[TheRealVille]

You're going to believe what you want to believe. The point is there are credible sources out there to cite that agree with me and they're not hard to look up. The eruption at Krakatoa yielded lava rock duly observed emerging via vocanic eruption by the scientific community of the day. That lava rock from 1883 was carbon dated and 'tested' results indicated the rock was far older than the 1883 date we know to be it's true birthday. There were a lot of things at play at Krakatoa, including a caldera through which the ships you read about likely could have sailed in the 1600's. You aren't disputing the claim that new land emerged as the result of the lava flow are you? When the volcano there at Krakatoa blew it's top scientists were drawn to the area to investigate. People refer to this volcanic event simply by Krakatoa. It is widely accepted that a host of the world's scientific elite were on hand to witness birth of new land mass in the area. Granted, they missed the 'main event', but the main eruption drew them there.

The point I was emphasizing was although carbon dating materials is a reliable process, dating rock is a bit more troublesome. Continental plates are constantly delivering existing rock into the depths of our molten core to be mixed with the contents of the earth's magma and then may be again blown out of a volcanic vent in an endless cycle. Or silt laid down by some flood of epic proportion may have buried billions of dead or dying animals under tons of debris born by flood water thus forming a bone deposit of many types of dinosaurs in the same deposit. We have such deposits in the US. The real rub comes in the interpretation of the fossil record. Those who want to validate the theory of evolution see things slanted to their end. Those who accept Creation, view them in that light. All of this in mind, the carbon dated materials at Krakatoa didn't match up with the 1883 date, when they are known to have erupted as lava.

On another issue, You're denying the existence of human footprints among dino prints, from your temple of knowledge there at Paintsville. I'd rather be a bit more open minded when it comes to sources. I mean, you don't think someone who is desperate to maintain the house of cards which is the backbone of support for the theory of evolution, is going to admit to the human footprints do you? Man HAS to come later or the whole evolutionary hypothesis would be laughed to scorn. The only way evolutionists can explain the lack of transitory life forms in the fossil record and, even during the recorded history of man, is to add the 'infinite time element' to the equation. These changes happened over vast aeons they say.

The whole thing (evolution) is a fabrication from the minds of admittedly smart men of scientific renown, and they have come up with a way to insert a finger in the dike, everytime a reasonable challenge has come up against their theory. An alternative, if you will, to God's claim as Creator. Most of the time folks resort to an attmept to mock those who take God at His Word. Or offer evidence to disprove His existence by pointing out what they believe to be contradictions in the natural world, where none exist. As I have pointed out before, Java Man and Piltdown Man were exposed as frauds. Fraudulent 'finds' such as these happen because of the lack of supporting evidence, not the abundance of same. Therefore, in a bid to further their beliefs, evidence is either tampered with or fabricated out of desperation. Much other evidence that refutes the evolutionist claims are attacked as uncredible by, you guessed it, the evolutionary community. No amount of evidence would convince these folks because they WANT to take a side against the existence of our Creator. I can deal with the fact that those who take the other side of the agument don't want to accept God is real and did in fact create all you see. But, a really bad day is coming for every man who denies Him.

You must be referring to the new Island that formed after the visible part of Krakatoa disintegrated, and left only a small portion of the original island intact, Anak Krakatau(child of Krakatoa). That island formed from the very same lava that was coming out of the original volcano, of course the forming rock is going to date older, it is being formed from older molten rock from the volcano. BTW, you never even posted any proof that the new island dated 168,000 years old.

2nd bold: As were the footprints findings you posted were proven wrong. The knowledge you talk about isn't just confined to Paintsville, it is out there for all to find, if they only wanted to. I will take real scientist over creation scientist any day of the week. It is a proven fact that man came around 65 million years after the dinosaurs, you just won't accept it. You would rather rely on "fool" science.