These group of explorers claim to have discovered Noah's Ark.  Watch the videolink and come up with your own conclusion.  Could this be the real MCcoy?

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA7ixET3oA8?version=3&hl=en_GB[/flash]

Has Noah's Ark Been Discovered? A videoclip of the explorers.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wIKiOgk10?version=3&hl=en_GB[/flash]

Chinese Explorers Claim Noah's Ark Find
by Christine Dao *

A Chinese and Turkish exploration team and documentary filmmakers said that they may have found Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey. The explorers from Hong Kong-based Noah's Ark Ministries International (NAMI) announced the find at a press conference on April 25, 2010.

Institute for Creation Research president and Noah's Ark expert Dr. John Morris has made over a dozen trips to Mount Ararat between 1971 and 1990.

"It's an exciting possibility," he said. "But whether it's really the Ark, I can't be entirely sure."

Dr. Morris studied photographs and video clips sent to him two weeks ago. He noted there aren't any images to help place where exactly on Ararat the site is.

"It doesn't look like what I expected it to be," he said.1

NAMI reported that the structure possibly sits at more than 4,000 meters (13,123 feet).2 The exploration team reported that it found partitioned spaces within the structure and construction elements predating the use of metal nails. According to NAMI, a team entered the wooden structure in 2008 and took still photographs. They returned in October 2009, accompanied this time by a film crew.

Yeung Wing-Cheung, one of the filmmakers on the team, told news outlets, "It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it."3

Local Turkish officials plan to apply for the site to become a UNESCO World Heritage Site, after which more archaeological research can be conducted.

For more . . . .

In my oinion, Noah's Ark is nothing but a very big and elaborate fabrication. It just didnt, doesnt and might never have ever existed in the context in which has been potrayed.

Over the centuries, many people have tried and failed to find evidence for this implausible tale, largely looking around a mountain in Turkey called Ararat.

The fact is that there have been floods and deluge stories in many different parts of the world, including but not limited to the Middle East.


[flash=185,185]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYpFgRmZK1g[/flash]  [flash=185,185]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMg-79AzbI4[/flash] [flash=185,185]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sttg1A5Ncfs[/flash] [flash=185,185]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPXKuqLQ63o[/flash]

@Olaadegbu: Carbon dating at only 4,800 years?

And you are not ashamed? O ga o.

The jews, a people who started with Jacob say they are over 5,000 years old!

Shouldn't Noah's ark be at least older than that, if only what remained of humanity was the inhabitants of the ark immediately after the flood?

imagine how long it too to repopulate the earth to the volume of people that when Abraham rose up to the world stage, there were many millions of people on earth.

Egypt, China, India, Persia and others were already great civilization rising from the ashes of the flood's aftermath?

Amujale:

In my oinion, Noah's Ark is nothing but a very big and elaborate fabrication. It just didnt, doesnt and might never have ever existed in the context in which has been potrayed.

Thanks for sharing your opinion with us.  And that is what it remains, your opinion.  If your starting point is that it could never have happened then there will be no need to look for it.

Amujale:

Over the centuries, many people have tried and failed to find evidence for this implausible tale, largely looking around a mountain in Turkey called Ararat.

At least they took the Genesis Flood as a fact which prompted them to search for it where the Bible said was.

Amujale:

The fact is that there have been floods and deluge stories in many different parts of the world, including but not limited to the Middle East.

That is a fact indeed.  The fact that there were stories of this great catastrophic deluge in different parts of the world indicates that this Flood really happened.

These explorers are 99.9% sure that they have discovered the Ark of Noah.

@Olaadegbu: Watch this video clip. It states that the vessel is over 100,000 years and it is found in mount al judi.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIzyxDr3j44

this is not like your yesterday's 4,800 years.

The same radio carbon dating that the OP has claimed is unreliable and wildly inaccurate is being relied upon as confirmation here?

I guess this is another case of picking and choosing the results that agree with a predetermined outcome.

Don't mind me though - I just abhor this form of selective cherry picking of evidence to suit one's worldview whilst criticizing the 'opposing side' of doing exactly the same thing.

Better to admit that there is a lack of understanding about a certain issue than engage in such underhanded tactics.

Sweetnecta:

@Olaadegbu: Carbon dating at only 4,800 years?

And you are not ashamed? O ga o.

The jews, a people who started with Jacob say they are over 5,000 years old!

Shouldn't Noah's ark be at least older than that, if only what remained of humanity was the inhabitants of the ark immediately after the flood?

imagine how long it too to repopulate the earth to the volume of people that when Abraham rose up to the world stage, there were many millions of people on earth.

Egypt, China, India, Persia and others were already great civilization rising from the ashes of the flood's aftermath?

You need to come to the people of the book if you want to learn the facts of the universe and life. Adam to Abraham was about 2000 years, Abraham to Jesus Christ was about 2000 years and how many years are we from Christ? Let's see whether you can work that one out.

Sweetnecta:

@Olaadegbu: Watch this video clip. It states that the vessel is over 100,000 years and it is found in mount al judi.

http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=rIzyxDr3j44

this is not like your yesterday's 4,800 years.

When you guys plagiarise the Bible you don't know when to stop you even plagiarise the heresies that are popular thinking that you know what you are receiving revelation.

@Olaadegbu: Here is a documentary about Noah;s Ark.

Enjoy. Allah is always the Speaker of Truth.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVCvzGr7h1g&NR=1

debosky:

The same radio carbon dating that the OP has claimed is unreliable and wildly inaccurate is being relied upon as confirmation here?

I guess this is another case of picking and choosing the results that agree with a predetermined outcome.

Don't mind me though - I just abhor this form of selective cherry picking of evidence to suit one's worldview whilst criticizing the 'opposing side' of doing exactly the same thing.

Better to admit that there is a lack of understanding about a certain issue than engage in such underhanded tactics.

There is no cherry picking here it is you guys that reason is a vicious cycle. How do you expect carbon to be found in fossils dated millions and billions of years when it is known that carbon dating can only be a few thousand years?

Evolution's Circular Reasoning.

"At least six different radiometric dating methods are available. The assumed age of the sample will dictate which dating method is used because each will give a different result.

For example: when dinosaur bones containing carbon are found, they are not carbon dated because the result would be only a few thousand years. Because this would not match the assumed age based on the geologic column, scientists use another method of dating to give an age closer to the desired result. All radiometric results that do not match the preassigned ages of the geologic column are discarded".

www.drdino.com

@Debosky; What is found on Mount Al Judi about 17 miles away from Christian's Mount Ararat is older that 100,000 years.

we can't therefore say what is found at Mount Ararat which is 4,800 years old is similar.

@Olaadegbu: Nothing the People of the books can provide of spiritual superiority that will make Muslim come for any education.

Allah says to Muhammad [as] and his followers [ra] and all muslims to go the people of the books to ask as a way to challenge the people of the books, confronting them, so they are forced to speak the truth.

Watch the documentary video that I provide. I am watching it now and Allah is the All Knowing.

OLAADEGBU:

There is no cherry picking here it is you guys that reason is a vicious cycle. How do you expect carbon to be found in fossils dated millions and billions of years when it is known that carbon dating can only be a few thousand years

You've come again with the 'you guys' - who exactly are you banding me with? Who is talking about fossils here?

What I have stated remains true - YOU have called carbon dating unreliable and wildly inaccurate, yet YOU seemingly believe the results of an unreliable method when it suits you. Where is the consistency in that? Cherry picking of the highest order.

The method itself is unreliable, but if RATE scientists use it, it suddenly is. The method is unreliable, but if it agrees with what you are trying to achieve, it suddenly is.

You can't have it both ways.

@ Sweetnecta

Just a question for you on the issue of 100,000 years. How old is the earth according to your holy book? Does an age of 100,000 years for the ark agree with the age according to your holy book?

I dont know why i'm arguing over a fictitious object but i just wanted to feed your thought either way.

In the Sumerian tale, which predated the biblical by thousands of years, the ark was built by Ziusudra; in Akkad, he was Atrakhasis, and in Babylon, Uta-Napisthim.

Deucalion was a Greek character, "who repopulated the earth after a similar story" and after the ark landed on Mt. Parnassos.

Xisuthros was Armenian with the same similar flood story, "whose ark landed on Mt. Ararat.

And then you got Menu from India.

In the Sumero-Armenian Canon, Ziusudra/Xisuthros had three sons, including one named "Japetosthes," essentially the same as Noah's son Japheth, also related to Pra-japati or Jvapeti, son of the Indian Menu, whose other sons possessed virtually the same names as those of Noah, i.e., Shem and Ham. Prof George Henry Bateson Wright says in Was Israel ever in Egypt?

"Coincidentally," it was said that the Egyptian deity Osiris was "cosy" in his own ark on the very same day that Noah was likewise so disposed, as related in Suns of God



[center][flash=300,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPXKuqLQ63o[/flash][/center]

Evolutionists claim that the earth is millions and billions of years old. Let's see when they claimed life began and then work our way back to where we are.

This videoclip is shows how the Bible's account in Genesis disproves the theory of evolution, crunching the numbers and hitting the bull's eye. Make sure you watch the three parts of this programme.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33vCvxYOzYU&hl=en&fs=1&[/flash]

Earth's population refutes evolution.

This is what Grant R. Jeffery had to say in his book, The Signature of God:

"The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same assumptions of a forty-three-year generation and 2.5 children per family. . . The evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet. To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe. If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from the trillions of skeletions of those who had died in past generations. However, despite the tremendous archaeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists."

@Debosky: « #14 on: Yesterday at 11:14:40 PM »
[Quote]@ Sweetnecta

Just a question for you on the issue of 100,000 years. How old is the earth according to your holy book? Does an age of 100,000 years for the ark agree with the age according to your holy book?
[/Quote]Age of the earth is much much older than 100,000 years. that was just last night in comparison with the age of the earth.

before man was created, the earth was already in full swing of beings. Man was the last to be created.

@ Ola

Risking stating the blooming obvious, there is no evidence that the assumption of 43 years for a human generation being valid, especially if we are trying to determine what this length of a human generation was a million years ago. (Note - this is not a support of the theory of humans existing for a million years, but simply a critique of a baseless assumption).

There are cases where entire population groups are wiped out by disease, there could have been periods of famine which reduced reproduction and there are many factors - food availability, sizes of settlements and the like that may influence the growth of the human population.

The rapid increases witnessed in recent times has only been possible due to mass food production and sanitation/medicine preventing large outbreaks of disease.

To surmise, if your starting assumption of 43 years for a human generation is wrong, or you make wrong assumptions about the rate of propagation of the human population, then you are likely to be wrong.

Making assumptions to disprove someone else's assumptions is an exercise in futility.

Besides, I don't know if your Grant Jeffery is fighting some imaginary evolutionary scientists, but those who believe evolution (not me) only claim humans have existed in their current state for 200,000 years, not a million years as stated here.

If you are going to 'debunk' a theory, it would be good to at least know what the theory you are debunking is in the first instance.

Sweetnecta:

@Debosky: « #14 on: Yesterday at 11:14:40 PM »Age of the earth is much much older than 100,000 years. that was just last night in comparison with the age of the earth.

before man was created, the earth was already in full swing of beings. Man was the last to be created.

You didn't answer my question - how old does the Quran say the earth is? Or is it silent on this subject?

debosky:

@ Ola

Risking stating the blooming obvious, there is no evidence that the assumption of 43 years for a human generation being valid, especially if we are trying to determine what this length of a human generation was a million years ago. (Note - this is not a support of the theory of humans existing for a million years, but simply a critique of a baseless assumption).

There are cases where entire population groups are wiped out by disease, there could have been periods of famine which reduced reproduction and there are many factors - food availability, sizes of settlements and the like that may influence the growth of the human population.

The rapid increases witnessed in recent times has only been possible due to mass food production and sanitation/medicine preventing large outbreaks of disease.

To surmise, if your starting assumption of 43 years for a human generation is wrong, or you make wrong assumptions about the rate of propagation of the human population, then you are likely to be wrong.

Making assumptions to disprove someone else's assumptions is an exercise in futility.

Besides, I don't know if your Grant Jeffery is fighting some imaginary evolutionary scientists, but those who believe evolution (not me) only claim humans have existed in their current state for 200,000 years, not a million years as stated here.

If you are going to 'debunk' a theory, it would be good to at least know what the theory you are debunking is in the first instance.

Even if we use half of a million which is 500,000 years which evolutionists claim and putting all deaths that occurred due to natural disasters the population we have today still doesn't add up.  Watch the videolinks posted of the population calculated to see how the evolution model cannot be true and if you cannot watch the videolinks here is a summary of what was said:

Watch him put both the Creation and Evolution Models to the test and see how each would have fared under the unbiased scrutiny of Mathematics.  See for yourselves which one is correct, Biblical Creation or Evolution?

The Evolution Model

[list]
[li]About 15 billion years ago the universe exploded into existence.[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]About 4.6 billion years ago the earth evolved[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]About 3.5 billion years ago life evolved[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]About 0.5-1.0 million years ago humans evolved from ape-like creatures[/li]
[/list]
(By time, chance and natural processes).

Creation Model

[list]
[li]God created the universe and everything in it in 6 (24hr) days, 6,000 years ago[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Sin was the cause of death[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]God destroyed the world by a worldwide flood[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Man was created in the image of God[/li]
[/list]

John Heffner put these two theories to the test by using the formula; Growth rate = birth rate - death rate.

According to biblical knowledge;

Noah's flood happened about 4,500 years ago, and with 4 couples at the rate of 2.5 children per family will result in 6.5 billion people in the world. (6.5 x 10⁹)   

Creation hits the bulls eye

According to the Theory of Evolution

"The evolutionary journey to modern humans ends with the appearance about 500,000 years ago of Homo Sapiens" Biology, Raven and Johnson p.525

That means about 500,000 years of man, at the rate of 2.5 children per family will produce 2.45 x 10⁹⁹⁰ people.  This is more than the number of electrons in the universe!!!, which is in the 10¹³⁰

Watch the whole programme in the videoclips below especially the second link if you can. 

This shows that science confirms biblical creation and disproves evolution.

Biblical creation hits the bulls eye

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33vCvxYOzYU&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3c4NXPiZ4&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31t1C8K1r24[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuYp7GAE9xQ&NR=1[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yve4wI4oGdY&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_FGtNxd6s&feature=related[/li]
[/list]

@OLAADEBU In my opinion the problem has little to do with the STORY of creation according to the bible, but rather the source from where it came. The entire synopsis of the biblical as well as the quranic narative of Noah was stripped from other mythologies; especially the ancient Egyptian narative. In short, what we have is a case of complete plagiasrism of other philosophies re-packaged.

If you doubt anything that i've written, you only need check the TRUTH out for yourself.

OLAADEGBU:

John Heffner put these two theories to the test by using the formula; Growth rate = birth rate - death rate.

According to biblical knowledge;

Noah's flood happened about 4,500 years ago, and with 4 couples at the rate of 2.5 children per family will result in 6.5 billion people in the world. (6.5 x 10⁹)   

Creation hits the bulls eye

You are either quite thick or displaying a shocking lack of comprehension. You have ASSUMED a rate of 2.5 children per 'family' to hit your imaginary bullseye. Where is the evidence that the birth rate is 2.5 children per family? Historically in Africa, families were MUCH larger and didn't involve 2.5 children, even biblical accounts show much larger families and not 2.5 kids per family so where is the ridiculous assumption coming from?

Scientists who use birthrates don't even make asinine comparisons based on kids 'per family' - the measures used are birth rates per thousand.

This is another pathetic case of choosing an assumption to meet your predefined notion - this is the exact same thing evolutionists are accused of doing, which is why such rubbish holds no credibility with me in the least.

It's like a man accusing someone of stealing while he is doing exactly the same thing.

[Quote]« #19 on: Yesterday at 10:43:57 AM »

Quote from: Sweetnecta on Yesterday at 12:18:04 AM
@Debosky: « #14 on: Yesterday at 11:14:40 PM »Age of the earth is much much older than 100,000 years. that was just last night in comparison with the age of the earth.

before man was created, the earth was already in full swing of beings. Man was the last to be created.

You didn't answer my question - how old does the Quran say the earth is? Or is it silent on this subject?[/Quote]yes. Quran is silent about it because people may assume that whatever age given is at the point they are hearing/reading about it. Quran is for all times; from the time it was revealed to the last person that will be on earth. if it says 50 trillion years, what happens when a man reads it 50 million years after the time of prophet Muhammad [as]? obviously, it will not be 50 Trillions then by at least 50 million years.

you can find the age of the earth as a rough estimate in your time. Until the best measuring process is developed, who can actually say specifically. It we say we have the best device now, are we saying there will not be a better more accurate to be developed in the near, if not the far future? And knowledge is not complete, yet, among mankind.

debosky:

You are either quite thick or displaying a shocking lack of comprehension.

This ad hominem is the kind of tactics used by atheist evolutionists when they've got their backs to the wall, but then you will accuse me of committing the crime of mind reading if I say you are of the same stock.

debosky:

You have ASSUMED a rate of 2.5 children per 'family' to hit your imaginary bullseye. Where is the evidence that the birth rate is 2.5 children per family? Historically in Africa, families were MUCH larger and didn't involve 2.5 children, even biblical accounts show much larger families and not 2.5 kids per family so where is the ridiculous assumption coming from?

My presupposition is taken from biblical knowledge that 4 couples produced the population we have today and by using science and mathematics we can calculate the population growth using the formula of P = P_oe^rt with and annual growth rate of  .456% to arrive at the population we have today.  Your assumption of 200,000 years of human's existence at the same rate does not pass the test.

debosky:

Scientists who use birthrates don't even make asinine comparisons based on kids 'per family' - the measures used are birth rates per thousand.

Why don't you use your own formula to arrive at your own result?

debosky:

This is another pathetic case of choosing an assumption to meet your predefined notion - this is the exact same thing evolutionists are accused of doing, which is why such rubbish holds no credibility with me in the least.

This is because your assumption is different from biblical knowledge.  I said it before, when you start with the wrong assumption your result will be way off the mark.

debosky:

It's like a man accusing someone of stealing while he is doing exactly the same thing.

Wrong analogy.  The difference is that scientists who are Christians start with biblical knowledge which gives them a leverage over those who start with the wrong evolution model as their assumption of when man arrived here.  See the videoclip and note how the Professor of mathematics shows that the evolution model cannot produce the desired result.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yve4wI4oGdY?version=3&hl=en_GB[/flash]

Amujale:

@OLAADEBU In my opinion the problem has little to do with the STORY of creation according to the bible, but rather the source from where it came. The entire synopsis of the biblical as well as the quranic narative of Noah was stripped from other mythologies; especially the ancient Egyptian narative. In short, what we have is a case of complete plagiasrism of other philosophies re-packaged.

If you doubt anything that i've written, you only need check the TRUTH out for yourself.

You are entitled to your opinion but when it comes to historical and scientific facts of the past there is only one place to go for the truth and that is the Truth Book.

OLAADEGBU:

This ad hominem is the kind of tactics used by atheist evolutionists when they've got their backs to the wall, but then you will accuse me of committing the crime of mind reading if I say you are of the same stock.

I know you would be unable to resist - so if I point out your shocking inability to see the flaws in your methodologies, I must be an atheist evolutionist?

What else do we expect from someone who regards any challenge of their viewpoint as evidence of being an evolutionist? Admit you are completely incapable of accepting any criticism without deeming it as evolutionist.

My presupposition is taken from biblical knowledge that 4 couples produced the population we have today and by using science and mathematics we can calculate the population growth using the formula of P = P_oP^rt with and annual growth rate of  .456% to arrive at the population we have today. 

Kindly show me the verse in the bible that tells gives you the 'biblical knowledge' that the population of the earth can be calculated from 2.5 kids per family.

Your assumption of 200,000 years of human's existence at the same rate does not pass the test.

I am growing quite tired of this repeated idiocy - get it into your thick skull - that is not MY assumption in any sense. I simply brought up the 200,000 years to show that YOUR analysis was baseless as it did not even know what assumptions evolutionists made in the first place.

My comment was this:

If you are going to 'debunk' a theory, it would be good to at least know what the theory you are debunking is in the first instance.

How did you make the jump from there to claiming it is MY assumption? Did I write the theory of evolution that regards modern humans as emerging 200,000 years ago?

Why don't you use your own formula to arrive at your own result?

Because that isn't science - that is working to the answer - a completely ridiculous and pointless exercise in subjectivity. You might enjoy making up figures to suit your purposes, I don't.

This is because your assumption is different from biblical knowledge. I said it before, when you start with the wrong assumption your result will be way off the mark.

For the last time, I have made NO assumptions here - YOU are the one making assumptions about a fictional 2.5 kids per family. Your ridiculous repetition of this nonsense is really grating on my nerves now.

Wrong analogy. The difference is that scientists who are Christians start with biblical knowledge which gives them a leverage over those who start with the wrong evolution model as their assumption of when man arrived here

That will make a difference if the so called Christian scientists didn’t make baseless assumptions just to suit their arguments. Your foolish belief that merely starting with the bible gives you a guarantee of getting the right conclusion is what I am attacking.

Those that claimed the earth had to be flat also claimed to be using ‘biblical knowledge’ yet they were hopelessly wrong.

The Evidence that the Ark of Noah is an historical fact.

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQg67H4GK1o?version=3&hl=en_GB[/flash]

debosky:

I know you would be unable to resist - so if I point out your shocking inability to see the flaws in your methodologies, I must be an atheist evolutionist?

What else do we expect from someone who regards any challenge of their viewpoint as evidence of being an evolutionist? Admit you are completely incapable of accepting any criticism without deeming it as evolutionist.

If the foundation is destroyed what can the righteous do? The problem in Christianity today is that Christians are joining forces with the enemy of the gospel to destroy its foundation which is the solid ground. The two major worldviews, biblical creation and the theory of evolution are the two authorities seeking for our attention, and unfortunately many Christians are taking their authority from faulty man's ideologies over the tried and tested word of God.

debosky:

Kindly show me the verse in the bible that tells gives you the 'biblical knowledge' that the population of the earth can be calculated from 2.5 kids per family.

Do you also want to know the verse where the Professor got his population formula from? God has given us the seed it is up to us to cultivate the ground and expect a good harvest. God will not do the cultivating for you. We have the seed, that is, the 4 couples that survived the catastrophic deluge, we also have the present world population which is about 7 billion people today, why don't you do your own cultivation? in this case, calculation to discover whether the biblical creation worldview hits the bull's eye or not? You don't have to use the Professor's formula if you think its not right.

debosky:

I am growing quite tired of this repeated idiocy - get it into your thick skull - that is not MY assumption in any sense. I simply brought up the 200,000 years to show that YOUR analysis was baseless as it did not even know what assumptions evolutionists made in the first place.

You that has the thin skull should tell us where the assumption that was reported in a science journal in the videolink below that they discovered a human tooth that was dated to be 1 million years old. Another science textbook used in schools also said that human beings started 500,000 years ago and you have admitted that you brought up the case of 200,000 years, as long as folks continue to reject or suppress the truth in unrighteousness they will continue to be confused with their assumptions. The videoclip I posted earlier has even conceded 25,000 years for this ridiculous assumption but this will produce about 144 billion people which does not tally with what we have on the ground.

"The evolutionary journey to modern humans ends with the appearance about 500,000 years ago of Homo Sapiens" Biology, Raven and Johnson p.525

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3c4NXPiZ4?version=3&hl=en_GB[/flash]

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grgALdISA58?version=3&hl=en_GB[/flash]