Anti-Christ? Benedict

From the book “666, THE NUMBER OF ANTI-CHRIST, IN THE NAMES, GLAD STONE, LATEINOS, TEITAN, ETC.” by James Edward Nelson published in 1883. Discussing “The Beast” mentioned in the Bible as “The Anti-Christ”, Mr. Nelson points out that several individuals contemporary with him have names that numerologically speaking add up to 666. He also mentions that the name Benediktos (or Benedict in English) also works out to 666 numerologically. What follows is taken directly from his book (on page 7). Benediktos, which makes it thus:= 666 

 This was the name of several Popes. (end quote) I also found this interesting assertion in another book which tries to predict future events, relative to Biblical prophecy. The book was written by William J. Reid in 1878. It is entitled: “Lectures On The Revelation”. In it he says this (on page 306): “When will the Papal system come to an end? If it began in the year 752, and if it is to continue for one thousand two hundred and sixty years, then it is to be destroyed in the year 2012.” Is it just a coincidence then that our current Pope’s name (as of this writing) is Benedict (official title is Benedict XVI)? Is this some kind of obscure prophecy? Is something major going to happen? As of this writing the current pope is 84 years old. And there are 9 months left to this year. We will see.

Update (3/22/21)

Nothing happened. In 2013 Benedict stepped down. Pope Francis took over. So... the above info amounted into a big FAT ZERO. So much for prognostication.

BURGERS!

As you might guess I love me a huge juicy burger! So this is a valuable (nay priceless) resource!

http://www.sanantonioburger.com/

Check it out and feast!!

Evolution's sticky-wicket

Here is something that evolution CANNOT explain!

Sexual Reproduction. This is the one aspect of evolution that scientists cannot explain. How do you explain the evolution of the very thing required to propel evolution? If many successive births (generations) are required to evolve, how did reproduction itself evolve? With what did the first male organism capable of sexual reproduction mate with in order to evolve a mate? It's a catch-22. A male must have a female to mate with, but you needed a mate to evolve a mate. Huh?

Today is my 6th anniversary

 

6 years ago today, I married my beautiful wife Isabella (Garcia). We eloped to a Justice of the Peace. My father acted as a witness to the proceedings. I can honestly say, I love her now more than ever! Also, we are expecting!

Shakespeare authorship question

I tried to watch a movie last night. It was called "Anonymous". It portrays an alternate reality and attempts to make the case that the Earle of Oxford, Edward De Vere wrote all of Shakespeare's plays. Not Shakespeare. William Shakespeare was presented as an opportunistic low-brow uneducated actor, who seized his chance to put his name on De Vere's plays for the sake of helping De Vere stay unknown as a play writer (and of course to make money).

I turned it off.

Like those other maniacs who believe Kennedy was killed as the result of some massive cabal, we never went to the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, macro-evolution, and Jesus never lived, there are many who deny the fact that Shakespeare wrote his plays.

How dare they besmirch this literary giant who penned (literally) some of the most beautiful and influential work in all of English literature!

Derek Jacoby, who has made a career playing Shakespeare even sold his soul for money and showed his face on screen in "Anonymous". Some gratitude. He should be ashamed.

Did Shakespeare write his own plays?

The short answer is of course he did. But that wouldn't be informative.

First, who do people say wrote Shakespeare's plays other than Shakespeare? The most popular one among these wackos is Edward De Vere (Oxford). These weirdos are even called "Oxfordians". Ugh.

Another is Christopher Marlowe (Marlovians). Another is Francis Bacon (Baconians).

The historical evidence demonstrates that:
01. William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, was also William Shakespeare the player.
02. William Shakespeare the part owner of the Globe theatre.
03. William Shakespeare was the author of the plays and poems that bear his name.
04. NO PERSON of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras ever doubted this.
05. No Elizabethan ever suggested that Shakespeare's plays and poems were written by someone else.
06. NO CONTEMPORARY of Shakespeare ever claimed that the player was not Shakespeare the author.
07. NO CONTEMPORARY of Shakespeare ever claimed that Shakespeare the part owner of The Globe Theatre was not Shakespeare of Stratford.
08. No contemporary of Shakespeare's ever suggested that the name used by the player, the Globe-sharer, or the author was a pseudonym.
09. None of the major alternative candidates -- not Francis Bacon, not the Earl of Oxford, not Christopher Marlowe -- had any connection with Shakespeare's acting company or with his friends and fellow actors.

The only thing that Anti-Shakespeare people must rely on is their snobbish belief that the playwrite SHOULD have been a certain way. The fact remain that ALL of the historical record points to Shakespeare as the author of his plays, and there is not a single shred of historical evidence to prove otherwise. It is all (as usual) supposition and assumption.

Also, a computer analysis was done a few years ago and the tests determined that Shakespeare's work shows consistent, countable, profile-fitting patterns, suggesting that he was a single individual, not a committee, and that he used fewer relative clauses and more hyphens, feminine endings, and run-on lines than the other writers with whom he was compared. The result determined that none of the other tested claimants' work could have been written by Shakespeare, nor could Shakespeare have been written by them, eliminating all of the claimants whose known works have survived—including Oxford, Bacon, and Marlowe—as the true authors of the Shakespeare canon. See---> this link <--- for more info.

Read the article found ---> HERE <--- and I believe you will see how ridiculous all this is.

Yes, Shakespeare wrote his plays. He was a gifted and talented man (unusually so). To try and foist off a different author as the one who wrote his plays is downright wrong (The potential candidates now number over 70)! Give credit where credit is due and stop trying to after-the-fact tear down William Shakespeare. After all, he cannot defend himself, can he?

Reasons I DO NOT support Obama

"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist, you'll have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot."

Obama has presided over a failed presidency. When asked why I would not vote for him, I could say the following answer:

1. The Obamacare fiasco
2. The $850 billion stimulus fiasco
3. High unemployment
4. Gas prices
5. The 2012 budget
6. Massive deficits
7. The seizure of GM and Chrysler, the transfer of bondholder wealth to unions, and the dumping of the GM stock at a loss
8. Dodd-Frank
9. Hostility toward Israel, including attack on apartment expansion and icing of Prime Minister Netanyahu in basement of White House.
10. Failure to support Iran’s Green Revolution
11. Failure to support Syrian revolution
12. The Libyan Fiasco
13. The incompetent handling of the Gulf Oil disaster
14. The unnecessary permitorium in the aftermath of the Gulf Oil disaster
15. The shutdown of Shell’s Arctic oil exploration by EPA
16. The president’s push for cap-and-tax in the Congress
17. The president’s attempt to unconstitutionally impose cap-and-tax via EPA when the Congress wouldn’t pass cap-and-tax
18. The president’s push for unconstitutional restrictions on free speech on his political enemies while keeping the unions free to spend money on campaigns via The Disclose Act
19. The president’s attempt to unconstitutionally impose The Disclose Act on his political opponents but not unions via Executive Order
20. The president’s use of unaccountable “czars”
21. The president’s refusal to accept Congressional direction vis-a-vis his “czars” contained in the last 2011 Continuing Resolution
22. The president’s verbal assault on the Supreme Court while the members of the Court sat before him in the state of the Union
23. The president and Eric Holder’s politicization of the Department of Justice, including the black panthers case and the refusal to defend DOMA
24. The president’s use of demonizing rhetoric towards his opponents, such as accusing doctors of performing unnecessary surgery for money
25. The president’s hyper-partisan approach to governing including “I won, you lost” in 2009 and the assault on Paul Ryan with Paul Ryan as an invited guest in the president’s April 2011 “deficit speech.”
26. Bowing to the Saudi King and the Japanese emperor
27. Returning the bust of Churchill to Great Britain
28. Removing the missile shield from Poland and the Czech Republic
29. Backing the would-be dictator of Hondorus when that nation’s Supreme Court rightfully removed him from office
30. Failure to push for quick ratification of free trade agreements with Columbia, Panama and South Korea
31. Indecision on Afghanistan surge coupled with announcement of eventual withdrawal.
32. Incoherence on Egypt, most obviously with the dispatch of Frank Wizner and then rejection of Wizner’s advice vis-a-vis Mubarak.
33. Appointment Craig Beck to NLRB via recess appointment
34. Appointment of FCC commissioners who are pursuing “net neutrality” without Congressional authorization
35. Failure to resume full water deliveries to California’s Central Valley because of the Delta Smelt
36. Attempt to close Guantanamo Bay
37. Attempt to try terrorists in New York City
38. Janet “The System Worked” Napolitano
39. Government takeover of the student loan program
40. Cancellation of “virtual border fence” project with no replacement or indeed concern for border security
41. The “Beer Summit” and the attack on the Cambridge Police Department
42. The Department of Justice’s attack on Arizona for that state’s exercise of its sovereign legislative authority on the issue of citizen identification rules
43. The attack on Scott Walker and Wisconsin for the governor’s and the state legislature’s exercise of their sovereign legislative authority on public employment issues
44. Dabbling in basketball brackets while the Middle East fell into chaos and the gas prices skyrocketed
45. Arguing that American exceptionalism was the same as any nation’s sense of exceptionalism
46. Implying that Minnesota bridge collapse was the result of lack of infrastructure funding
47. Inserting himself into campaign for the Olympics
48. Attack on D.C. voucher program
49. Van Jones and a long list of other appointees
50. Eric Holder - fast and furious scandal
51. Teleprompter dependency
52. Dragging his feet in the Keystone pipe line deal. Thousands of jobs NOT created. Millions of barrels of oil from a country who still for the most part likes us.
53. Appologizing for America
54. Encouraging class envy.
55. Allowing the muslim brotherhood (al qaeda) take over countries who hate us.
56. The Solyndra fiasco
57. His devotion to socialist/communist Sol Alinski
58. His close ties with Black Liberation Theology.
59. Constant blaming of Bush for everything.
60. The Sandra Fluck fiasco.
61. Close ties with known domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
62. Reluctance to release most documants pertaining to his past.
63. His botched handling of the Embassy attacks that claimed the life of Ambassador to Libya.
64. Failed foreign policy
65. Appologizing for America to our enemies
66. Snubbing Benjamin Netanjahu in favor of an appearance on Letterman show
67. Spineless handling of Iran's nuclear program.
68. Incessantly bashing the rich
69. The "You didn't build that" fiasco.
70. His passion for redistribution of wealth (socialism)
71. Allowing the "race" issue to grow and spread.60. The fact that he is half black (ha ha, just kidding!! I don't care about his race!)

Thanks to Obambi Wordpress.

The Coming of formidable lizards

Amazingly, there was time when mankind almost forgot about giant marauding lizards known now as "dinosaurs" (Greek for "formidable lizards"). Had these creatures remained shrouded in mystery for millions of years? Or was there a time when humans and "dinosaurs" shared the land? Scientists of today will tell you that the creatures now known as "dinosaurs" lived millions of years before modern humans "emerged". So we are told, they lay buried, fossilized, and unknown in the soil for millions and millions of years and then were "discovered" by humans in the 1800's. So how did "frightening lizards" come back to our collective remembrance? In 1824, a clergyman (ironically) named William Buckland found some fossils which were termed "Megalosaurus". It was determined scientifically that these bones belonged to a large reptile. At the time, I'm sure some people thought they had found "dragon bones". Later, in 1841 a chap named Richard Owen decided, based on these bones, that there actually were once huge reptiles that roamed the Earth in ancient times (dragons?). He dubbed them "dinosaurs" which, in Greek means "terrible lizards". In this case terrible means "filling one with terror". Which giant meat eating lizards most certainly would do. So until this time were human beings oblivious to dinosaurs? had no ancient people ever seen or known about "dinosaurs"? I think the evidence shows that ancient people were well aware of "dinosaurs" only they didn't call them that (of course). So what did the ancients call these huge reptiles? You guessed it, "dragons". They were huge reptiles, were they not? I believe that the collective evidence of the knowledge of dinosaurs (then known as dragons) is quite compelling. Lets look at some (swiped and compiled from the Genensis Park website). Dinosaur-like creatures (dragons) can be found on ancient pottery, sculptures, and carvings. Consider the folowing...

   

The image on the left can be found on a Mesopotamian cylinder dating from around 3300 B.C. It is compared to a picture of a sauropod dinosaur. Note the resemblance. There are many more examples at the following link. Please check it out. Genesis Park - Dragons/Dinosaur link Also click---> THIS LINK <---for a 7 part series on this subject. Here is a nice quote from a great website called Science Vs. Evolution. Read this... "In the report on the Doheny Expedition of 1924 dinosaurs were thought to have been extinct for 12 million years. But in the latter part of the 20th century 65 Million years was the well excepted length of time since their extinction. But, as Hubbard, the director of the expedition to the Hava Supai Canyon of the Grand Canyon, wrote after he discovered a depiction of a dinosaur on the canyon walls: "The fact that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur (Diplodocus) on the wall of this canyon upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man. Facts are stubborn and immutable things. If theories do not square with the facts then the theories must change, the facts remain." The French archaeologist Claude Jacques discovered a "Stegosaur-like animal on the wall" along with well known animals of modern times in the Ta Prohm Buddhist temple dedicated in AD 1200 in Cambodia. There is a Torosaurus type dinosaur on a 1700 year old floor mosaic in Israel with a man throwing a rock at it; and, on a 1300 year old demolished Jewish temple in Syria there is a bi-pedal Cryolophosaurus type dinosaur with a lion attacking a horse on a temple column. The famous Palestrina Nile Mosaic from 100 BC contains that is thought to be a dinosaur along with other possible extinct animals. John Damascene claimed 1300 years ago that "dragons" were real and lived in his time and they came in all sizes; some were huge and some had horns. These are just a few examples of many realistic depictions of dinosaurs within the history of man that are also depicted in modern paleontology books based on study of their bones. One major question arises: Why are C-14 dates for dinosaur bones some 20,000 to 25,000 RC years older than these depictions? More research is needed." Here is the web address of that site: http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/ Another good website dealing with this subject: http://www.6000years.org/dinosaurs.html A good book on the subject I can't recommend enough is "Dinosaurs or Dragons" by Darek Issacs! To Be Continued...

The Turtle Boy/Golf story

 

Yesterday my Dad, my brother Randy, and myself were playing golf. We were playing up a fairway where another tee box faces you. There was a heavy set guy up there about to swing. He had a light green shirt on and for some reason when I looked at him I thought of a turtle. So I told my Dad, who was walking up the fairway next to me, "Watch out for ol' turtle boy there." Just then the guy hit the ball. Dad said "Yeah, he hit right toward us (tortoise)." Ol' Dad didn't even realize til I pointed it out that he had made the most unintentionally witty pun I have EVER heard in my life!! I laughed quite hard about it. Great stuff, that!

Backgammon

I am learning to play backgammon right now. It is a very complex game. I stayed up until 1:30 a.m. this morning (on a work night, I know) taking a tutorial on it. Looks like it will be very fun. We shall see.

I Hate (Sorry Tom T. Hall)

Here is a little song parody I wrote. Sung to the tune of "I Love..." by Tom T. Hall. 

“I Hate” by Mike Walk

I hate small portions on my plate 

an unsuccessful date 

Slow-moving trains, and rain 

I hate, people who are mean 

strange disjointed dreams 

waiting for the mail, and hail 

And I hate you too 

I hate, having to pay rent 

fishing with live shrimp 

showering when its cold, and mold 

I hate, liquid when it spills 

paying lots of bills 

When my gal isn’t around, and Clowns

I hate, lame TV shows 

music when it blows 

Tires that are flat, and rats

And I hate you too 

I hate people when they drive 

getting off at 5 

fat people in a line, and crime 

I hate people who whine 

not having a good time 

Rude retail clerks, and jerks

And I, hate you too 

 (Ha ha ha ha)

15 Evolutionary "Hail Mary"'s

Over the years, evolution (specifically macro-evolution) has hitched its destiny to some shakey theories. These theories are like a the desperation throw down field in football called a "hail mary". It shows a lack of planning, and a "heave and hope" strategy. The ball is hurled downfield and the passer hopes for the best. In the same way, evolution has pinned its hopes on some desperate throws downfield so to speak. Here, then, are 15 evolutionary "hail mary's".

01. Uniformitarianism - Evolution, right off the bat, is painted into a corner. In order to make a case for evolution occurring over the vasts amounts of time like they say happened, science must be able to demonstrate observable evidence of such things as instinct, behavior, common traits, and migration. Scientists need to claim that conditions on Earth today are the same as they have always been so they can claim to show "evidence" for their theories. The only problem is, for scientists to explain things like "why did the dinosaurs suddenly die out" they had to dream up possible catastrophes. Which begs the question: How can you claim uniformitarianism and catastrophism at the same time? In my opinion, and I could be wrong about this, scientists reject catastrophism mainly because it plays into the hands of creationists, and anything that creationists propose is automatically rejected. When evolutionists reject the notion of catastrophism, they are actually avoiding the global flood theory which they reject mainly because it is in the Bible.

02. The dinosaurs into birds theory - Someone (Huxley) back in the old days looked at drawings of theropod dinos and thought they looked like birds - kind of. Bingo! The dinosaurs into birds theory was born. Never mind that there is no evidence that there is ANY REAL GENETIC CONNECTION between them. Amazingly bird skeletons were used as models when the early paleontologists were assempling newly found dinosaur skeletons (So is it any wonder that dino skeletons resemble birds?). Ever since then, scientists (like the late John Ostrom) have been desperately trying to make this clunker of a theory work despite evidence to the contrary popping up every couple of years or so. To quote David Menton from the "Answers In Genesis" website: "Having a true bird appear before alleged feathered dinosaurs (Archeopteryx), no mechanism to change scales into feathers, no mechanism to change a reptilian lung into an avian lung, and no legitimate dinosaurs found with feathers are all good indications that dinosaurs didn’t turn into birds." Also, Dinosaurs were cold blooded, while birds are warm blooded. Additionally, no one has sufficiently explained how reptile DNA could magically change into bird DNA.

03. Radiometric dating - This is the most important aspect of evolution bar none. Without imeasurable spans of time evolution falls flat. Also, everything must fit into a neat little clearly definable time span. Any deviation throws the whole system out of kilter (thus uniformatarianism). Truth is, deviations happen constantly. These deviations are explained away and the dating method remains. All uniform and clean and nice. And fictional. For radiometric dating numbers to work, conditions on ancient Earth MUST be exactly the same as today's conditions. If not, the numbers collapse into dust. Question is have living conditions on Earth stayed exactly the same for the last thousand years (or millions, or billions, or gazillions). Remember, radiometric dating has as its basis many major assumptions. That is NOT science, my friends.

04. The Astroid Strike dinosaur extinction theory - The actual name given to this lame-o theory is the "Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event". It was first espoused by Luis and Walter Alvarez (father and son team) in 1980. They came up with the idea, no doubt, in order to avoid any possible hint that a global flood may have occurred. So, over the years, scientists have constructed many theories as to why vast numbers of animals suddenly were wiped out. The Alvarezes dreamed up the astroid strike theory and as if seeing divine intervention, evolutionists clung onto it like a drowning man on driftwood. Never mind the fact that there is No EVIDENCE for a link between a meteor strike and the extinction of dinos. Get this. The Alvarezes dream up a meteor strike theory and the Darwinists accept it and boom, it's in ALL the "science" textbooks all over the world. There is REAMS of evidence of a worldwide flood and this is avoided at all cost in spite of the OVERWHELMING evidence for its occurance. Why? The meteor-strike theory has no link to God or the Bible. this is the ONLY reason that the flood theory is rejected.

05. Atheism - Over the years evolution has made it clear that there is NO ROOM in science for God. I think this is a huge mistake. Even the most bitter-hearted atheist could probably admit if he let himself that there is at least a slight chance that there may be a supreme being. If so, a certain amount of creationism COULD have taken place over the last gazillion years. This actually could have helped the cause of evolution. But as it is, they draw a clear distiction between science and God. As clear a destinction as reptiles and birds. If there is even the slightest whiff of the divine about a theory is is rejected without further consideration, in spite of any evidence to support the theory.

06. Scientific obligation - This is destructive. Scientists hold that any theory which might question the underlying theme of random generation of life with no possibility of there being any creation by God, as scientific heresy. The individual who espouses such theories is an outcast, a pariah. Too bad. I thought science was supposed to be an object search for the truth. Guess not.

07. Common ancestor theories - When evolution doesn't pass the smell test, fact-spinning scientists go into damage control mode, big-time. So in order to answer the questions like "If man descended from apes, why are there still apes", some clever scientist dreamed up the common ansestor theory. His name was Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis and he lived a long long time ago. He believed EVERYTHING came from the same primordial organism(s) a bazillion years ago. Old Charles Darwin, and his dad both proposed this idea back in the early 1800's. Nowadays this conceit is applied to every thing. Unfortunately DNA proves it to be hogwash, and besides that the fossil record is a bit dodgy when it comes to proof for all of this. No matter! It is pushed as fact in every science textbook on earth.

08. Fossils- Fossils are what scientists use to prop up every aspect of their so-called theory. Keep in mind that the fossil record does not show EVERY ANCIENT ANIMAL that ever roamed the earth. It only shows those that were buried and preserved in ground conditions sufficient to preserve their remains, and by happenstance, were found by humans digging through said ground. As it is, the so-called fossil record is so scant that one must credit evolutionary scientists with being some of the most brilliant fiction writers of all time. Move over Tolkien... evolutionary scientists IN THA HOUSE!!

09. Something from nothing - VITA EX NIHILO is latin for "life out of nothing". This is another strange corner that evolutionists are painted into. They cannot even begin to explain how we got here in the first place. They are unable to produce even a shred of logic to explain how something came from nothing. The so called "first cause". Even if they try to do it in a lab situation it is flawed because trying to create life in a lab to demonstrate how life was not created (and came from nothing) is contradictory on the surface. Who started all this? Where did it all come from? Who supplied the material to begin with? Need proof of God? Look around. The fact that anything IS, proves God.

10. Billions and billions of years of time - Evolution requires billions and billions of years to happen. There must be untolled eras of time in which slow gradual changes could form, rise, and evolve again. Problem is... has this planet been around for billions and billions of years? Have we? Most scientists now accept that the Earth is nearly 5 billion years old (4.6 billion). So is it possible? Given the evaporative qualities of water, and the chances of major meteor strikes, and other cosmic devastation over the course of that time, I would say this planet has not been around that long. Maybe a million years. But not 4.6 Billion. Anyway there is no real way we could know the age of the earth. Who is right? What determines it? What indisputable data do we use? Anything is a guess. You hear that? A GUESS!

11. Cladistics - Thanks Willi Hennig. He decided in the 1960's to write a theory that says if something looks similar well heck, it must have come from a common ancestor and should be grouped together. The evolution community bought in completely, and it became holy writ. Never mind about proof and DNA and things like that. Hey, in evolutionary thought, a theory IS proof.

12. Mutations - When DNA was identified in 1953, evolutionary theory was destined for the scrap heap. That is until the devoted adherants swung into action in order to justify evolution with this new concept of DNA which seemed on the surface to nuke the whole idea. So someone explained that the way one DNA kind turned magically into another kind was through "mutations", and the scientific community breathed a huge collective sigh of relief. Trouble is, mutations are genetic car wrecks. There has never been an observable instance of beneficial mutations, just like there has never been an instance where two cars wrecked into each other and created a new kind of high performance vehicle.

13. Avoidance of the Flood Theory - Instead of that stupid meteor strike theory (which doesn't make sense anyway), the global flood theory answers EVERY geologic anomaly known to science quite nicely thank you very much. YET, Darwinists will reject and avoid it at ALL COSTS. Even in SPITE of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The only reason for this, as mentioned before, is because of its connection with a supreme being. Someday, some smart scientist is going to figure out a way to divorce the theory of global deluge from its religious implications and it will be a great day for science, because right now they are making fools of themselves rejecting the one theory that explains all of physical changes of the past. As it is, they do semantic and logistic gymnastics in an effort to explain the past while simultaneously avoiding all references to a global flood. Which of course flies in the face of science, which should be objective. They START with the pre-requisite that any evidence relating to the flood will be rejected without further consideration despite evidence to the contrary.

14. Geologic column - This thing is the thing that Darwinists adhere to with faith and desperation. If there is anyone that questions the clean and tidy assumptions of the geologic column their assertions are explained away, rationalized and quite frequently the one or ones who did the original questioning are then marginalized, discredited, shunned, or worse.

15. Circular reasoning and assumptions - Darwinists are experts at circular reasoning. For instance, they say that a strata of rock is such-and-such billion years old because it contains such-and-such fossils. Then, they turn around and say the fossils are such-and-such billion years old because they appear in such-and-such layer of rock. That is circular reasoning. Darwinists are also passionate with respect to dogmatic assumptions. In fact ALL of evolution is based on assumptions. They assume the social behavior of ancient creatures based on bone fragments. They assume what things looked like based on partial bone fragments. They assume common descent with NO direct evidence. They assume the geologic time table is accurate even though there is no way to verify it. They assume life spontaneously appeared in spite of NO evidence for that ever happening. They assume that one specie can evolve by mutations into another specie even though this has never been seen or verified. They assume man and dinosaurs never co-existed, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They assume a meteor destroyed the dinosaurs in spite of no real evidence for that. They assume evolution is true simply because it fits their anti-God worldview.

Evolution is on the ropes. Its days are numbered because of too many assumptions.