In reality, the geological column exists only in one place - in text books.[AiG]

Have you ever wondered how earth scientists know right away how old a layer on earth is? Well, they look at it and they know. But you wonder, `Yeah, but they can tell so fast.'

Right. Of course one cannot really see age. What the did they came up with a guide book or manual which tells everyone how old the layers are they describe in there.

For instance they have the `North American Stratigraphic Code,' published in 1983. Then they have the `International Stratigraphic Guide,' Salvador, published in 1994. Most appear to use those types of all-knowing guides.

The strata in the ground themselves are examined, at least they should have been examined, for their paleontologic contents. That means they look for trace and body fossils. To find these is crucial in order to be able to assign a date to a given layer. Once they find those, uniformitarian evolutionists can `measure' the age of that layer. Its a piece of cake to them. Just like that their trained eye can see how old a layer is.

I asked one of them once if he could guess how old I was, `He said, well, how about 45?'

I said, `Sorry.' `I am 56. But thanks for not calling me a million years old.'

So you see its all in the mind of the beholder. When I look at layers, I see thousands or hundreds of years, not millions or billions, depending how bad the inflation is.

So we scratch our head - and some got bald - and wonder, how can they be so stock, rock, and bottom sure how old everything in the world is. Truth is they can't, but the guide books "can." Hahaha, yeah, sure.

Hey, students, fight them to the teeth on these things. I just about had it, hearing all those tales they spin. Well, they just don't know any better. You can hardly be smarter than your teacher and textbook combined - - unless you are allowed to think for yourself and explain what you came up with without them calling you names or unscientific.

Well, so much for now. May be more tomorrow, or in a billion years.

[60] (a) In the Eocene (dated to 36-57 million years) massive coal deposits can be found in certain places around the world. (b) In the Cretaceous (dated to 66-144 mys), massive coal deposits. (c) In the Pennsylvanian (286-329 mys) can also be found massive coal deposits. These dates are based on evolutionistic assumptions. When samples of coal from these mines were measured for C14, they resulted in the conclusion that all samples were of about the same age which was ca. 70,000 C14 years. - The reason evolutionists never tried dating coal by C14 is because they were stuck in their world view that they were formed too long ago so that C14 could not be used to derive a date. That idea was proved to be false. Conclusion: The dating methods, other than C14, are riddled with errors. The higher than ca. 6000 years by the C14 method is to be explained by the changing concentrations of C14 in the earth's environment contrary to the view that the rate is constant. It was not. -- For the same reason diamonds, supposedly some 570-4,500 mys old, was dated for C14 content, which in fact was detected in 5 samples submitted by Dr. Baumgardner, the result was less than 58,000 years. The underlying problem with these dating methods is not the technology, but the startup assumptions. (1) The ratio from Uranium to Lead when the rock formed, was it really zero to start with? (2) Do the radioactive isotopes really decay always at the same rate we observe today? We have observed this decay only for a tiny fraction of years compared to the time they supposedly did that. More recently scientists were able to demonstrate that these decay rates have changed over time from faster to slower. (3) Have any of the parent and daughter isotopes moved in and/or out of the rock after it crystallized? If you have leaks in the system and you don't take that into consideration, you get false dates. -- So why do evolutionists keep disparaging creationists explanations? The reason is, if there really was a world wide Flood, than the wrath of God is something we must take into account. Men is continually trying to deny that there is a living God who reigns supreme over His Creation. They do not wish to be morally accountable to their Creator. -- True science is really confirming what the Bible says.

[100] So called `komatiite' (discovered in 1969), basalt-like rocks are distinguished by containing magnesium oxide concentrations between 18-30 wt%, as compared to 10-15 wt% for other basaltic rocks. They also exhibit in places distinctive olivine crystals that have interlocking spines described as "spinifex" texture. The greatest number of komatiite occurs in the Archaean. Fewer examples are found in the Proterozoic and only 3 in the Phanerozoic (the most recent is assigned a Cretaceous age). Boninite is also a high magnesium rock. Creation Research Society Quarterly, CRSQ, Sep 2005, p. 128.