY7MLWrMBQ8
AND:
EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.
peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...

Empty seat number 666
www.jesus-is-savior.com/End of the World/seat_666.htm

‘Imagine there’s no Heaven, it’s easy if you try
No Hell below us, above us only sky”
John Lennon.

‘Imagine’ a nightmare, world dictatorship.

Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.
www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...

European Union project, undemocratic, expansionist empire. Prototype and fledgling, World Government.

Brexit - The anti-globalist struggle against the NWO globalists.

Aaron Banks:
Asked if he would back the Leave side in a rerun of the 2016 referendum, Mr Banks said: “The corruption I have seen in British politics, the sewer that exists and the disgraceful behaviour of the Government over what they are doing with Brexit and how they are selling out, means that if I had my time again I think we would have been better to probably remain and not unleash these demons.”

Maybe Mr Banks didn't realise that he hit the nail squarely on the head when he described the incredibly fierce opposition to Brexit as the unleashing of "demons". The globalist agenda is truly demonic. It is no surprise that the globalists, and their puppets in the media and liberal establishment, are so desperate to stop Brexit interfering with their diabolical plans for world domination.
See: ‘Brexit, The Movie’ - available on YouTube.
binged.it/2GEouvR

The EU, mystery Babylon. www.biblelight.net/tower-painting-parliament.jpg
The EU parliament in Strasbourg is modelled on the Tower of Babel.

thewildvoice.org/mystery-babylon-european-union/#comment-...
The symbolism of the EU in plain sight, is the desire of its advocates to return to the spirit of Babel.
The Council of Europe's poster produced to promote the European Union and the EU Parliament building in Strasbourg grandmageri422.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/europe-many-to... is filled with occult symbolism: a tower of Babel, 11 inverted stars (pentagrams),, the 12th pentagram is behind the top (head) of the tower. This is a Satanic parody of the 12 stars surrounding the head of the Woman (Church/Mary) in the book of Revelation. The inverted pentagram is an occult symbol designed to represent the head of Baphomet (Satan or the Goat of Mendes), illuminati pyramids are also evident in the background (since when have Egyptian pyramids been part of Europe? Square, blockheaded (indoctrinated) people (useful idiots) are featured, building a tower designed for their own enslavement and suppression, with a round-headed baby, who is too young to have been indoctrinated.

The dangerous, climate change scam:
A high level of Co2 is essential for our survival. The exact opposite of what we a led to believe by the popular, eco- fanatic narrative which is designed to convince people of the necessity for globalist control.
See the truth here:
youtu.be/TjlmFr4FMvI
youtu.be/U-9UlF8hkhs

The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda globalists.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-10/reason-elite-hate-trump...

Extinction Rebellion, Agenda 2021, Sustainable Development, W.H.O, Common Purpose, Agenda 2030, WEF, Davos, Google Camp, World Economic Forum, ‘fiat’ money, SWIFT, World Governance Council, G7, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, Bank of International Settlements, Institute of International Affairs, New World Order, Globalism, European Union, EU Commission, ECJ, European Empire, evil empire, global conspiracy, United Nations, UNICEF, League of Nations, NAFTA, Freemasonry, Edward Mandal House, Fabian Society, Thule Society, Kabbala, Kaaba, fractional reserve banking, Company Interbank Financial Telecommunication, internationalism, IMF, World Bank, ECB, European Central Bank, usury, Ruling Elite, Liberal fascism, Euro, EU cartel, EU empire, EU single currency, federalism, EUSSR, global elite, Federal Reserve, Paul Warburg, globalists, world government, WGS, World Government Summit, liberalism, Situational ethics, moral relativism, cultural imperialism, Bribery, Corruption, blackmail, slander, assassination, Moral relativism, Propaganda, project fear, fake news, Liberty, National Council for Civil Liberties, selective democracy, Illuminati, False religion, Maitreya, false ecumenism, World Council of Churches, Cultural Marxism, Censorship, Ted Turner, Timothy Wirth, Hilary Clinton, Club of Rome, Treaty of Rome, Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, climate change scam, global warming, Green Party, EU federalism, liberal establishment, Multiculturalism, EU Army, Palmera Arch, Temple of Baal, Nazis, National Socialism, Red Flag, hammer and sickle, useful idiots, globalist puppets, quislings, internationalism, Internationale, anti-Brexit, anti-Putin, FBI, people’s vote, EU army, Islamisation, Multinationals, multinational conglomerates, nationalisation, Fake News, Bellingcat, Bureaucracy, Climategate, chemtrails, Deep State, Council on Foreign Relations, CFR, Trilateral Commission, GM seed, GM food, quantitive easing, Bilderbergers, Eco-fanaticism, Greenpeace, eco warriors, Chatham House, New Age, Illiberal Undemocrats, EU, Open Society, Open Britain, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Clinton foundation, John Podesta, John Dewey, Socialism, Humanists UK, Young Humanists, National Secular Society, British Humanist Association, neo Darwinism, Darwinism, evolution scam, CNN, New York Times, NBC news, PBS, MSNBC, BBC, liberal media, Drug legalisation, Money manipulation, IG Farben, quantitative easing, punitive taxation, Green taxes, progressives, Transgenderism, Social engineering, Communism, arch capitalism, Social Darwinism, Marxism, neo Darwinism, Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Bertrand Russell, James Hutton, David Hume, National Socialism (Nazism), Racism, international socialism, Gay mafia, gay adoption, rainbow alliance, UFOLOGY, global warming, Yakov Sverdlovsk, Red Terror, new age, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Jacob Schiff, Adam Weishaupt, Alistair Crowley. Albert Pike, Theosophy, Antichrist, Abortion, Population control, Karl Marx, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, Euthanasia, Eugenics, Atheism, Soviet Union, USSR, People’s Democratic Republics, ‘People’s Vote’, Secularism, Andrew Copson, False science, Scientism, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Nye, Gary Kasparov, Pussy Riot, radical left, atheist naturalism, pagan naturalism, A C Grayling, militant atheism, secular humanism, atheist pseudoscience, Cloning, Surrogacy, Fabianism, Central Banking, Fiat Currencies, banking cartels, LGBTQ agenda, Political correctness, liberal establishment, propaganda, progressive evolution, Hollywood, State control, Labour Party, Democratic Party, Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Fabian society, Secular Society, Antifa, BHA, FFRF, RDFRS, ACLU, gay priests, gay Bishops, gay pride, child abuse, gay fascism, sodomites, Stonewall, indoctrination, LGTB, LGBT, left wing feminism, lesbianism, homosexual agenda, Redefined marriage, Gender fanaticism, gay marriage, political correctness, hedonism, false equality, gender reassignment, surrogacy, Gay adoption, perverted sex education, Embryo experimentation, sperm banks, IVF, cloning, useful idiots, globalist puppets, UN, snowflakes, quislings, internationalism, liberal media, pornography, quislings, fifth column, Trojan horses, Sankt Galen Mafia, infiltrators, modernism, amnesty international, UNICEF, CIA, cyber surveillance, CCTV, Neo Darwinism, cultural Marxism, social Darwinism, atheist naturalism, paganism, Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Christianophobia, Secular Humanism, Militant atheism, abortion, Margaret Sanger, Moloch, Planned Parenthood, pro choice, Klu Klux Klan, Southern Poverty Law Centre, progressives, Christophobia, Newspeak, Satanism, Hate speech, political correctness, LibDems, women’s march, False Ecumenism, election rigging, mass migration, Green taxes, climate change scam, global warming scam, carbon credits scam, debt enslavement, international bankers, Arch capitalism, Kuhn Loeb, Goldman Sachs, John D Rockefeller, Lehman Brothers, J P Morgan, Max Warburg, Order of the Skull and Bones, Extortionate taxation, class war, gender war, ageism, divide and rule, centralisation, climate change scam, mass migrations, cultural imperialism, Marie Stopes, Cultural war. human trafficking. Liberal Democrats, liberal media, Socialist Workers Party, Morning Star, Emmanuel Macron, Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International, BPAS, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Satanism, Wicca, Witchcraft, Luciferian. Bohemian Grove, Lunar Society, secret societies, Annie Besant, Helena Blavatsky. Alice Bailey, Marxist Social Democratic Federation. Alliance for Global Justice, Malthusian League. House of Sulzberger-Ochs, House of Meyer-Graham, Mike Bloomberg, Pierre Omidyar, Sheldon Adelson, Brzezinski, Benjamin Creme, George Kennan, James Baker, Carroll Quigley, Strobe Talbott, Lev Dobriansky, PNAC, William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Walfowitz, Robert Kagan, Professor Joseph Nye, Lester Mondale, American atheists, British Humanist Association, Outright Action International, National Secular Society. Abolition of nation states, NWO. World dictatorship, Tower of Babel, European Parliament. European Commission.

The war against anti-globalist Putin, and the globalist demonising of Russia.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-
science/43042520105

The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda of the globalists.
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...


Ending the crime of abortion is crucial in curbing the power, of Satan.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/43172544140

Ending the crime of abortion is crucial in curbing the power, of Satan.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/43172544140

IF and THEN, the atheist dilemma
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/46553358861w

Who trusts the MSM? Their lies are not just fake news, they deliberately set out to slander those who don’t agree with the liberal left, globalist elite. Their lies are positively evil. Everyone should watch this video and they will never trust the media again: banned.video/watch?id=5f00ca7c672706002f4026a9

Racism - and the diabolical legacy of Darwinism.

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed against the sea wall in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Many other examples, in different situations can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 25/04/2018, strata/layers formed up against the sea wall.
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 05/06/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Note the bird footprints on the surface. Footprints are often found as fossil imprints within the strata of sedimentary rock. If this deposit was undisturbed until the next deposition event and subsequent events, the footprints would be covered and preserved in the strata.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

Vote Democrat, Mortal Sin
by Guy McClung

THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC
It was clear before – vote democrat, commit mortal sin – but two things the Democrat Party has done since the last presidential election make this crystal clear.

abyssum.org/2018/07/16/did-you-know-that-the-way-you-vote...

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, the Principle of Original Horizontality and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 05/06/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Note the bird footprints on the surface. Footprints are often found as fossil imprints within the strata of sedimentary rock. If this deposit was undisturbed until the next deposition event and subsequent events, the footprints would be covered and preserved in the strata.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....
the real fact, as we will show later, is that there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.

Classical Darwinism: Evolution by creeps.
What was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?
Put simply ...
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all living things, which would enable the gradual transformation of a first, self-replicating, living cell, through many years of natural selection, into every living thing, including humans.
However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis, or duplication, of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged, multi-million year timescale.

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale. Natural selection can only select from that which is already there, it cannot create any new information.

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But, because Darwinism had so quickly and widely acquired a status more akin to an ideology than objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science. Thus classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism could not be supported scientifically, and should not even merit the status of a scientific theory, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) would require the creation of new, genetic information.

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been consigned to the dustbin of history,

However, rather than ditch the whole idea as unscientific nonsense, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so important, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which depended on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

That mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.

Enter Neo-Darwinism: Evolution by freaks.

Because the majority of the public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was undoubtedly a crank, all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the ‘theory’ had been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

The true fact that classical Darwinism had always been demonstrably wrong and was fatally flawed from the outset, was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been correct all along, and who were the real champions of science, continued to be ridiculed and vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and the establishment.

The new developments were portrayed simply as an updating of the ‘theory’. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with Darwin’s original idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge ....
A sort of progressive evolution of the whole idea of evolution.

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

So, what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the (ludicrous) idea that random mutations (which are accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the progression from microbes to humans through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

However, there is no evidence for it, and it should be classed as unscientific nonsense, it defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.

It is understandable that people can be confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. It is a disgrace that evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.

Such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is being hoodwinked and lied to. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution, and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations, capable of creating new anatomical structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that the distinguished entomologist, W R Thompson wrote in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... “the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.”

Micro-evolution is just the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes, outside the extent of the existing gene pool, requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, constructive, genetic information. That is essential for ‘macro’ evolution. And that is a massive problem.

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. Therefore, micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. Apart from the idea that both require natural selection, there is no other connection, whatever evolutionists may claim.

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various, dog breeds, for example, are just limited micro-evolution (selection of existing, genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they realise that they have been fed an incredible story.
A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and fully, informed evolutionists know that is an irrefutable fact.

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the incredible idea that everything in the genome of humans, and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) , is purely the result of the accumulation of billions of genetic, copying mistakes..... mutations accrued upon previous mutations, and on - and on - and on.

Although evolutionists don’t like to state it this way, Neo-Darwinism actually proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a long series of cumulative mistakes ... mistakes upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes .... upon previous mistakes etc. etc. In other words, the complete genome of every living thing is made up of nothing more than an incredibly long chain of mistakes. That is the mind-boggling truth about the neo-Darwinian, evolution story. For obvious reasons, it is something evolutionists would prefer you not to think about too much.

When we do think about it, we soon realise that what is actually being proposed is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created entirely from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times.
That is ... every body part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, reproductive organs, or something like the process of insect metamorphosis, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool.

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single, living cell into humans by an incredibly, vast accumulation of these imaginary, beneficial mutations.

Conclusion:

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

Want to join the club?

What about the fossil record?

The formation of fossils.

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/

You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Evolution - multi-million year timescale debunked.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39554035561

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.
When no evidence is cited as evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

Piltdown Man (a fake),

Nebraska Man (a pig),

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

Orce man (a donkey),

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

Peking Man (a monkey),

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

Etc. etc.

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

Want to publish a science paper?
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...

Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

Is that 'science'?

Punctuated Equilibrium: Evolution by Jerks.
The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
_____________________________________________
A pig, a horse and a donkey!

The pig ....
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans. Highly imaginative artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc.
Having been 'discovered' 3 years prior to the Scopes Trial, it was resurrected, and given renewed publicity, shortly before the trial - presumably, in order to influence the trial and convince the public of the scientific evidence for evolution.. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

The horse ....
South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... also hailed as ‘scientific’ evidence for human evolution.

The donkey ....
Orce man, loudly proclaimed by evolutionists to be scientific evidence of an early hominid, based on the discovery of a tiny fragment of skullcap. This is now believed to have most likely come from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as it was claimed. A symposium which had been planned to discuss this alleged human 'missing link' had to be embarrassingly cancelled when it was identified as being very similar to a donkey skull.
_________________________________________

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.

Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!

The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.
However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering

"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"

And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

www.trueorigin.org/

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”

To end with a more jocular quote, it has been said that:
"If Classical Darwinism is evolution by creeps and punctuated equilibrium is evolution by jerks, then neo Darwinism is evolution by freaks".

The real theory of everything
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/34295660211

www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39554035561/in/dat...

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 25/04/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Some other field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.

See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Photo 04/06/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183

Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of samples taken from rapidly, stratified deposits on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.

Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers. These samples, taken from rapidly formed, stratified deposits, show evidence of rapid consolidation.
Beginning to turn into rock, they are solid enough to be handled quite roughly without breaking.
They would crumble under pressure or if hit with a hard object. However, the process of petrification has clearly commenced within just a few months.
Rapidly formed in a tidal event during winter, the deposits laid undisturbed until these samples were taken at the beginning of June.
This is evidence that, given the right conditions, undisturbed sediment can rapidly solidify into rock, it does not need millions of years.
An interesting feature is the embedded stones in the large sample. This demonstrates how objects such as shells, bones etc. could be rapidly buried in a deposit, forming fossils as the sediment solidifies.

Field evidence now shows that:
1. Multiple strata can be formed rapidly.
2. Stratified deposits can rapidly solidify into rock.

Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.

An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.

Other (field) evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________

Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have more recently forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However, they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, biostratigraphy, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle.
They refuse to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition, whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. Experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism, and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it can be a normal, everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification (strata formation) is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession over a long period of time, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...

See many examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
The field evidence presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, the Principle of Original Horizontality and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.

We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photos.

Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/

The examples in the photos are the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.

The varying composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.

Stratified, soft sand deposits. demonstrate the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)

Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
youtu.be/wFST2C32hMQ
youtu.be/SE8NtWvNBKI
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&amp.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.

See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.

* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/35505679183