Now I presented these pictures for you, to make a certain point. 

 

Structuraly these rocks all look alike. But there is more to it then meets the eye. 

 

Fact is that eventhough these rocks look much alike in many ways, that science tells us and tells our little children that these rocks formed over millions of years.

 

Now here is the catch:

 

 

 

 

They are not !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 1st till the 5th picture are from islands that have been formed very very recently that is starting from the early 1960's (surtsey Island), 2015 the Hunga Tonga Island, and the canyon is formed in 1980-1982 by Mount St Helens, including the river The canyon formed the river and not the other way around (the canyon was NOT eroded by the river).

 

Only the last 4 pictures are pictures of rocks of what secular scientists claim that they are millions of years old. But then again, knowing that old looking rocks are not realy old, it is realy the question if these rocks are as old as secular science claims them to be.

 

The reason that I have made this set up is obviously to shock you and baffle and surpice you with respect to this subject. 

 

 

 

Now I have a serious question about this:

 

IF, realy IF these rocks of the last 4 pictures  are realy millions of yrs old then why do the, way much, younger rocks (of which we factually know they are younger since humanity has seen them being formed) look structuraly exactly the same as the old ones ?

 

It seems to me that secular science has been placed in a very embarassing position where they are exposed of lying to all of us. Rocks and mountain ranges are not as old as we are being told. 

Fact is that secular rock ages are being estimated by fossils and the layers they contain. Now if very very young rocks do look exactly, structuraly spoken, the same as the rocks of which is claimed to be very old (10-100's of millions of yrs). Then how on earth can it be claimed that the planet we live on is millions/billions odf yrs old. That is impossible. 

 

Therefor it cannot be different then concluded that the earth is NOT millions or even billions of years old. That is impossible. 

 

That also means that the fossils we find in these rocks are NOT 10-100's of millions of yrs old. And that ultimately there is no such a thing as evolution and that we are NOT evolved from apes. 

 

 

 

 

I hear you thinking: radioactive dating methods; 

 

Then I have to disappoint you: 

 

Even radioactive dating methodes fail to be correct in determining the ages of rocks. Of course radioactive dating methodes have been used to determine the ages of these newly formed islands and landscapes.

 

Guess what.

 

All radioactive dating methodes dated the age of these newly formed rocks as if they were millions of yrs old, which they are obviously not. 

 

Conclusion: the radioactive dating methodes are very very misleading in dating rocks of any age. And the question rises if radioactive dating methods do function at all. Based on this evidence it seems that even methodes that are regarded as highly trustworthy&reliable are not trust worthy at all.

 

Why do Radioactive dating methods fail to give the correct ages of items (like rocks)

 

well there are some good reasons for it

a) it is assumed/believed that the decay rates of radioactive components always hav been the same over all the ages

b) it is assumed/believed that the measured components (mother and daughther elements) are strongly related due to the decay proces and have no other origin.

c) it is assumed/believed that items are closed systems from which no elements can leak from or to. 

 

All these assumptions/believes are proven to be wrong. That makes the dating methods based on radioactive decay highly inaccurate or even utterly useless to determine any age of what ever item. 

 

a)

It has been found more then once that decay-rates of elements do vary,

Some by high pressure by which electrons are being forced into the nucleaudue to which radioactive decay is initiated, well in rocks the pressure can get very high indeed,

Effect of pressure on the decay rate of 7Be, Lin-gun Liu *, Chih-An Huh, Institute of Earth Sciences, Academia Sinica, Nankang, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 180 (2000) 163^167

 

Other elements decay in different rates due to the radiation of the sun, The sun creates due to nuclaeir reactions so called neutrino's most probably these particles are able to trigger and therfor speed up radioactive reactions. To be honest so far most probably the neutrino particles are the best candidates to do this, it is not known what other type of particles it should be that has these effects, further reseach for that s requird. 

 

b)

In the determining the "age" of a rock several elements are quantitized by high senmsitave instruments (like ICP). and based on these contents the secular calculated age is determined. Now in this calculation there is no account for the possibility that the elements are not radioactive related and that the elemenst that are assumed to be related have other origins. During formation of rock the final composition may change constantly before it finally settles. therefore the elements do not need to be related at all eventhough they are indeed in the radioactive decay series. That does NOT automatically that the elements that are found in the same rock are related in such away. that is an invalid assumption which can also not verified in other ways. So therefor this assumption goes wrong and therefor the method fails.

 

c)

In determining the composition of a rock or other object it isa ssumed that that object is 100% leak free and not porous. well as science has shown and is known to science rocks do factually leak and are porous, all kinds of elements can move in and out of the rock that is underinvestigation. So elements that are radioactively in one serie does not realy need to actually related to eachother again. Becaue a rock is not a closed system. it never was. elements can leach in and out of a rock before it was cut as a sample. also therefor determining element is useless to determine what ever kind of number that is called age... it has abolutely no meaning in relation ship to the age of that object. It is silly to think that we can determine the ages of anything in these ways. It is impossible and that has been proven as well more then once with fresh newly made rocks, by present day vulcanoes. these rocks received ages of 100.000's to millions of yrs while they were freshly retreived from a new vulcano. 

this proofs that radioactive dating is just crap and highy unscienctific.