From time to time I like to make it very clear that nothing I ever say is original. None of us are clever adequate for that. Solomon was right when he said that "there is nothing new under the sun". Anything I say has probably been said before and in many instances more eloquently and with greater conviction.

However, wherever I can, I give acknowledgment for the thoughts of others. On many occasions, though, I simply can't remember where I heard or read things and then only hope that after I've researched the thoughts and wide on them (as is my custom), that someone (who knows nothing about or has no regard for the wisdom of Solomon) will come after me with guns blazing and suddenly claim originality for something I dare to say. You see, when I first took an interest in these things, I never dreamed I would ever be sharing them with others, let alone writing about them and speaking about them either. For many years I gathered material on the field of 'Creation as opposed to Evolution and Chance' for my own personal information. From time to time I then worked on and added to those notes, to such an extent that I can't always remember where some of the thoughts and ideas came from because they've often changed beyond recognition. Not the essence, but the words, because I like to put thoughts in words that I can personally understand and retell to immediately. That in turn makes it easy for one of median intelligence to also understand.

About The Civil War For Kids

Although I believe that Anything should feel flattered if someone uses their words (I know I am), I'm aware of the fact that some do insist on originality and feel extremely indignant if Anything says what they've said before them. Perhaps they should read the poem "these fabulous creatures" on this very website (which just happens to be so un-original in that God gave me the potential to put verse together and actually thousands of others have schooled me in the English language). Anything is therefore welcome to say Anything they find beneficial in any of my articles or books. I know instinctively that Solomon was right about that "under the sun" thing, and as for me, I will try to stay humble adequate to remember it.

How Old is the Earth Really?

Kidnapped and Sold By Indians -- True Story of a 7-Year-Old Settler Child (Annotated and Illustrated) (First_Hand Account Of Being Kidnapped By Indians) Best

Rate This Product :

Kidnapped and Sold By Indians -- True Story of a 7-Year-Old Settler Child (Annotated and Illustrated) (First_Hand Account Of Being Kidnapped By Indians) Overview

• This newly revised edition includes annotations and content about another child kidnapped by Indians who went on to give birth to the last Comanche chief.

• It also includes 12 dynamic historical photographs from the National Archives depicting the numerous tribes Mathew Brayton lived among and fought with.

This first-hand narrative of the life of Matthew Brayton, a seven-and-a-half year old white child of a settler who was kidnapped and sold many times by Native Americans in the beginning of the 19th century, probably doesn’t share all the gory details of his abuse when initially captured, but you can read between the lines. Still, this first-hand account does shed much light on what it was really like to come under the charge of many different Indian tribes.

Although Brayton’s treatment was not entirely negative or positive, his frank and blunt story does much to dispel the romantic stories that have been perpetuated about young settlers’ children who became Indian chattel. It does much to tell true history and dispel any deliberate or accidental revisions.

In many cases the Indians treated Brayton well, but there can be no doubt that they stole from him and his family a life that would end up confused and stuck between two worlds. Although Brayton did finally unite with many of his natural family, he never stopped identifying with Native Americans, and he was forced to leave an Indian wife and child behind. In fact, when the War of Rebellion or Civil War broke out, Brayton enlisted and served in an American Indian brigade.

Chet Dembeck

Publisher of One

Kidnapped and Sold By Indians -- True Story of a 7-Year-Old Settler Child (Annotated and Illustrated) (First_Hand Account Of Being Kidnapped By Indians) Specifications

Customer Reviews

*** Product Information and Prices Stored: Feb 13, 2012 07:58:19

Why is the age of the earth important? Because if we can make a clear case for a very young earth, not more than about 6000 years (which we can, and do), then evolution stands on its head because it is based on all things "happening" and by "very beneficial mistakes" and also "very, very slowly," over "billions" of years. And all by the most fabulous and miraculous and dumbfounding "chance," I must add too.

How old is the earth? That is a very exciting question. Bishop Usher did some laborious academic spadework on the field and the consensus of conception among those of his school is that according to the records that can be traced back in the customary Manuscripts from which our Bibles were compiled, the earth came into being about 4000 years before Christ. From my own uncomplicated calculations and mental as I read the same data in my Bible, I concur basically with his findings. In this year of our Lord, namely, 2008, the earth is a petite over 6000 years old.

But what do others say? I simply have to point out that bigotry is very much alive and extremely wholesome on planet earth today, and despite all irrefutable "proof" of the total lunacy of the evolution hypothesis, Creationism is given virtually no airtime or script on major media stations and publications. In schools today children are told that the earth is "billions" of years old, and in many countries, teachers are instructed - yes, instructed to "stress that the earth is conception to be at least 4,5 billions of years old." (Holt normal Science Teacher's Edition, 1985, p.381). These kids are then coming home from school and are "educating" their "uninformed" parents about the merits of believing in "science" rather than all that "outdated" and "archaic" and draconian "religious stuff" found in the Bible. They, of course, still don't have a clue about the "circular reasoning" of evolutionists. You see, those believing in evolution tell the children actually that fossils can be dated by the strata they are found in. But guess what? The very same so-called "scientific" habitancy then tell the children that the strata in turn are dated by the fossils that are found in them! I can show you dozens of examples of this weird and illogical and totally dishonest "circular reasoning" of theirs. But you see, they feel so gather in the fact that they can hide behind school "science" text books wherein they masquerade as "scientists," that they make these monumental blunders with impunity in their staggering arrogance. They think, of course, that all habitancy are slow-witted adequate to believe them. News flash: Not all of us are that stupid! And sadly, most parents don't have the knowledge to counter the evil mental their children are coming home with. Consequently, because knowledge is strength, in that habitancy respect those that have it, the children unfortunately loose all respect for their "backward" parents when these have no answers for their children's cleverly "mentored" questions.

Evolutionists have been industriously brainwashing the naïve and unschooled into believing their lies, and to such an extent, that a large division of humanity today believes that so-called "science" has it right and "religion" needs to be relegated to the file marked "obsolete." petite do they know that there is nothing remotely scientific about evolution at all! It's all a pack of fabrications, assumptions, notions, guesses and in most cases, pure obscurantism that refuses to look at the abundant proof of its lunacy. The fact of the matter is that it is nothing short of a pack of deliberate lies!! Now no one is going to argue that the Church has been out-maneuvered in this age we're living in. The lazy and indifferent Church leaders have not kept abreast of what the world is telling their habitancy and in many instances have not bothered to find out if and why they are wrong. They've come to be complacent actually and have neglected to do their homework. The result is that the "lie" is rampant among unbelievers and believers alike, and in the latter case, the gullible sheep have swallowed it hook line and sinker. Stressed "pastors" and "reverends" and "priests" and "bishops" and all the other religious titled and ranked gurus are now wondering why there is rank skepticism and disillusionment and cynicism staring back at them from their pews.

Okay then, for the second time: How old is the earth?
1. The not-so-popping seams of the Earth's Population

Let's firstly request for retrial to coarse logic for a moment. Today there are roughly 8 billion habitancy on this earth. according to the census published on June 24th 1999 there were 6 billion. In 1985 there were 5 billion. In 1810 there were 1 billion and in the time of Jesus, there were roughly ¼ billion. Quite a sharp curve in a mere 2000 years! You say, "so what?" Here's "what": Has Anything Perhaps noticed that the earth is not terribly overcrowded right now? Is it popping at the seams? No. But very strange things come to light when you do a petite math. Dr Hovind says that even after taking into catalogue all the local wars and all the world wars and all the diseases and plagues in living memory and every other event and disaster that decimated entire populations, civilizations and nations; if the world was over 20 billion years old (as the evolutionists claim), and if man has been around for the past 3 billion years (as they claim too), then this old world would have been pretty crowded right now. Something like "150,000 habitancy per quadrate inch" he says! I'd like to point out that if that were the case (the 3 billion year thing) then one would scarcely be able to dig in the orchad without seeing some human bones. How many have you found? How many have your neighbors and friends and relatives and acquaintances found? I rest my case. This earth is not That old...

2. Those "fickle" yearly Ice Rings

The phenomenon of "annual rings" in packed ice has traditionally been one of the aces that evolutionists play when they supposedly "prove" that the earth is at least (as they say) 135,000 years old and not a mere 6,000 odd as Christians believe. You see, they say that those alternating darker and lighter coloured rings that are found where they've drilled very deep holes in the ice in Greenland and the South Pole are formed once each year. Very impressive and roughly convincing (to the uninformed) if one knows nothing about the packing of yearly ice. Not so impressive though if one reads the newspapers regularly and studies history occasionally. You see, these obstinate and dishonest evolutionists refuse to refer to and reply confident "little problems" they are faced with when they have to be entirely honest (not that they ever can be, but remember, we're speaking hypothetically here). You ask, like what? I'll tell you 'like what': They most actually won't tell you about the "Lost Squadron" for instance...

During the Second World War, some allied airplanes landed in Greenland because they did not have adequate gas to get them home. When they were unable get them refueled, they simply left them there and the war raged on without them. In 1990, though, some exciting spark recommend that they go back and fetch them. All and sundry agreed. However, the same "all and sundry" believed that all they had to do was to simply brush some snow off the wings, fuel them up, prime a petite here and there, pump up or replace a tire or two and then fast fly them home again. What an over-simplification of a not-so-simple affair! So what happened? Patience and I'll tell you: When they got there, they had disappeared. The whole squadron! Because they knew that no one could have taken them all, they assumed that they must be right there under the ice. They got sophisticated ground penetrating radar and discovered to their horror that they were not simply right there under the ice at all, but that after the mere 48 years, they were in fact right there alright, but 263 feet under the ice! Would our clever evolutionists now please take out their most sophisticated calculators and divide the 263 feet by the 48 years. They'll get 5,5 feet per year, not so? Okay, okay, 5,479166666 feet per year if they insist on splitting hairs. Now the deepest hole ever drilled on earth was just over 10,000 feet (this is told to us by the evolutionists themselves when they try to sell us that "earth is at least 135,000 years old" fairy tale of theirs). Now those overkill calculators again: Please divide10, 000 feet by your 5,479166666 and what do you get? Right, you get 1825 (rounded off to the nearest foot). So their 10,000 foot hole would be telling us (if we lowered ourselves to use that ridiculous "proof" of theirs) that the earth is 1825 years old and not 135,000 years, like they say! You see, they sucked their so-called data (that suddenly transformed into their irrefutable "proof") out of their thumbs again. So what's new? (besides all the garbage they dish up to brainwash our kids with). So we see that they're again talking tripe! (and again; what's new?)

But that's not all. The men that dug that hole down to the airplanes were questioned and asked how many yearly rings they saw down there. "Many hundreds" they said and proceeded to show photographs of the rings. But then one of them said something that made all the lights come on at once. He said (contrary to all evolutionary so-called "science" and approved norms) that those are not in fact "annual" rings at all. Being in the firm for a lifetime already, he obviously knew far more about the packing of ice than the "know all" evolutionists think they know. He was aware of what the generally "accepted" scenario was all about - that faulty scenario the evolutionists use so cleverly to try and "prove" their lies about what they glibly call "annual" ice rings. If Anything was inclined to sit out there in the cold and observe, they'd see that when the ice melts in summer, one has a layer of water which then freezes as clear ice. In the winter (if that die-hard "anyone" was still sitting there) he'd observation that the snow packs, and because it does not get a opening to melt, it turns into white coloured ice. This forms the dark-light, dark-light rings they then wrongfully call "annual" rings.

But wait: He then shattered the evolutionist's "trump card" lie in one fell swoop and without much ado by telling that these are not "annual" rings at all, but they are "temperature" rings! And to crown it all, you can have ten of them in one day if the temperature fluctuates dramatically! And that's what must have happened to the Lost Squadron. But listen; judging by the "rings" alone, the evolutionists, if they could ever be consistent (which they can't, by the way) would have to tell everybody in general, and our gullible kids in particular, that those aircraft had been down there for many hundreds of years. They will of course, true to nature and contrary to all proof and logic and all things else we could throw at them, stick to their guns and insist that they are right (like always). All obscurantists are that pig-headed, didn't you know? And that includes All evolutionists. And know what? The kids at school would believe them and not us! They always do, haven't you noticed? Why? Because they're the "scientists," remember. But sadly for them, according to records and documented facts, everybody knew that those airplanes had only been down there for the 48 years! You see, many of those planes only came off the assembly lines less than ten years before the end of the war, so how could they have been down there for many hundreds of years? Were there even airplanes "many hundreds of years" before the war? I know this probably sounds ridiculous, but we're simply playing the game after their own rules for a change to show their flaws and dishonesty. Check-mate and so much for their flimsy "proof" of so-called "annual" rings!

Want to know some actually sad news? Scientific America is still calling them "annual" rings!

3. Those "naughty" Not-so-old Stalactites and Stalagmites

Let's look at someone else so-called "proof" they use for their hypothesis that the earth is "billions" of years old. They point all who would listen to the age of stalactites and stalagmites.

Now Stalactites are the beautiful limestone and water formations that grow down from the ceiling of damp or moist caves, and the stalagmites are those that grow upward from the floor.

When visitors enter these antique caves, the guides regularly tell everyone, "Please don't touch any of these stalactites or stalagmites. It takes more than 1000 years for them to grow one single inch. They're actually irreplaceable, since they took millions of years to form. "

Quite frankly, that is not true. They do grow very slowly, yes, but not that slow! How do I know that? Listen and you will personally be able to unravel someone else evolutionist lie:

The Lincoln Memorial was built in 1922. We all know that. Not so many years ago by any standard. But guess what? There are already 60 inch stalactites under it right now! Go look for yourself and you'd good be quick before they deceitfully have them removed. I'll give you one hundred to one that no evolution description or book has ever mentioned that! Did I say "If they are honest" a occasion ago? Must have been a slip. They are never honest!

A lead mine was concluded down in Mt. Isa, Australia a amount of decades ago. Guess what they found when they re-opened it just 55 years later? Believe it or not, but they found stalactites down in level 5 that are already five times as tall as the median man! Now we have to ask; were these stalactites on steroids? Or did these "naughty" stalactites somehow "forget" to grow as slowly as the evolutionists prescription they should grow? I don't think so. In fact I'll go as far as giving you my word and also laying my head on a block that they don't ever "forget" anything!

In 1903 a man in Wyoming jammed a pipe into a spring in his backyard. Today the Flowstone that formed on it is roughly as big as his house and has come to be somewhat of an attraction. Same principle as stalactites and stalagmites, you see. Millions of years old, my eye! someone else lie by those who are of their father, who himself is the father of lies! someone else "proof" hits the dust and I sincerely hope some kids get to hear and read these things one day.
4. Our "Shrinking" Sun

Very few habitancy know that our sun is shrinking. Since 1836, direct optical measurements have been made and there is substantiated evidence that our sun is shrinking at the rate of 1% per century. I think everybody can understand that something that is being consumed by fire is permanently being reduced. That 1% per century translates to 5 feet per hour, believe it or not! And this again means that if one works backwards, then a mere 50,000 years ago our sun would have been so big, and consequently so much hotter than it is today, that our oceans would have been boiling, day and night. One wonders how the habitancy who were "supposedly" here, according to "you-know-who" lived straight through that! But the very same "you-know-who's" insist that the earth is 4,6 billion years old. Oh really? Perhaps we should point out to said "you-know-who" & Co. That all the land together with all the water on dear old planet earth would then have been one perpetual boiling cauldron all those "supposed" years ago. So much then for those (fire-proof) dinosaurs of theirs that lived all those millions of years ago. Sadly, the so-called "proofs" they use regularly go unchallenged because they're hardly ever questioned when they appear in "scientific" journals and school "science" text books. The fact of the matter is that they are not even worth the paper they're written on because in many cases basic logic can tear holes straight through them. But what boggles the mind is how so-called "scientific" folk tolerate this blatant dishonesty. Beats me too...

5. The Very gift Existence of Comets

The amount and the size of comets are declining. No one disputes this. But what are comets? They're primarily chunks of rocky substance that are held together by freezing gases and ice. Like all the planets in our solar system, these comets are also in orbit around our sun. Now each time they pass close to the sun, gas explodes inside the comets and some of the ice starts melting. In the process, some of the particles break free and these are then the spectacular streams in the wake of the comet that can be seen in the night sky. It is very easy to portion the size of these comets and it is normal knowledge that they are all diminishing in size as they are eroding away. Subsequently, many that have already disintegrated and that were witnessed by man on this earth, are only found today in history and science books. Now the point: If (notice the word is "if") the universe is 4,6 billion years old (as some ambitious habitancy try to tell our kids), two things: Firstly, How come there are still comets up there today? actually they should have burned out actually "billions" of years ago. And secondly, working backwards once again; 4,6 billion years ago, these comets would have been so big that our sun would have been orbiting them! Absurd you say? I agree...

Creation study community Quarterly, December, 1973, p.174 says, "The destruction and the loss of comets puts a specific upper limit on the age of the solar system. Instead of 4,5 billion years, it appears at the most to be only a few to any thousand years old."

6. That Loony Myth about Lunar Dust

Before they sent men to the moon, Nasa was implicated about one of the so-called "proofs" the evolutionists use for their "4,6 billion year old universe." These evolutionists believed (and of course insisted on informing our scholars and students) that the dust on the moon was "several miles" deep because of the erosion of the moon outside "over billions of years" due to the ultra-violet light and X-rays from the sun. They said that this dust had been accumulating at a rate of 2 to 5 thousandth of an inch per year. according to them, there were now dangerous drifts of soft dust accumulated in any place on the moon's surface.

Isaac Asimov believed that the dust could be "dozens of feet deep" and in places "50 feet deep or more." The following words frightened the men at Nasa when he said, "I get a picture, therefore, of the first space ship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight" (Asimov's own essay - 1958).

In the Monthly observation of the Royal immense community of London, V115, pp 585-644, Lyttleton (an evolutionist) speaks about the X-rays and Uv light remarkable the exposed moon rocks. He believed that they "could while the age of the moon (which he obviously believed to be 'millions' of years old) be adequate to form a layer over it any miles deep."

Oh really? Well, let's see what they found on Apollo's first moon landing: Surprise of all surprises; there was only one half inch of dust on median on the moon's surface! Now listen carefully: They in fact left stainless steel plates there and on their return they measured the amount of dust that had collected on them. Nassa's calculations showed that at the rate they found, they would gather only 2,7 inches of dust per million years! Unfortunately, and sadly (and of course to the total embarrassment of our evolution friends) that works out to be 1033 feet of dust in 4,6 billion years and not the one half inch they actually found! And more importantly (and of course to be noted with smug satisfaction) this data points to the fact that the age of the moon cannot be more than 4000 to 6000 years at most! And pssst: according to the Genesis description (which is in your Bible too) the moon is only three days younger than the earth.

7. Our Departing Moon

The moon is slowly exciting away from the earth. Did you know that? I actually don't think it's leaving because Anything has offended it, but rather that there are scientific reasons for this phenomenon. They've calculated that the rate of departure is a few inches per year. Now we all know that the moon causes the tides, not so? Well, if you didn't know it, you know it now. What on earth were you doing in the class when they were handling the subject? So, what does that tell us? A thing called coarse logic tells us that if the moon were closer, then the tides would be higher. Obviously. But how high could they go? according the "Inverse quadrate Law" if you halve the distance, you quadruple the attraction. "So, 4,6 billion years ago," Dr. Kent Hovind says, "...the tides would have been so high that all things and everybody on earth would have drowned twice a day. And..." he adds, "...one can only drown comfortably once a day."

Besides, if the moon were so much closer so long ago, then it would have fallen into the earth's atmosphere, and I personally believe that our exquisite global earth would then have been stuck with one terribly unwelcome and unsightly pimple to declare with.

Billions of years old? Hardly!

8. Old mum Earth is Slowing Down

The phenomenon of the slowing of the earth's spin around its own axis was discovered already by 1992. The Astronomy Magazine of that year, p. 24, says "Earth's rotation is slowing down." The subsequent calculations showed 1/1,000th of a second per day. That means that we have a "leap second" every 1 ½ years. At this rate, If the world was 4,6 billion years old (as some not-so-clever habitancy try to convince us), then uncomplicated calculations tell us that it should already have stopped turning on its axis long ago. On the other hand, if we work backwards, then all those billions of years ago, this earth, in its "supposed" prime, would have been one heck of a spinning dude. In fact, it would have taken on the shape of a pancake at that speed at that time and the winds would have been over 5000 miles per hour from the correolis result alone and the centrifugal force would have been unimaginable. Dr. Hovind says (with tongue in cheek, of course) that because of this (supposed) immense speed of the spinning earth, the dinosaurs were probably flung into space 200 million years ago and that's why there are none here today. We must note, that whichever way one wants to look at these two scenarios (either backward or forward) our earth just cannot be more than a few thousand years old. However, evolutionists just won't see it that way and will not accept the logic either. Proof that goes against their hypothesis is always ignored. Believe that if you don't believe Anything else I say.

Hope that has helped some to bring a petite perspective again.

How Old is the Earth Really?Facebook Parenting: For the troubled teen. Video Clips. Duration : 8.38 Mins.

Warning: Since this video seems to have gone crazy, I figure I'll post this notice. I'm going to read a letter my 15 year old daughter wrote. There ARE some curse words in it. None of them are incredibly bad, but they are definitely things a little kid shouldn't hear... not to mention things MY KID shouldn't say! If you want to see the original Facebook thread, it's located at: www.facebook.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My daughter thought it would be funny/rebellious/cool to post on her Facebook wall just how upset she was and how unfair her life here is; how we work her too hard with chores, never pay her for chores, and just in general make her life difficult. She chose to share this with the entire world on Facebook and block her parent's from seeing it. Well, umm... she failed. As of the end of this video, she won't have to worry anymore about posting inappropriate things on Facebook... Maybe a few kids can take something away from this... If you're so disrespectful to your parents and yourself as to post this kind of thing on Facebook, you're deserving of some tough love. Today, my daughter is getting a dose of tough love. © Copyright 2012, by Tommy Jordan. All rights reserved. Duplication without express permission of the author is prohibited.

Keywords: Facebook, Teens, Parenting, disrespect

about the civil war for kids

วันอาทิตย์ที่ 12 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2555