black male calendars - White studs ganging up on horny black male

black male calendars
White studs ganging up on horny black male

Join now for instant download access at Gay Porn Interracial!

Suggestions

	Bikini Teenie teen bikini galleries
	Big muscled gay hunks in double penetration sex play gay hunks muscle
	Hear her screaming as he reams her ass ass reaming
	Lesbians get dildos inside their asses lipstick lesbians
	Puma Swede does two girls bisexual girls
	White studs ganging up on horny black male black male calendars
	This black dude loves fucking a mature slut black mature women
	A tiny titted blonde has her ass fucked here blonde tit fuck
	Lucy Fire Sucks And Fucks A Black Cock black thugz
	extra large booty stuffed with black dick black booty
	Horny ebony milf enjoy some spooning ebony model
	White chick likes sucking giant black meat poles black girls sucking
	Ebony hottie gets a thick black dong up her pussy thick black pussy
	Frisky babe dressing her guy into black pantyhose aching to suck on cock black sluts

Related Video Collections

All Comments

What is the male dance (i think ballet?) group that jump and make awesome formations in the air?
Ive seen them in calendars...all the pictures are in black and white

I guess it's not the Trocks? They are more classical.

Ladies give me your honest opinion about my Dating profile?
Ok first off. This is probably a dumb idea to begin with. Second I'm bored so, whatever.....

Ladies I would love to hear what ya'll think about my dating profile. Well.....I might not "love" some of the responses, but I do appreciate honest opinions, unless they're dumb. Ok here goes.

Hey my name's Joe. I'm 31 originally from Kenner, Louisiana, just outside of New Orleans. I moved to Texas because of Katrina, it left me and my immediate family homeless. So the company I worked for at the time relocated us to Arlington. I resigned and have been working as an auditor for a hotel now for the past 4 years. I have an associates in computer networking from ITT, not using the degree, plan to one day....maybe...I'm man who believes in taking care of family first. So when we moved out here. I decided to help my parents until my teenage brother graduated high school and could take care of himself. So yes I do live at home, and I do take care of most of our bills. I don't make a lot of money, but I do believe in spending it on good friends when I can afford to.

Now here's a bit about me. I'm more of an introvert. I pretty sensitive and a little self conscious sometimes. I come alive when I'm with people who I feel comfortable with. Not much of a club guy or a social butterfly. I don't dance. No religious, but not an atheist either. I'm pretty honest and would love to find a girl who can be as honest with me as I am with her. Sometimes I can be pretty dense when it comes to relationships and dating. I need communication, I'm a good listener and don't mind constructive criticism.

Physically I'm 6'2 185 pounds. Slim, although I'm working on getting into better shape. Not bad looking at all, but never thought myself a calendar model either. I'm blessed in that certain area, but just a bit bigger than most. Not Gigantic. I would like to find a girl whose more weight height proportionate. Nothing against bigger ladies. But I would like to find a lady who's active and carries her weight very well. Not looking for barbies, but I think you get my point.
I'm not into what most men of my culture are into. I like rock/metal music, MMA, ANIME (BIG TIME), sci and horror, all kinds of movies, comedy, video games, and computers.

Now here's the biggest thing. I am a SWINGER. I've been into the lifestyle for about 8 years now. I am a part of a Black Male Swinger's group called Magnumbbcs. We have our own site, magnumbbcs com. I believe in open relationships. I would love to find a girl who's bi, but that's not really a big deal. Mainly that she's open to sharing. Now if I were to meet someone who wanted a monogamous relationship, I will be honest. The sex would have to be AMAZING and OFTEN. Plus my group and I are very close, so I would still want to attend parties and events, even if I don't play with anyone. I believe in seeing the person I'm with happy, whether or not I'm the one making her happy, at the time, isn't an issue for me. I'm a very sexual person, I like watching porn, made a few private pornos for couples. I have a lot of pics. So sex is a pretty big part of my life.

One day I plan to get a good paying job, move out, and start building a life, hopefully with that special girl. I really miss the feeling of waking up with someone in my arms.......

I would love to go out to dinner and/or drinks. Maybe shoot some pool. Perhaps even take in a movie. My ideal date is one where we can't stop talking, we can't stop laughing, and we just can't really take our eyes off each other. At the end of the night maybe she hugs me, maybe she kisses me, maybe she invites me back to her place...But the main thing would be that we would want to see each other again and that we will remember that night with a smile.

you failed to mention ur bdsm situation....go have some watermelonandfriedchicken.

.I'm looking for a bdsm collar that says "**** me" or "daddy" that also has a leash ring.?
Basically I'm looking for my girlfriend. She wants a collar but one that says something sexy and has a ring for a leash.

White male month?
We have black history month and international day for women, accolades handed out liberally for accomplishments made by guyren---there is of course a day or week or month set out on the calendar for youth.

But my question is:

Is there a special commemorative, or otherwise 'recognition' day for white men? I ask this not facetiously; this is a big planet and there is something for everyone it seems. There's still a flat Earth society after all. So where in the year is the time set aside to honour white men and their paltry few accomplishments?

YES! Fathers day, because white men actually stick around to see their guyren grow up! Unlike "others" who dont know or deny their guyren!

What do of think of this first chapter?
Chapter one:

Brian

_

****. ****. ****. ****.

Where the hell is it? I know I put it here somewhere.

Penthouse magazines, old and new calendars with a naked porn star—both male and female –for every month of the year, a tiny purple dildo accompanied with lube still in its package, and a life sized doll with an open mouth rounded around a silent scream, were thrown across the room out of my closet as I searched and stressed, searched and stressed, hell bent on finding that one thing that I just needed to find before—

There was a knock at the door and my heart suddenly stopped. My mind was a red haze and I couldn't move. The knock sounded again, louder now, with more force, and I struggled to gather my emotions.

"Brian," My mother called through the door. "Could you come out here for a moment? I need to talk to you about something".

I tried for a response but my mouth wouldn't cooperate, so I hurriedly started to throw all the things that I had thrown out in my search back into the closet, then slamming it shut when I was finished, securing on it the lock that I had purchased last week at a corner store to keep others from peeking in.

"Brian?" My mother said again. I could hear the frown in her voice. "Is everything alright in there?"

"I'm fine," I stalled. "Just give me a minute".

"Okay, but if you're not out here in two minutes, I'm going to suspect something is wrong".

"Fine, fine," I lied. "Everything's perfectly fine".

Of course, things were not 'perfectly fine'. I still had a lot of things that I needed to hide before I opened the door. My mother would've freaked if she saw all the crap I had out at that moment.

She would've more than freaked. She would've started bitching, and God knows I didn't need to hear that ****. Worse than that, she would've probably—most likely—told my father.

And we sure as hell don't need him in on this.

"Brian?" My mother started knocking again, concern and suspicion clear in her voice now. "If you're not out here in the next thirty seconds, I'm calling your father to take the door down".

****.

"Coming!" I yelled, looked around on the floor, my bed, everywhere else to see if I had gotten everything that she didn't need to see out of view, out of sight.

"Okay," My mother said, venom dripping from her tone. "It's been thirty seconds. I'm getting your father".

I opened the door minutes before she could scream "Carl!" waking my father up and enraging him. This was something she always did when I wouldn't cooperate with whatever she wanted me to do. And, let me tell you, it never ended on a good note.

I guess you could say my father was strict. Strict wouldn't even be the right word. More like 'asshole'ish' even though everyone knows it's not in the English dictionary so it couldn't be specified as an actual word.

"'Morning," I said, flashing my best, false, reassuring smile that everything was fine, just fine, don't worry. "You needed something?"

For a moment, my mother just stood there, her mouth open half a centimeter, staring at me, as if I was a ghost she had just discovered and was too paralyzed to speak. Then, after a minute or two, she came to, blinking.

"Well…" She stared at me some more. "Yes…I did need something".

I raised an eyebrow, urging her on.

"I just wanted to know," she reached down and took off both of her heels. "Do you think these shoes go with what I'm wearing?"

I breathed an inward sigh of relief. I thought she was going to talk to me about something else.

"Um". I looked over her: she was wearing a black, elegant dress and sparkling, ruby earrings that were dangling all the way to just above her shoulder. On her lips, blood red lipstick gleamed in the light of the hallway.

My mother's eyes widened until I could see white around green. "What?" she gasped, whirling around so all I could see was her back, checking her reflection in the mirror that was hanging on the door of the bathroom outside of my room. "Too much?"

"No," I laughed. "No. you look great".

From her reflection in the mirror, she glared at me, her nose scrunching a little in that cute way that I always liked.

"What?" I laughed again. God, she had no idea how beautiful she was. "Honestly. You look great, really!"

After touching up her make-up she turned back around to face me. "Alright," she sighed. "But what about the shoes?"

"The shoes," I said. "Look fine".

"With this dress?" She gave me a look.

"Exactly".

Her face brightened, all sig

I like your writing and the story intrigues me. (I think that is spelled wrong but oh well) The only thing is... the cussing. I think a lot of people would say it's a bit much... :)

Do you think White people vote based on color?
Or are they just naturally smarter than Black people and always vote soundly on the issues? I've seen comments where Blacks are stupid and ignorant for voting for Obama because there's a perception is based on color. I'm assuming whites have never done that before. Funny thing though. I have a Presidential calendar hanging on my wall and I see 43 white male faces. Wouldn't the founding fathers be so proud! =] God Bless America.

I had a black woman once tell my church that whites are inherently racist - something that at the time, I took offense to because my parents raised me to base my opinions on actions, not how people looked. I see now, however, that what she was saying is that we have the luxury of saying we're not racist because everywhere we look - on tv, in mainstream magazines, and yes, in the Oval Office - we see white people. White is the "norm", everything else is the variable.

I live in a community who voted for Obama in the primary - and yet many of them are scared of their black neighbors.

I wouldn't assume that all white people vote on color, though it could be a factor. We don't all think alike! When it comes to the November election, I think it will be a factor for the people who are already racist, but not for those who hear Obama's message and believe in that. It won't be a factor for those who try to fight racism - both in themselves and in the larger society.

Go Obama!

Is carbon-14 dating accurate? (read the whole article or dont answer)?
Answers in Genesis: Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse

Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse

United Kingdom
United States

Other Countries ...
Country: United States Language: English
Good news About us Contact us Home Get Answers Store Magazine Events Creation Museum Media Creation Education Support Jobs
Get Answers Article archives Creation archives TJ archives E-newsletters Feedback Devotionals Creation scientists Bookstore Monthly specials Books Multimedia Magazine Translations Answers magazine Current issue Article archive Kids Answers Subscribe Renew Event calendar Request an event Video conference coordinators Speaker biographies Creation Museum Museum blog & photos Walk-through News archive Photo archive Video archive Museum support Media Search media Answers Radio Radio archive Mini-Dramas Radio stations Video on-demand Press kit Creation education Study guides Curricula Online books PowerPoint Book reviews Writing projects Support Monthly partners Pray for the ministry Items & services needed Volunteer Planned Giving Jobs Jobs at Answers in Genesis Other creationist jobs Email to a friend Print-Friendly Answers Magazine

Subscribe Now!
Answers, the new Bible-affirming magazine from Answers in Genesis, is now shipping! Answers features articles on a variety of topics that impact Christians today, and includes a detachable chart, a pullout guyren’s magazine, excellent layman and semi-technical articles and bonus content from the AnswersMagazine.com website. Our writers, scientists and publishing team believe you’ll be thrilled with Answers. So why wait? Subscribe today!
What about carbon dating?
by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland

First published in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book
Chapter 4

How does the carbon ‘clock’ work? Is it reliable? What does carbon dating really show? What about other radiometric dating methods? Is there evidence that the earth is young?

--------…
Related articles:
Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers
RATE research reveals remarkable results—a fatal blow to billions of years
RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!
Rating radiodating
Radiometric dating breakthroughs
The parable of the candle
Recommended Resources:
Thousands … Not Billions
Thousands … Not Billions (DVD)
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth— Volume 1 & Volume 2 & DVD
The Revised and Expanded Answers Book
Refuting Evolution

People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric1 dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.

Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world.

Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said, ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6). This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.

We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.

How the carbon clock works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.

Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4

Other factors affecting carbon dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

Other radiometric dating methods
There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

Decay rates have always been constant.

Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

There are patterns in the isotope data
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older ‘ages.’ Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,8 points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.

‘Bad’ dates
When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain ‘bad’ dates.9

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’ from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the ‘age’ is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

We should remember God’s admonition to Job, ‘Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?’ (Job 38:4).

Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years.12 John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.13 He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few ‘good’ dates left after the ‘bad’ dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.

What date would you like?
The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a ‘good’ date.

Testing radiometric dating methods
If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.

Methods should work reliably on things of known age
There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.14

Again, using hindsight, it is argued that ‘excess’ argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age.15 This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.16 If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?

Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons,17 make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such ‘foolproof’ techniques can also give ‘bad’ dates. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock.

Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.

Different dating techniques should consistently agree
If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.

In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.18 Again, all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the ‘bad’ dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don’t agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.

In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!19

Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 Ma, plus or minus 140 Ma.20 This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios,21 and ages of 275, 61, 0,0, and 0 Ma for thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system.22 The ‘zero’ ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.

More evidence something is wrong—14C in fossils supposedly millions of years old
Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little 14C to measure, but dating labs consistently find 14C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old.23,24 For example, no source of coal has been found that lacks 14C, yet this fossil fuel supposedly ranges up to hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils in rocks dated at 1–500 Ma by long-age radioisotope dating methods gave an average radiocarbon ‘age’ of about 50,000 years, much less than the limits of modern carbon dating24 (see pp. 65–69 in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book for why even these radiocarbon ages are inflated). Furthermore, there was no pattern of younger to older in the carbon dates that correlated with the evolutionary/uniformitarian ‘ages’.24

This evidence is consistent with the fossil-bearing rock layers being formed in the year-long global catastrophe of the biblical Flood, as flood geologists since Nicholas Steno (1631–1687) have recognized.

Even Precambrian (‘older than 545 Ma’) graphite, which is not of organic origin, contains 14C above background levels.25 This is consistent with Earth itself being only thousands of years old, as a straightforward reading of the Bible would suggest.

Many physical evidence contradict the ‘billions of years’
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.

Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of ‘rock’ bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris26 and Austin.27

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.28

The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the Flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.29, 30

Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.30

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for ‘young’ galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.31

The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks.32

Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.33

Dr Russell Humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the pamphlet Evidence for a Young World.34

Creationists cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admitted: ‘Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’ 35

Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.

Creationists ultimately date the earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God, and therefore totally reliable and error-free.

Then what do the radiometric ‘dates’ mean?
What do the radiometric dates of millions of years mean, if they are not true ages? To answer this question, it is necessary to scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations.

The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.

Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling worked on dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid ‘isochron’ lines with ‘ages’ of up to 1,445 Ma.

Such ‘false isochrons’ are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line and mixing isochron. Zheng wrote:

Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr [rubidium-strontium] isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd [samarium-neodymium] and U-Pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods.37

Clearly, there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios. Again, the only way to know if an isochron is ‘good’ is by comparing the result with what is already believed.

Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according to the two lead series and are called ‘concordant.’ However, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for example, generally lie off the concordia curve—they are discordant. Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such data.38 However, such exercises in story-telling can hardly be considered as objective science that proves an old earth. Again, the stories are evaluated according to their own success in agreeing with the existing long ages belief system.

Andrew Snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten state in the earth’s mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations which are interpreted as ages.

As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay.39 Cook noted that, in ores from the Katanga mine, for example, there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable isotope, but no Thorium-232 as a source for lead-208. Thorium has a long half-life (decays very slowly) and is not easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. The concentrations of lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 suggest that the lead-208 came about by neutron capture conversion of lead-206 to lead-207 to lead-208. When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen.

Anomalies in deep rock crystals
Physicist Dr Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium and lead in zircons from deep bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 Ma for the granite rocks in which they are found.40 The amount of lead may be consistent with current rates of decay over millions of years, but it would have diffused out of the crystals in that time.

Furthermore, the amount of helium in zircons from hot rock is also much more consistent with a young earth (helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements).

The lead and helium results suggest that rates of radioactive decay may have been much higher in the recent past. Humphreys has suggested that this may have occurred during creation week and the flood. This would make things look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating. Whatever caused such elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope conversions claimed by Cook (above).

Orphan radiohalos
Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206.41 Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.42

Some of the intermediate decay products—such as the polonium isotopes—have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, 218Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings formed by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past.

Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work.43 There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.44

Conclusion
There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world.

Recommended resources

Thousands … Not Billions (DVD)
Christians no longer have to puzzle over the seemingly glaring contradiction between dating methods and the Bible's account of earth history.
Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth (DVD)
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth—Volume 1 (Hardcover)
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth—Volume 2 (Hardcover)
Results of a young-earth creationist research initiative

Does Carbon Dating Disprove the Bible? (Booklet)
The Young Earth (Softcover)
Explains in easy-to-understand terms how true science supports a young age for the Earth.
Evidence For a Young World (Booklet)
Contains a dozen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the earth is billions of years old.
The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (Softcover)

References and notes
Also known as isotope or radioisotope dating.
Today, a stable carbon isotope, 13C , is measured as an indication of the level of discrimination against 14C.
Radiation from atomic testing, like cosmic rays, causes the conversion of 14N to 14C.
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long dead trees) using carbon-14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards. Then cross-matching of ring patterns is used to calibrate the carbon ‘clock’—a somewhat circular process which does not give an independent calibration of the carbon dating system.
K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, ‘An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report IER 46-IES, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., p. 14, 1965.
B.J. Taylor, ‘Carbon Dioxide in the Antediluvian Atmosphere,’ Creation Research Society Quarterly, 30(4):193-197, 1994.
R.H. Brown, ‘Correlation of C-14 Age with Real Time,’ Creation Research Society Quarterly, 29:45-47, 1992. Musk ox muscle was dated at 24,000 years, but hair was dated at 17,000 years. Corrected dates bring the difference in age approximately within the life span of an ox. With sloth cave dung, standard carbon dates of the lower layers suggested less than 2 pellets per year were produced by the sloths. Correcting the dates increased the number to a more realistic 1.4 per day.
J. Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA, 1999.
Ibid.
G. WoldeGabriel et al., ‘Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,’ Nature, 371:330-333, 1994.
M. Lubenow, The Pigs Took It All, Creation 17(3):36-38, 1995.
M. Lubenow, Bones of Contention, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, pp. 247-266, 1993.
A.R. Williams, Long-age Isotope Dating Short on Credibility, CEN Technical Journal, 6(1):2-5, 1992.
Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods.
A.A. Snelling, The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Nguaruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-argon ‘Dating,’ Proc. 4th ICC, pp.503-525, 1998.
Note 14 lists many instances. For example, six cases were reported by D. Krummenacher, Isotopic Composition of Argon in Modern Surface Rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47-55, 1969. A large excess was reported in D.E. Fisher, Excess Rare Gases in a Subaerial Basalt in Nigeria, Nature, 232:60-61, 1970.
See note 14, p. 520.
The isochron technique involves collecting a number of rock samples from different parts of the rock unit being dated. The concentration of a parent radioactive isotope, such as rubidium-87, is graphed against the concentration of a daughter isotope, such as strontium-87, for all the samples. A straight line is drawn through these points, representing the ratio of the parent:daughter, from which a date is calculated. If the line is of good fit and the ‘age’ is acceptable, it is a ‘good’ date. The method involves dividing both the parent and daughter concentrations by the concentration of a similar stable isotope—in this case, strontium-86.
S.A. Austin, editor, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, pp. 120-131, 1994.
A.A. Snelling, Radiometric Dating in Conflict, Creation, 20(1):24-27, 1998.
A.A. Snelling, The Failure of U-Th-Pb ‘Dating’ at Koongarra, Australia, CEN Technical Journal, 9(1):71-92, 1995.
R. Maas, Nd-Sr Isotope Constraints on the Age and Origin of Unconformity-type Uranium Deposits in the Alligator Rivers Uranium Field, Northern Territory, Australia, Economic Geology, 84:64-90, 1989.
See note 20.
Giem, P., Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon, Origins 51:6–30, 2001.
Baumgardner, J.R., Snelling, A.S., Humphreys, D.R., and Austin, S.A., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, Proc. 5th ICC, pp. 127–142, 2003.
Ibid.
J. Morris, The Young Earth, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1994.
Austin, Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe.
C. Wieland, Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report, Creation, 19(4):42-43, 1997, based on M. Schweitzer and T. Staedter, The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp. 55-57, June 1997.
D.R. Humphreys, Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field During the Genesis Flood, Proc. First ICC, Pittsburgh, PA, 2:113-126, 1986.
J.D. Sarfati, The Earth's Magnetic Field: Evidence That the Earth Is Young, Creation, 20(2):15-19, 1998.
L. Vardiman, The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere: A Study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA, 1990.
J.D. Sarfati, Blowing Old-earth Belief Away: Helium Gives Evidence That the Earth is Young, Creation, 20(3):19-21, 1998.
K. Davies, Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, Proc. Third ICC, R.E. Walsh, editor, pp. 175-184, 1994.
D. DeYoung, The Earth-Moon System, Proc. Second ICC, R.E. Walsh and C.L. Brooks, editors, 2:79-84, 1990. J.D. Sarfati, The Moon: The Light That Rules the Night, Creation, 20(4):36-39, 1998.
S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys, The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists, Proc. Second ICC, 2:17-33, 1990.
J.D. Sarfati, Salty Seas: Evidence for a Young Earth, Creation, 21(1):16-17, 1999.
Russell Humphreys, Evidence for a Young World, Answers in Genesis, 1999.
A review of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Science USA, 1998, by Dr Will B. Provine, online at fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/NAS_guidebo… February 18, 1999.
See Woodmorappe, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, for one such thorough evaluation.
Y.F. Zheng, Influence of the Nature of Initial Rb-Sr System on Isochron Validity, Chemical Geology, 80:1-16, p. 14, 1989.
E. Jager and J.C. Hunziker, editors, Lectures in Isotope Geology, U-Th-Pb Dating of Minerals, by D. Gebauer and M. Grunenfelder, Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 105-131, 1979.
M.A. Cook, Prehistory and Earth Models, Max Parrish, London, 1966.
R.V. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, TN, 1986.
Only those that undergo alpha decay (releasing a helium nucleus).
Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery.
K.P. Wise, letter to the editor and replies by M. Armitage and R.V. Gentry, CEN Technical Journal, 12(3):285-90, 1998.
An international team of creationist scientists is actively pursuing a creationist understanding of radioisotope dating. Known as the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) group, it combines the skills of various physicists and geologists to enable a multi-disciplinary approach to the subject. Interesting insights are likely to come from such a group.
This chapter from the book The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, published and graciously provided at no charge to Answers in Genesis by Master Books, a division of New Leaf Press (Green Forest, Arkansas).

By downloading this material, you agree to the following terms with respect to the use of the requested material: AIG grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to print or download one (1) copy of the copyrighted work. The copyrighted work will be used for non-commercial, personal purposes only. You may not prepare, manufacture, copy, use, promote, distribute, or sell a derivative work of the copyrighted work without the express approval of AIG. Approval must be expressed and in writing, and failure to respond shall not be deemed approval. All rights in the copyrighted work not specifically granted to you are reserved by AIG. All such reserved rights may be exercised by AIG. This Agreement, and all interpretations thereof, shall be deemed to be in accordance with Kentucky law. Any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall be resolved in accordance with Kentucky law in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Kentucky, which court shall be deemed to be the court of proper jurisdiction and venue.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Find out how to support AiG.
Good News | About us | Contact us | Privacy policy

Home | Get Answers | Store | Events | Creation Education | Media | Radio | Creation Museum | Support

Chinese | Danish | Dutch | French | German | Greek | Hungarian | Italian | Japanese | Korean | Russian | Spanish

Copyright © 2006 Answers in Genesis

Yes it is really accurate. However, who cares??????

This is absurd because Carbon-14 dating is not used to prove ANY of the claims your article says C-14 dating is used for. It is not used to date the Earth's origin, as it can only be used for the past 60,000 years. It is not used by evolutionists to prove evolution. It is not used for any of this. Your article actually says that C14 dating can be used to date things that are millions of years old- yet no scientific claims have ever been made dating anything with C-14 for more than 60,000 years. This is a bald-faced lie. It simply can't be done. Your article is complete bull and any true Christian would be ashamed of spreading such untruth.

You are doing nothing more than tilting at windmills. No one with any scientific knowledge will pay you any attention, because your own article states that it has no proof of Creationism, when it says "those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions. "

Mostly those that point to a young earth rely on ignorance (which includes ignorance of the Bible).

The religion that is afraid of science dishoners God and commits suicide.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Please tell me how my story is?
LINGERING
When I wake up, my eyes are covered by a thick black veil. It takes me about a minute to realize that my eyes are closed. Slowly, I open them. Well I try at least. I wonder if someone’s stuck two lead blocks to my eye lids. Opening them is hell. When at last I succeed, I look around, take in my surroundings. Monotonous white walls. Grey equipment and brown accommodation.
Looking around I try to make myself remember about what happened. Nothing.
But then, a hint of the past flashes before my eyes.
Information comes like snowfall. At first, a few flurry pieces of information, then a whole rush, piling up in my head, white, cold, meaningless.
Friday the 13th.
Prom.
Stop at the gas station.
A knock on the window.
Josh.
Sharp blade.
Red. Black.
That’s all.
Memory has a reputation for betraying you when you most need her. I try to sit up but I can’t seem to move. I feel numb all around. No feeling anywhere in my body. I start to panic. I hate the feeling of not being in control, not knowing what to do. I don’t know what’s wrong with me. It can’t be paralysis. He didn’t hit me that hard. Or maybe he did. I can’t seem to think straight.
I look down at my hands, all bone and paper thin skin. Paper white for that matter too. Veins run up and down my forearms, jutting out like fault lines. Blue like my eyes. Cold like the sea. Wires and rods are coming out of my arms. They’re attached to all sorts of machines. IV drips. Pink fluids. Blood.
A clock on the wall tells me its 3 pm. But there’s no window I can look to for confirmation. The only thing emitting light and heat is the small table lamp, perched on a stack of thick books on the floor, plunging the room into a nostalgic orange.
The room doesn’t look familiar. There is nothing displayed on the walls. I try to remember what my room looks like. No image comes to my head. Do I have siblings? If so, then where are they now? Why aren’t they with me, in my time of need? Parents? Friends? There is nothing displayed on the walls to suggest who I belong to. No emotions, either joyous or dejected.
I scan my eyes around me, and see a mirror, facing towards my bed. How could I have missed that? I look and see someone. A stranger. It definitely isn’t me. It can’t be. Or could it be me? But, what happened to the flowing honey locks, the blue eyes, the athlete’s body? I know. They have been replaced with mouse brown bristle, mud water eyes and bones and skin. Not a muscle in sight. How old am I exactly? 30? 40? Just as I am thinking this, I see a calendar, which says that the month is September of 2004.
2004?
That’s not possible. How can it be? The attack took place a few months ago, if not weeks. I can’t be more than 19. It has to be 1976, or 1977! If it’s not, and its 2004 as the calendar says, then this means that I’ve spent the last 10 years of my life in a coma. A feeling of disorientation washes over me. Who knows what could have happened in 10 years! My parents could have died; my siblings (if I had any) could have gotten married and would be leading normal lives. Looking around the room, there’s nothing to indicate previous human presence. There are no jumpers, no coffee cups, no books or leaflets lying around, no water bottles. Thinking about it, the room is actually quite neat, except for the machines, which are a big scar to the room.
I’m feeling distasteful about all of this, so I decide to go to sleep. Just before my eyelids slam shut, I have second thoughts: if I got to sleep, I may never wake up. This is enough to keep me awake for the next five hours, during which, not a soul visits. There is no sound coming from outside. Maybe I’m the only one in this place. My head feels heavy and my eyes dry, before I know it, I’m asleep.

A voice wakes me up. A male voice. A bizarrely familiar voice. A chill runs down my spine. The door clicks shut, and I hear the key turning in the lock. I know who it is. It’s the person I least want to be with. It’s the last person who saw me walking and talking. He’s the one who caused pain to the woman who ever loved him. After all these years in a coma, I thought I’d forget that voice. No. Not the case at all.
I try and stay still, pretending I’m still in a slumber. Inconveniently, I feel the urge to cough. I suppress it by clenching my teeth. For the longest time, he hasn’t moved. I risk an open eye, and see him looking directly at me. For about 2 seconds, I don’t close my eyes, looking into those cold grey eyes. He has aged a lot. Maybe it was the guilt of what he did that made him age faster. Even though my eyes are shut now, I can still feel his gaze on me. I don’t know why he’s here. Why would he want to come and visit me? Surely he isn’t SORRY for what he did.

I know its not finished, but please tell me how it is!
Thanks (:

Its good but try and start more sudnlly e.g 11:59, we never thought we would be in this situation, running as quiklly as our legs could possibly take us, fitting for our lives, in the dark dark ever lasting tunnel.
I look in every direction for someone “HELP” I scream as we panic even more. “HELP”!
I feel my heat skip a beat as I nervously look back and see him catching up, my heat beat gets faster and faster, faster than a rocket, I quickly turn back again this time his much closer.

How to being jealous and inssecure?
I have this friend who is a showstopper. She has everything I want. She's pretty, gets all the attention from the black dudes, she's free-spirited, she can dance, she's a nice body. She has the look to be a calendar girl or video vixen. She's the type of girl to score with a pro-baller. I know life's not fair but I really want to be an actress, I want to be a video girl, I want to be in playboy. I feel pretty but I have never really had enough male attention to make me feel pretty. The truth is point blank I long for male attention badly.

Change your body apprearance. Reveal more clothes. Guys will be guys ! HAVE cleavage,, have a skirt on,, have your hair down, wear makeup ,IM SCREAMING BE EVERYTHING YOUR NOT.. no !!!

I am saying the complete opposite, dont change you for any guy., Be yourself and be who you want to look like and be like. A guy will notice you for the amazing person you are and not your backside.

Question for Islamics?
What is wrong with my history of your religion
Islam is the religion devised and initiated by Mohammed bin Abdullah, from the tribe of Quraysh, which controlled Mecca, Arabia, in the 7th century. Mecca was at the time the dominant religious center for all the pagan religions in Arabia. Mohammed's lineage, and that of many inhabitants of Arabia, was from Abraham's maid Hagar; she bore Ishmael, of whom the Angel prophesied in Gen. 16:12 that he will be a "wild man, his hand will be against every man and every man's hand will be against him". There is some evidence that Muhammad's lineage was also Jewish, on his mother's side.

Mohammed , who could not read or write, claims to have received the Qur'an verbatim in his ear from the angel Gabriel. Yet there have never been any witnesses to this 'revelation'. In addition Mohammed has never performed any miracle or sign in the presence of witnesses. The Muslims make the very tenuous claim that Mohammed is a prophet because of a large skin mole or tumor on his shoulder and because the Arabic style in which the Qur'an is written supposedly cannot be imitated, although many Arab scholars have done that with ease, such as the great 20th century Egyptian poet Taha Husain. The religion of Islam is predominantly a distortion of the Old Testament Mosaic religion and the (Pharisaic) Talmudic religion, to which was also added a dose of the pre-Islamic Arabian pagan customs, and a light sprinkling of heretical teachings about Christ.

Islam took from Judaism many aspects; the most central part of these similarities is the rejection of Jesus Christ as being Son of God. Also taken from Judaism are circumcision (males at 7 years of age), dietary restrictions (such as abstaining from pork and 'kosher' methods for slaughter of animals), animal sacrifice, ablutions before prayers, the dominance of religious laws (called Shari'a and Hadith) in social and political life, pilgrimage to a central geographic location (Mecca), a sabbath-type rest (on Friday), the emphasis on external legalism for imputing righteousness, Talmudic mythology, and other traits.

Islam also took customs from the pagan pre-Islamic religions of Arabia, in that Mecca is still retained as the religious center, and the Kaaba is still the place for pilgrimage. It previously housed 360 idols, but Mohammed destroyed them all and retained only one - the moon god, which alone he called Allah (which literally means 'the god'. The word "Allah", of course, is also used by Arab Christians for referring to the true God.) Therefore, the symbol of Islam, as can be seen on their flags and mosques, is the crescent moon. Pilgrimage to Mecca for worship at the Kaaba, circumambulating the Kaaba 7 times, kissing the black stone, running to the Wadi Mina to throw stones at the devil, fasting a certain month according to the lunar calendar, the tribal life of fighting and violence, multiple wives, etc. are the customs of the society into which Mohammed was born. These pagan customs he retained in Islam. The Kaaba is a cubic stone edifice with a black stone in its center. The Muslims venerate this black stone because they say that Abraham supposedly impregnated his slave-maid Hagar on it, thereby begetting Ishmael. Another Muslim tradition says he also tied his donkey to this rock when he went to sacrifice Isaac. They also claim that Abraham built an altar around it, even though there is no biblical evidence whatsoever that Abraham has ever set foot in Mecca.

The main precepts of Islam are in the Qur'an, which is well-known among Muslims, but equally authoritative is the multi-volume collection of Hadiths, which are not as well known to the common Muslim. Both the Qur'an and the collection of the Hadiths are considered divinely inspired. Indeed, if the Hadiths were all known, the pagan character of the religion would be more manifest.

From its very beginning, Islam, which means 'submission', has been a militant religion. Jihad, which means 'struggle', has always been part of Islam, and advocates fighting and killing for the growth and spread of their religion. According to the Hadiths, Mohammed wanted his religion to be spread primarily by the sword. The volumes of the Hadiths are filled with commands to make war on non-Muslims in order to force them to embrace Islam. In Hadith # 25, vol. 1, Mohammed is quoted as saying that, next to believing in Allah, the best deed is to participate in jihad in Allah's cause. In the same volume, the Hadiths speak of those who covert to Islam "by compulsion or by fear of being killed", and in Hadith # 24 of the same volume, Mohammed says: "I have been ordered to fight against peoples until they convert to Islam or submit to it... So if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property." The word "Islam" ("submission") is very appropriate for this religion because its goal is that all must 'submit' to it, either willingly or by force.

Mohammed made his religion desirable for the carnal-minded man, and women were degraded to a lower class as being "deficient in intelligence and religion" (Hadiths, vol. 2, # 541 & vol. 3, # 826), and, therefore, not entitled to equal rights under Islamic law. Mohammed himself had 16 wives and 6 slave concubines. His favorite wife was Aishah, whom he married when she was 6 years old, and he consummated the marriage with her when she was 9. Mohammed was notorious for his virility and libidinousness. Consequently, the Islamic conception of Heaven, formulated by Mohammed to recruit followers, involves carnal indulgence with females of the human variety and females of the half-human and half-angelic variety (Houris), a fact well known to Muslims.

By the admission of many Jewish scholars (such Israel Shahak), Judaism has benefited from the spread of Islam since its rise in the 7th century. Islam's conquest of Christian lands from Anatolia and Mesopotamia to North Africa and Spain has given a tremendous boost to the Jews, who became firmly established in the courts of most Islamic rulers. A very famous example is Maimonides who was the personal physician of the Egyptian Grand Vizier Alfadhil and the Sultan Saladin of Egypt. In Egypt he also composed most of his oeuvre, including the Mishna Torah. The conflict between the two religions has only recently arisen due to the Zionist movement of the early 20th century and its conquest of Palestine, and has intensified since the establishment of the state of Israel.

From the earliest biographers of Mohammed, it is apparent that he had no premonition of his own death. He made no arrangements for a successor and therefore did not set up any kind of governmental bureaucracy in the event of his death. He did not gather or put together the various 'revelations' into what is now known as the Qur'an. His death was sudden, and because of this, Islam soon broke into warring sects. The largest is Shi'ism, which is centered in Iran and Iraq, and which arose in the first generation after the death of Mohammed in a struggle for the succession of his cousin Ali bin Abitaleb. Other splinter Shi'a sects are the Alawi (or Nuseyri), Ithna Asharia, Ismailiyah, and Zaidiyah. There are also Kharijite sects which are derived from the main body of Sunni (i.e. traditional) Islam; these are the Sufri, Azraqi, and Ibadi. There are also movements within Sunnism such as Sufism, Wahhabism, Salafism, and Liberals. There is a messianic sect called Zikri. Other sects are Nation of Islam, Ahmadiyyah, Five percenters, and the Submitters. Related religions derived from Islam are Babism, Baha'ism, Yazidi, Sikhism, and the Druze.

Mohammed took a minor pagan cult of the moon god and turned it into the second largest religion in the world, estimated at more than a billion souls.

WOW! I'm impressed. Everything you said matches up with what I have to see on the nightly news. I learned something here and I learn from Glen Beck too. Thanks for the insight.

I have a bit of a problem...!?
hi, right it may sound a tad muddled as i have no idea of how to get whats on my mind into words!

around 2 years ago i found myself on top of bridge talking to shadows about going with them to a better place and jumping off the bridge to be with them.. it was only when a man managed to pull me off the bridge that i wouldn't have gone..i then explained this to a lady who worked around these kind of issues and i was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder.. i was being treated for it with one on one advice n help.. since then things have started to change..

i started seeing blacked out shadows but then it changed to the shadow of what i didn't no at the time was known as ' the grim reaper' i have never saw its front or face.. i still see this occasionally.. then,i found my self hearing noises of a male voice laughing at me calling my name.. to get rid of it id scratch myself to drain it out..one day i woke up to see a shadow of a lady on my hollyoaks men calendar it didnt freak me out like all the other shadows i see though..on that night i woke up n was speaking to her n she was sitting next to me asking why i couldn't sleep n stuff.. i dont no her from anywhere .. now i keep having hurendous mood swings, from hyper n happy to hardly speakin n moody n i cant bring myself back up! i also findmyselff constantly thinking of death even if im on a happy dy n enjoying myself i always think of if i was dead or the possibilities of 'jumping in the road' 'overdosing' my funeral' i hate the fact i think of this stuff but i cant stop! i dont mean to think it its just there everyday.. none of the docotrs or phycologists understand me and they are putting it down to anxiety.. i personally disagree but i cant seem to get answers!
so sorry this is very long! thanks for listening i would love to get some help or advice off here! thankyou again ..

Advice is to see a psychiatrist or check in with your local Mental Health facility for an evaluation. The are many mental conditions that cause one to see and hear hallucinations (things that are not there and are in one's mind). There are also medications which can alleviate these symptoms and assist the individual in living a life of good quality without fear and apprehension.

It is common to have one's diagnosis re-evaluated every 90 days in most cases. There is a psychotic component to some anxiety disorders but you need a complete psychiatric evaluation by a psychiatrist or an Advanced Practice Nurse specializing in Metal Health and Psychiatry for a definitive finding.

Hope this helps and good luck ... that is not a good way to live one's life