| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:46:10 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,067 |
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB3455489642B8629555@69.80.101.16...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
The Bible refers to Earth as spherical.
The surface of a sphere is not required
to be smooth.
You asked where all the water went after
the Flood?
Remember?
So hypothetically speaking *IF* the land
area of the Earth were perfectly smooth,
THEN the water of Earth would cover it
about 1.5 miles deep.
Even the Bible doesn't say the
Earth was perfectly smooth.
Nobody says it did; but this is what it said. ____________________________________
"You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth."
~ Psalms 104:5-9
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
The Bible refers to Earth as spherical.
The surface of a sphere is not required
to be smooth.
You asked where all the water went after
the Flood?
Remember?
So hypothetically speaking *IF* the land
area of the Earth were perfectly smooth,
THEN the water of Earth would cover it
about 1.5 miles deep.
Hope this helps, and that you may have
peace in your final days here in this
realm.
The Earth is not evenly flat and never has been.
The oldest mountains in the world are the Makhonjwa
Mountains (Barberton Greenstone Belt) in South Africa and
Eswatini, dating back about 3.6 billion years.
With heights ranging from 600 to 1800 meters (2,000 to 5,900
feet), the Barberton Makhonjwa Mountains in South Africa and
Eswatini are not particularly tall.
There are at least 108 mountains on Earth with elevations of
7,200 m (23,622 ft; 4 mi) or greater above sea level. Of
these, 14 are more than 8,000 m (26,247 ft; 5 mi).[1] The
vast majority of these mountains are part of either the
Himalayas or the Karakoram mountain ranges located on the
edge of the Indian Plate and Eurasian Plate in China, India,
Nepal, and Pakistan.[a]
The Himalayas are a relatively young mountain range that
began forming between 40 and 50 million years ago
The Karakoram Range began forming approximately 65 million
years ago
All of these are older than any known human civilization by
several million years.
If you take the lowest range it had mountains almost 6000
feet tall. Therefore there would need to be enough water to
cover the entire planet to over 6000. feet.
If this water went underground it would need space to hold a
layer of over 6000 feet since the cubic space involved would
be the same. That much underground water would be easily
detectable yet no one has ever found it.
Since the highest mountains are also outside the range of
human civilization it would take over 26000 feet of water to
cover everything, making the amount needed for only 6000
feet a minor amount.
Interesting that these mountains have
many fossilized see creatures in them.
That is because mountain ranges rise and fall over time. At
one time the Arctic was tropical.
This should tell you something about
their history.
Yes - It is called geology.
A world wide flood that covers everything is
a physical impossibility.
This tells us that--> it was a supernatural event!
Or it didn't happen since there is no unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence supporting it.
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Andrew wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
The Bible refers to Earth as spherical.
The surface of a sphere is not required
to be smooth.
You asked where all the water went after
the Flood?
Remember?
So hypothetically speaking *IF* the land
area of the Earth were perfectly smooth,
THEN the water of Earth would cover it
about 1.5 miles deep.
Even the Bible doesn't say the
Earth was perfectly smooth.
Nobody says it did; but this is what it said.
____________________________________
"You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
So the earth is flat and stationary, and the
universe is geocentric.
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB3458054B2433629555@69.80.102.21...
Attila wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
The Bible refers to Earth as spherical.
The surface of a sphere is not required
to be smooth.
You asked where all the water went after
the Flood?
Remember?
So hypothetically speaking *IF* the land
area of the Earth were perfectly smooth,
THEN the water of Earth would cover it
about 1.5 miles deep.
Hope this helps, and that you may have
peace in your final days here in this
realm.
The Earth is not evenly flat and never has been.
The oldest mountains in the world are the Makhonjwa
Mountains (Barberton Greenstone Belt) in South Africa and
Eswatini, dating back about 3.6 billion years.
With heights ranging from 600 to 1800 meters (2,000 to 5,900
feet), the Barberton Makhonjwa Mountains in South Africa and
Eswatini are not particularly tall.
There are at least 108 mountains on Earth with elevations of
7,200 m (23,622 ft; 4 mi) or greater above sea level. Of
these, 14 are more than 8,000 m (26,247 ft; 5 mi).[1] The
vast majority of these mountains are part of either the
Himalayas or the Karakoram mountain ranges located on the
edge of the Indian Plate and Eurasian Plate in China, India,
Nepal, and Pakistan.[a]
The Himalayas are a relatively young mountain range that
began forming between 40 and 50 million years ago
The Karakoram Range began forming approximately 65 million
years ago
All of these are older than any known human civilization by
several million years.
If you take the lowest range it had mountains almost 6000
feet tall. Therefore there would need to be enough water to
cover the entire planet to over 6000. feet.
If this water went underground it would need space to hold a
layer of over 6000 feet since the cubic space involved would
be the same. That much underground water would be easily
detectable yet no one has ever found it.
Since the highest mountains are also outside the range of
human civilization it would take over 26000 feet of water to
cover everything, making the amount needed for only 6000
feet a minor amount.
A world wide flood that covers everything is a physical
impossibility.
Indeed.
Everest is growing at 2 inches per year,
which means at the time of Ye Floode it was
still over 26,000 feet high. It would have
taken a lot of water to cover that, the
weight of which would have altered the
Earth's rotation.
Even the water backed up in China's
Three Gorges Dam changed the Earths spin.
https://www.iflscience.com/its-true-chinas-three-gorges-dam-is-so-big-
it- changes-earths-spin-75997
Thanks Mitchell.
But we know that Mt. Everest was post flood.
Pre flood there were "high hills". as you have
cited here for us
"Attila" wrote in message
news:l5pnakprcdp9m8e3l6ih5t4nm1672ote4s@4ax.com...
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
"Attila" wrote in message news:l5pnakprcdp9m8e3l6ih5t4nm1672ote4s@4ax.com...
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
No, nevertheless you choose to be a 'believer'.
It is a fantasized story that you have faith in.
"Attila" wrote in message news:sapnaktg15n3n73o7on9bgh6k6et79rsap@4ax.com... >> "Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
The Bible refers to Earth as spherical.
The surface of a sphere is not required
to be smooth.
You asked where all the water went after
the Flood?
Remember?
So hypothetically speaking *IF* the land
area of the Earth were perfectly smooth,
THEN the water of Earth would cover it
about 1.5 miles deep.
Hope this helps, and that you may have
peace in your final days here in this
realm.
The Earth is not evenly flat and never has been.
The oldest mountains in the world are the Makhonjwa
Mountains (Barberton Greenstone Belt) in South Africa and
Eswatini, dating back about 3.6 billion years.
With heights ranging from 600 to 1800 meters (2,000 to 5,900
feet), the Barberton Makhonjwa Mountains in South Africa and
Eswatini are not particularly tall.
There are at least 108 mountains on Earth with elevations of
7,200 m (23,622 ft; 4 mi) or greater above sea level. Of
these, 14 are more than 8,000 m (26,247 ft; 5 mi).[1] The
vast majority of these mountains are part of either the
Himalayas or the Karakoram mountain ranges located on the
edge of the Indian Plate and Eurasian Plate in China, India,
Nepal, and Pakistan.[a]
The Himalayas are a relatively young mountain range that
began forming between 40 and 50 million years ago
The Karakoram Range began forming approximately 65 million
years ago
All of these are older than any known human civilization by
several million years.
If you take the lowest range it had mountains almost 6000
feet tall. Therefore there would need to be enough water to
cover the entire planet to over 6000. feet.
If this water went underground it would need space to hold a
layer of over 6000 feet since the cubic space involved would
be the same. That much underground water would be easily
detectable yet no one has ever found it.
Since the highest mountains are also outside the range of
human civilization it would take over 26000 feet of water to
cover everything, making the amount needed for only 6000
feet a minor amount.
Interesting that these mountains have
many fossilized see creatures in them.
That is because mountain ranges rise and fall over time. At
one time the Arctic was tropical.
That's also what the Bible tells us.
This should tell you something about
their history.
Yes - It is called geology.
The evidence is there.
A world wide flood that covers everything is
a physical impossibility.
This tells us that--> it was a supernatural event!
Or it didn't happen since there is no unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence supporting it.
Lot's of evidence.
Do you know anything about DNA? Because we have
unambiguous, verifiable, credible evidence right there.
So there is no excuse for one to remain ignorant,
Not anymore.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 02:15:21 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id ><tsBpQ.3809$%QL4.2765@fx02.ams4> wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message news:dpgdak5qe48ql3lm20unbsghrjo8s4un9j@4ax.com... >>> "Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
I asked what is YOUR definition of truth
and how do YOU know something is true.
Please look up *empirical science*, because
that answers the question.
It appears you are unable to articulate what
you consider as truth.
Rather it appears that you are unable to read,
(above) combined with your unwillingness
to see anything contrary to your deception.
Truth is a concept that goes far beyond science, empirical
or otherwise.. I am asking what your definition of truth is
and how do you know something is true.
You are continuing to avoid direct answers.
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 09:31:26 -0400, Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in alt.atheism with message-id ><cma6akp85dtt387q4qnl5lg9amnj0ncqmt@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 03:26:32 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id >><gdDoQ.5762$B4N4.1707@fx14.ams4> wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message news:ksq5ak9p7g0q0dd459sdasmr4tb9c3cnsq@4ax.com... >>>> "Andrew" wrote:
<<>>
It looks like you are actually a "closet theist" and I offended you.
Evasion. You either will not or cannot support what you said.
Cite, 'what' you think I said.
"So when you say, "There is no God." you were lying!! "
<qwSnQ.12528$snma.10873@fx03.ams4>
Provide a link to where I made such a statement or admit you
lied. That specific statement.
I am still waiting for your response. Put up or shut up.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
The Bible refers to Earth as spherical.
The surface of a sphere is not required
to be smooth.
You asked where all the water went after
the Flood?
Remember?
So hypothetically speaking *IF* the land
area of the Earth were perfectly smooth,
THEN the water of Earth would cover it
about 1.5 miles deep.
Hope this helps, and that you may have
peace in your final days here in this
realm.
The Earth is not evenly flat and never has been.
The oldest mountains in the world are the Makhonjwa
Mountains (Barberton Greenstone Belt) in South Africa and
Eswatini, dating back about 3.6 billion years.
With heights ranging from 600 to 1800 meters (2,000 to 5,900
feet), the Barberton Makhonjwa Mountains in South Africa and
Eswatini are not particularly tall.
There are at least 108 mountains on Earth with elevations of
7,200 m (23,622 ft; 4 mi) or greater above sea level. Of
these, 14 are more than 8,000 m (26,247 ft; 5 mi).[1] The
vast majority of these mountains are part of either the
Himalayas or the Karakoram mountain ranges located on the
edge of the Indian Plate and Eurasian Plate in China, India,
Nepal, and Pakistan.[a]
The Himalayas are a relatively young mountain range that
began forming between 40 and 50 million years ago
The Karakoram Range began forming approximately 65 million
years ago
All of these are older than any known human civilization by
several million years.
If you take the lowest range it had mountains almost 6000
feet tall. Therefore there would need to be enough water to
cover the entire planet to over 6000. feet.
If this water went underground it would need space to hold a
layer of over 6000 feet since the cubic space involved would
be the same. That much underground water would be easily
detectable yet no one has ever found it.
Since the highest mountains are also outside the range of
human civilization it would take over 26000 feet of water to
cover everything, making the amount needed for only 6000
feet a minor amount.
Interesting that these mountains have
many fossilized see creatures in them.
That is because mountain ranges rise and fall over time. At
one time the Arctic was tropical.
That's also what the Bible tells us.
This should tell you something about
their history.
Yes - It is called geology.
The evidence is there.
So you constantly claim but every time I ask "what evidence"
you:
1. Ignore me
2. Disappear without responding
3. Say "the universe" which is about as vague and ambiguous
as it is possible to write in English.
A world wide flood that covers everything is
a physical impossibility.
This tells us that--> it was a supernatural event!
Or it didn't happen since there is no unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence supporting it.
Lot's of evidence.
Do you know anything about DNA? Because we have
unambiguous, verifiable, credible evidence right there.
Exactly how does DNA say anything about a climate
event
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that
fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
Can you prove anything differently?
No, nevertheless you choose to be a 'believer'.
It is a fantasized story that you have faith in.
be able to
You mean faith is required to accept the findings of
established sciences which have been verified by unrelated
methods and tested constantly against new data as opposed to
some scribbles by illiterate primitives over 2000 years ago
and which have not been independently verified by anything.
I will take the scientific method every time.
"Attila" wrote in message news:q0soakpan5v5fb2b5bd48a89e85rrma7p7@4ax.com... >> "Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that
fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
Can you prove anything differently?
No, nevertheless you choose to be a 'believer'.
It is a fantasized story that you have faith in.
be able to
You mean faith is required to accept the findings of
established sciences which have been verified by unrelated
methods and tested constantly against new data as opposed to
some scribbles by illiterate primitives over 2000 years ago
and which have not been independently verified by anything.
I will take the scientific method every time.
If the issue pertained to the *scientific method* THEN
you should easily be able to cite.
Please do so now. But you will not, because you can--
not.
"Attila" wrote in message news:jnsoak1koi8o3nfd7l4ge8nf81saevvus5@4ax.com... >> "Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
The Bible refers to Earth as spherical.
The surface of a sphere is not required
to be smooth.
You asked where all the water went after
the Flood?
Remember?
So hypothetically speaking *IF* the land
area of the Earth were perfectly smooth,
THEN the water of Earth would cover it
about 1.5 miles deep.
Hope this helps, and that you may have
peace in your final days here in this
realm.
The Earth is not evenly flat and never has been.
The oldest mountains in the world are the Makhonjwa
Mountains (Barberton Greenstone Belt) in South Africa and
Eswatini, dating back about 3.6 billion years.
With heights ranging from 600 to 1800 meters (2,000 to 5,900
feet), the Barberton Makhonjwa Mountains in South Africa and
Eswatini are not particularly tall.
There are at least 108 mountains on Earth with elevations of
7,200 m (23,622 ft; 4 mi) or greater above sea level. Of
these, 14 are more than 8,000 m (26,247 ft; 5 mi).[1] The
vast majority of these mountains are part of either the
Himalayas or the Karakoram mountain ranges located on the
edge of the Indian Plate and Eurasian Plate in China, India,
Nepal, and Pakistan.[a]
The Himalayas are a relatively young mountain range that
began forming between 40 and 50 million years ago
The Karakoram Range began forming approximately 65 million
years ago
All of these are older than any known human civilization by
several million years.
If you take the lowest range it had mountains almost 6000
feet tall. Therefore there would need to be enough water to
cover the entire planet to over 6000. feet.
If this water went underground it would need space to hold a
layer of over 6000 feet since the cubic space involved would
be the same. That much underground water would be easily
detectable yet no one has ever found it.
Since the highest mountains are also outside the range of
human civilization it would take over 26000 feet of water to
cover everything, making the amount needed for only 6000
feet a minor amount.
Interesting that these mountains have
many fossilized see creatures in them.
That is because mountain ranges rise and fall over time. At
one time the Arctic was tropical.
That's also what the Bible tells us.
This should tell you something about
their history.
Yes - It is called geology.
The evidence is there.
So you constantly claim but every time I ask "what evidence"
you:
1. Ignore me
2. Disappear without responding
3. Say "the universe" which is about as vague and ambiguous
as it is possible to write in English.
This was addressed and answered many times. But
you refuse to acknowledgeo or follow up by doing
any research for yourself.
A world wide flood that covers everything is
a physical impossibility.
This tells us that--> it was a supernatural event!
Or it didn't happen since there is no unambiguous,
unrelated, verifiable and credible evidence supporting it.
Lot's of evidence.
Do you know anything about DNA? Because we have
unambiguous, verifiable, credible evidence right there.
Exactly how does DNA say anything about a climate
event
DNA with its digital code containing instructions
for the synthesis of every living thing -is evidence-
for a super intelligence that is greater than all living
things.
And would thus be the Source to power the Event
that we are talking about.
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:UlWqQ.17974$%QL4.9470@fx02.ams4:
"Attila" wrote in message
news:l5pnakprcdp9m8e3l6ih5t4nm1672ote4s@4ax.com...
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Can you prove your "Everst didn't exist then" claim?
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that
fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
I notice you prefer to attack what others say rather than
defend what you say.
Plus proof seldom exists in science - it is mostly in
mathematics. That is why science is constantly collecting
new data and adding it to existing data to see if any
existing results need to be adjusted or if new results need
to be formulated.
Can you prove anything differently?
No, nevertheless you choose to be a 'believer'.
It is a fantasized story that you have faith in.
You mean faith is required to accept the findings of
established sciences which have been verified by unrelated
methods and tested constantly against new data
as opposed to
some scribbles by illiterate primitives over 2000 years ago
and which have not been independently verified by anything.
I will take the scientific method every time.
If the issue pertained to the *scientific method* THEN
you should easily be able to cite.
"Attila" wrote in message news:6vdsakdbqbeieejk0aumjkqflugk78qat6@4ax.com... >> "Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that
fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
You were asked to support your claim, but you refused.
Therefore your mendacity has now been exposed to the
world for all to see!!!!
I notice you prefer to attack what others say rather than
defend what you say.
If I simply ask for you to support your position, does that
mean I have "attacked you"? If you actually think that,
then this shows that *you know* you are foolishly trying
to argue from a false and indefensible position.
Plus proof seldom exists in science - it is mostly in
mathematics. That is why science is constantly collecting
new data and adding it to existing data to see if any
existing results need to be adjusted or if new results need
to be formulated.
Can you prove anything differently?
No, nevertheless you choose to be a 'believer'.
It is a fantasized story that you have faith in.
You mean faith is required to accept the findings of
established sciences which have been verified by unrelated
methods and tested constantly against new data
If any of that were true in relation to your claim,
"the findings of established sciences which have been
verified by unrelated methods and tested constantly
against new data"
Then you could cite. Since you will not, and cannot,
then this is more evidence that you have been lying
to us.
as opposed to
some scribbles by illiterate primitives over 2000 years ago
and which have not been independently verified by anything.
I will take the scientific method every time.
If the issue pertained to the *scientific method* THEN
you should easily be able to cite.
Does the "Scientific Method" support your claim?
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old." <--your claim
No, it does not. Further evidence that you don't know what
you are talking about. If you were an honorable person, you
would do what any honorable person would do in this case.
First recant,and then apologize.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 06:19:17 -0400, Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in alt.atheism with message-id ><q78bakdl35526k6rfdjd4nvnt18grobbtc@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 09:31:26 -0400, Attila
<prochoice@here.now> in alt.atheism with message-id >><cma6akp85dtt387q4qnl5lg9amnj0ncqmt@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 03:26:32 -0700, "Andrew"
<andrew.321.remov@usa.net> in alt.atheism with message-id >>><gdDoQ.5762$B4N4.1707@fx14.ams4> wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message news:ksq5ak9p7g0q0dd459sdasmr4tb9c3cnsq@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:<<>>
It looks like you are actually a "closet theist" and I offended you. >>>>>Evasion. You either will not or cannot support what you said.
Cite, 'what' you think I said.
"So when you say, "There is no God." you were lying!! "
<qwSnQ.12528$snma.10873@fx03.ams4>
Provide a link to where I made such a statement or admit you
lied. That specific statement.
I am still waiting for your response. Put up or shut up.
Are you going to address this? If you can't it is obvious
you lied.
"Attila" wrote in message news:6vdsakdbqbeieejk0aumjkqflugk78qat6@4ax.com... >> "Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that
fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that
fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/article-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Himalaya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods have
been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities prevailing
in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four main events,
the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian),
the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan orogeny
which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan metamorphism
around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous phase of major uplift
during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible for the rise of the deeper
part of the Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and the
formation of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods used.
Remember, also, that Ma means "millions of years ago" and that Mt.
Everest is part of the Himalayas.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:uejuakd8qdkq1jb9rqd63p349kmvkkgc2i@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that
fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/article-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Himalaya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods have
been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities prevailing
in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four main events,
the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian),
the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in
delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan orogeny
which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan metamorphism
around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous phase of major uplift
during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible for the rise of the deeper
part of the Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and the
formation of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Remember, also, that Ma means "millions of years ago" and that Mt.
Everest is part of the Himalayas.
Thanks Vincent!
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:UlWqQ.17974$%QL4.9470@fx02.ams4:
"Attila" wrote in message
news:l5pnakprcdp9m8e3l6ih5t4nm1672ote4s@4ax.com...
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Can you prove your "Everst didn't exist then" claim?
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:_bQqQ.24076$fBWe.23626@fx15.ams4:big-
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message
news:XnsB3458054B2433629555@69.80.102.21...
Attila wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
The Bible refers to Earth as spherical.
The surface of a sphere is not required
to be smooth.
You asked where all the water went after
the Flood?
Remember?
So hypothetically speaking *IF* the land
area of the Earth were perfectly smooth,
THEN the water of Earth would cover it
about 1.5 miles deep.
Hope this helps, and that you may have
peace in your final days here in this
realm.
The Earth is not evenly flat and never has been.
The oldest mountains in the world are the Makhonjwa
Mountains (Barberton Greenstone Belt) in South Africa and
Eswatini, dating back about 3.6 billion years.
With heights ranging from 600 to 1800 meters (2,000 to 5,900
feet), the Barberton Makhonjwa Mountains in South Africa and
Eswatini are not particularly tall.
There are at least 108 mountains on Earth with elevations of
7,200 m (23,622 ft; 4 mi) or greater above sea level. Of
these, 14 are more than 8,000 m (26,247 ft; 5 mi).[1] The
vast majority of these mountains are part of either the
Himalayas or the Karakoram mountain ranges located on the
edge of the Indian Plate and Eurasian Plate in China, India,
Nepal, and Pakistan.[a]
The Himalayas are a relatively young mountain range that
began forming between 40 and 50 million years ago
The Karakoram Range began forming approximately 65 million
years ago
All of these are older than any known human civilization by
several million years.
If you take the lowest range it had mountains almost 6000
feet tall. Therefore there would need to be enough water to
cover the entire planet to over 6000. feet.
If this water went underground it would need space to hold a
layer of over 6000 feet since the cubic space involved would
be the same. That much underground water would be easily
detectable yet no one has ever found it.
Since the highest mountains are also outside the range of
human civilization it would take over 26000 feet of water to
cover everything, making the amount needed for only 6000
feet a minor amount.
A world wide flood that covers everything is a physical
impossibility.
Indeed.
Everest is growing at 2 inches per year,
which means at the time of Ye Floode it was
still over 26,000 feet high. It would have
taken a lot of water to cover that, the
weight of which would have altered the
Earth's rotation.
Even the water backed up in China's
Three Gorges Dam changed the Earths spin.
https://www.iflscience.com/its-true-chinas-three-gorges-dam-is-so-
it- changes-earths-spin-75997
Thanks Mitchell.
But we know that Mt. Everest was post flood.
The Bible doesn't say that.
Science doesn't say that.
You just made it up.
Why do you do that?
Pre flood there were "high hills". as you have
cited here for us
They rose greatly on the earth,
and all the -----> high mountains <-----
under the entire heavens were covered.
Genesis 7:19
The waters rose and covered the
------> mountains <------ to a depth of
more than fifteen cubits.
Genesis 7:20
Why do you lie about what the
Bible says?
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:uejuakd8qdkq1jb9rqd63p349kmvkkgc2i@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that
fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/article-
abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Himalaya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods have
been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities prevailing
in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four main events,
the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian
(Caledonian), the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late
Cretaceous-Tertiary Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are
particularly significant in delineating different phases of the last
i.e. the Himalayan orogeny which indicates main activity of the young
Himalayan metamorphism around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous
phase of major uplift during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible for
the rise of the deeper part of the Himalaya into great folds and
thrust slices and the formation of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:uejuakd8qdkq1jb9rqd63p349kmvkkgc2i@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that
fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/article-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Himalaya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods have
been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities prevailing
in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four main events,
the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian),
the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in
delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan orogeny
which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan metamorphism
around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous phase of major uplift
during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible for the rise of the deeper
part of the Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and the
formation of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Remember, also, that Ma means "millions of years ago" and that Mt.
Everest is part of the Himalayas.
Thanks Vincent!
Since the origional subject has still not yet been addressed
(the so-called world wide flood) and since you assert it did
occur what is your basis for such an assertion? What
supporting evidence do you have?
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having
formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that
fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/article-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Himalaya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods have
been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities prevailing
in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four main events,
the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian),
the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in
delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan orogeny
which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan metamorphism
around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous phase of major uplift
during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible for the rise of the deeper
part of the Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and the
formation of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which frankly
can usually be checked for), it's geochemically unfeasible that
different dating methods like those used here could converge on the
same "wrong" answer.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:7sp0bkt6cb0hg9dojbcjnc191sr1kgr253@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having >>>>>>>>>> formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years
ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that
fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/article-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Himalaya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods have
been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities prevailing
in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four main events,
the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian), >>>> the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in
delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan orogeny
which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan metamorphism
around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous phase of major uplift
during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible for the rise of the deeper
part of the Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and the
formation of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which frankly
can usually be checked for), it's geochemically unfeasible that
different dating methods like those used here could converge on the
same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
"Attila" wrote in message
news:c1e0bkpvp97nk1hudfrd4dhsr0mr7smllq@4ax.com...
Since the origional subject has still not yet been addressed
(the so-called world wide flood) and since you assert it did
occur what is your basis for such an assertion? What
supporting evidence do you have?
We have discussed this extensively on alt.atheism
for the last three decades at least. Where have you
been!?
Furthermore, God has specifically told us that it
would not happen again, by water. Next time He
is going to use FIRE!
This is what will happen.
Your flesh will dissolve while you stand on your
feet.Your eyes will dissolve in their sockets, and
your tongue will dissolve in your mouth.
~ Zechariah 14:12
"The destruction of the transgressors and of the
sinners shall be together, and they that forsake
the LORD--> shall be *consumed*.
~ Isaiah 1:28
"Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth,
and let the wicked be no more."
~ Psalm 104:35
There will be a wonderful, clean and very
beautiful new Earth.
"Attila" wrote in message news:c1e0bkpvp97nk1hudfrd4dhsr0mr7smllq@4ax.com...
Since the origional subject has still not yet been addressed
(the so-called world wide flood) and since you assert it did
occur what is your basis for such an assertion? What
supporting evidence do you have?
We have discussed this extensively on alt.atheism
for the last three decades at least. Where have you
been!?
Furthermore, God has specifically told us that it
would not happen again, by water. Next time He
is going to use FIRE!
This is what will happen.
There will be a wonderful, clean and very
beautiful new Earth.
Yes!
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having >>>>>>>>>>> formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian
tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years >>>>>>>>>>> ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that >>>>>>>>> fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals
over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that
fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/article-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Himalaya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods have
been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities prevailing >>>>> in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four main events,
the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian), >>>>> the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in >>>>> delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan orogeny
which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan metamorphism
around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous phase of major uplift >>>>> during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible for the rise of the deeper >>>>> part of the Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and the
formation of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which frankly
can usually be checked for), it's geochemically unfeasible that
different dating methods like those used here could converge on the
same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical properties* are
so different that a geochemical explanation for matching dates simply
isn't viable.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
Your prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason about
science.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial
daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks) old
rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going to happen without those dates reflecting the actual passage of time
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Since the origional subject has still not yet been addressed
(the so-called world wide flood) and since you assert it did
occur what is your basis for such an assertion? What
supporting evidence do you have?
We have discussed this extensively on alt.atheism
for the last three decades at least. Where have you
been!?
Here.
Furthermore, God has specifically told us that it
would not happen again, by water. Next time He
is going to use FIRE!
This is what will happen.
Is this your belief based upon your silly superstition or do
you have actual unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and
credible evidence to support your assertion?
Quotes from unverified source removed. They support
nothing.
There will be a wonderful, clean and very
beautiful new Earth.
Yes!
I need a lot more than you your assertion.
How do I know you are not delusional or
lying?
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Since the origional subject has still not yet been addressed
(the so-called world wide flood) and since you assert it did
occur what is your basis for such an assertion? What
supporting evidence do you have?
We have discussed this extensively on alt.atheism
for the last three decades at least. Where have you
been!?
Furthermore, God has specifically told us that it
would not happen again, by water. Next time He
is going to use FIRE!
This is what will happen.
Your flesh will dissolve while you stand on your
feet.Your eyes will dissolve in their sockets, and
your tongue will dissolve in your mouth.
~ Zechariah 14:12
"The destruction of the transgressors and of the
sinners shall be together, and they that forsake
the LORD--> shall be *consumed*.
~ Isaiah 1:28
"Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth,
and let the wicked be no more."
~ Psalm 104:35
There will be a wonderful, clean and very
beautiful new Earth.
Will God kill the guilty and innocent
alike, as he did with Ye Floode?
"Attila" wrote in message news:9eb2bk5m4rjstr132g9m00i6i88sifl5bf@4ax.com... >> "Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Since the origional subject has still not yet been addressed
(the so-called world wide flood) and since you assert it did
occur what is your basis for such an assertion? What
supporting evidence do you have?
We have discussed this extensively on alt.atheism
for the last three decades at least. Where have you
been!?
Here.
Furthermore, God has specifically told us that it
would not happen again, by water. Next time He
is going to use FIRE!
This is what will happen.
Is this your belief based upon your silly superstition or do
you have actual unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and
credible evidence to support your assertion?
Quotes from unverified source removed. They support
nothing.
There will be a wonderful, clean and very
beautiful new Earth.
Yes!
I need a lot more than you your assertion.
Why is that?
How do I know you are not delusional or
lying?
When the fire falls, you will definitely know.
My interest is in the truth.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:k9m1bkp9ptcjraupjm8el6boqocajpsm30@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having >>>>>>>>>>>> formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian >>>>>>>>>>>> tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years >>>>>>>>>>>> ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that >>>>>>>>>> fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals >>>>>>>>>> over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that >>>>>>>>>> fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/article-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Himalaya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods have >>>>>> been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities prevailing >>>>>> in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four main events, >>>>>> the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian), >>>>>> the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in >>>>>> delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan orogeny >>>>>> which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan metamorphism
around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous phase of major uplift >>>>>> during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible for the rise of the deeper >>>>>> part of the Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and the
formation of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which frankly
can usually be checked for), it's geochemically unfeasible that
different dating methods like those used here could converge on the
same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical properties* are
so different that a geochemical explanation for matching dates simply
isn't viable.
So are they matching? No.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
Your prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason about
science.
My interest is in the truth.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial
daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks) old
rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
That's what the results tell you.
What I was saying above, is that samples having
recent known dates were radiometric tested, but
results came back assigning them as having long
ages.
Radiocarbon dating is more universally accepted
as a reliable dating method.
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going to happen
without those dates reflecting the actual passage of time
No, not "the actual passage of time". However you
may "believe" it to be so.
Because you believe in the
reliability of the tests. That's where the problem is.
Radiocarbon dating does not have such problems.
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB349CF5663D45629555@69.80.101.18...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Since the origional subject has still not yet been addressed
(the so-called world wide flood) and since you assert it did
occur what is your basis for such an assertion? What
supporting evidence do you have?
We have discussed this extensively on alt.atheism
for the last three decades at least. Where have you
been!?
Furthermore, God has specifically told us that it
would not happen again, by water. Next time He
is going to use FIRE!
This is what will happen.
Your flesh will dissolve while you stand on your
feet.Your eyes will dissolve in their sockets, and
your tongue will dissolve in your mouth.
~ Zechariah 14:12
"The destruction of the transgressors and of the
sinners shall be together, and they that forsake
the LORD--> shall be *consumed*.
~ Isaiah 1:28
"Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth,
and let the wicked be no more."
~ Psalm 104:35
There will be a wonderful, clean and very
beautiful new Earth.
Will God kill the guilty and innocent
alike, as he did with Ye Floode?
We are ALL guilty, but God has a plan of
salvation.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:k9m1bkp9ptcjraupjm8el6boqocajpsm30@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having >>>>>>>>>>>> formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian >>>>>>>>>>>> tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years >>>>>>>>>>>> ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that >>>>>>>>>> fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals >>>>>>>>>> over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that >>>>>>>>>> fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/arti >>>>>> cle-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Hima >>>>>> laya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods
have been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities
prevailing in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four
main events, the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian
Assyntian (Caledonian), the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the
Late Cretaceous-Tertiary Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are
particularly significant in delineating different phases of the
last i.e. the Himalayan orogeny which indicates main activity of
the young Himalayan metamorphism around 70 to 50 Ma and followed
by a momentous phase of major uplift during 25 to 10 Ma, which
was responsible for the rise of the deeper part of the Himalaya
into great folds and thrust slices and the formation of nappe
structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods
used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which
frankly can usually be checked for), it's geochemically unfeasible
that different dating methods like those used here could converge
on the same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical properties* are
so different that a geochemical explanation for matching dates simply
isn't viable.
So are they matching? No.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
Your prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason about
science.
My interest is in the truth.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial
daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks) old
rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
That's what the results tell you.
What I was saying above, is that samples having
recent known dates were radiometric tested, but
results came back assigning them as having long
ages.
Radiocarbon dating is more universally accepted
as a reliable dating method.
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going to
happen without those dates reflecting the actual passage of time
No, not "the actual passage of time". However you
may "believe" it to be so. Because you believe in the
reliability of the tests. That's where the problem is.
Radiocarbon dating does not have such problems.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:Funny that wasn't your position
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having >>>>>>>>>>>>> formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian >>>>>>>>>>>>> tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years >>>>>>>>>>>>> ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that >>>>>>>>>>> fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals >>>>>>>>>>> over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that >>>>>>>>>>> fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/arti >>>>>>> cle-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Hima >>>>>>> laya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods
have been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities
prevailing in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four >>>>>>> main events, the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian
Assyntian (Caledonian), the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the
Late Cretaceous-Tertiary Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are >>>>>>> particularly significant in delineating different phases of the
last i.e. the Himalayan orogeny which indicates main activity of >>>>>>> the young Himalayan metamorphism around 70 to 50 Ma and followed >>>>>>> by a momentous phase of major uplift during 25 to 10 Ma, which
was responsible for the rise of the deeper part of the Himalaya
into great folds and thrust slices and the formation of nappe
structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods
used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which
frankly can usually be checked for), it's geochemically unfeasible
that different dating methods like those used here could converge
on the same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical properties* are
so different that a geochemical explanation for matching dates simply
isn't viable.
So are they matching? No.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
Your prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason about
science.
My interest is in the truth.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial
daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks) old
rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
That's what the results tell you.
What I was saying above, is that samples having
recent known dates were radiometric tested, but
results came back assigning them as having long
ages.
Radiocarbon dating is more universally accepted
as a reliable dating method.
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going to
happen without those dates reflecting the actual passage of time
No, not "the actual passage of time". However you
may "believe" it to be so. Because you believe in the
reliability of the tests. That's where the problem is.
Radiocarbon dating does not have such problems.
when that same radiocarbon dating
proved Ye Shroud was a fake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:So how confident can we be that these
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having >>>>>>>>>>>>> formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian >>>>>>>>>>>>> tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years >>>>>>>>>>>>> ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that >>>>>>>>>>> fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals >>>>>>>>>>> over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that >>>>>>>>>>> fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/article-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Himalaya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods have >>>>>>> been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities prevailing >>>>>>> in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four main events, >>>>>>> the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian), >>>>>>> the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in >>>>>>> delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan orogeny >>>>>>> which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan metamorphism >>>>>>> around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous phase of major uplift >>>>>>> during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible for the rise of the deeper >>>>>>> part of the Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and the
formation of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods used. >>>>>>
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which frankly >>>>> can usually be checked for), it's geochemically unfeasible that
different dating methods like those used here could converge on the
same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical properties* are
so different that a geochemical explanation for matching dates simply
isn't viable.
So are they matching? No.
They are! Look at the long list of dates under
Radiometric Age Data in the link I posted.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
Your prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason about
science.
My interest is in the truth.
What if the "truth" pointed away from creationism?
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial
daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks) old
rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
That's what the results tell you.
What I was saying above, is that samples having
recent known dates were radiometric tested, but
results came back assigning them as having long
ages.
I've already told you how to deal with that.
And you are unable to
explain the dates that come back in agreement with each other.
Radiocarbon dating is more universally accepted
as a reliable dating method.
Not for ages outside C-14 dating's range, i.e., after a few tens of
thousand years.
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going to happen
without those dates reflecting the actual passage of time
No, not "the actual passage of time". However you
may "believe" it to be so.
It's what the evidence points to.
Because you believe in the
reliability of the tests. That's where the problem is.
Radiocarbon dating does not have such problems.
No, for really old rocks (and by the way C-14 is used for organic
material, not rocks ), methods like U-Pb, Rb-Sr, and K-Ar are used.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:hqb4bk1sgsbj6e0306i4325nhnsaf19nsu@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:So how confident can we be that these
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, having >>>>>>>>>>>>>> formed during the collision of the Indian and Eurasian >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 million years >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ago and created the Himalayan mountain range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and that >>>>>>>>>>>> fit with other data that has been recorded by professionals >>>>>>>>>>>> over time and that has been verified by unrelated data that >>>>>>>>>>>> fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/article-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Himalaya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods have >>>>>>>> been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities prevailing >>>>>>>> in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm four main events, >>>>>>>> the Precambrian, the Late Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian), >>>>>>>> the Late Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary >>>>>>>> Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in >>>>>>>> delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan orogeny >>>>>>>> which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan metamorphism >>>>>>>> around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous phase of major uplift >>>>>>>> during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible for the rise of the deeper >>>>>>>> part of the Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and the >>>>>>>> formation of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods used. >>>>>>>
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which frankly >>>>>> can usually be checked for), it's geochemically unfeasible that
different dating methods like those used here could converge on the >>>>>> same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical properties* are
so different that a geochemical explanation for matching dates simply
isn't viable.
So are they matching? No.
They are! Look at the long list of dates under
Radiometric Age Data in the link I posted.
You posted a link that has a paywall. Perhaps
you didn't realize that, therefore I forgive you.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
Your prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason about
science.
My interest is in the truth.
What if the "truth" pointed away from creationism?
Then I would need to recant.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial
daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks) old
rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
That's what the results tell you.
What I was saying above, is that samples having
recent known dates were radiometric tested, but
results came back assigning them as having long
ages.
I've already told you how to deal with that.
You "deal with that" by accepting the truth,
which you have consistently refused to do.
And you are unable to
explain the dates that come back in agreement with each other.
Radiocarbon dating is more universally accepted
as a reliable dating method.
Not for ages outside C-14 dating's range, i.e., after a few tens of
thousand years.
Does that give one licensee to use methods that are
dependent upon assumptions? Not if one wants the
truth!!!
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going to happen >>>> without those dates reflecting the actual passage of time
No, not "the actual passage of time". However you
may "believe" it to be so.
It's what the evidence points to.
Yes, if you are a ''believer". A "believer" in dating methods that
are based upon assumptions,
and shown to have many problems.
Surely you will deny that, because you are a "believer".
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2Because you believe in the
reliability of the tests. That's where the problem is.
Radiocarbon dating does not have such problems.
No, for really old rocks (and by the way C-14 is used for organic
material, not rocks ), methods like U-Pb, Rb-Sr, and K-Ar are used.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Since the origional subject has still not yet been addressed
(the so-called world wide flood) and since you assert it did
occur what is your basis for such an assertion? What
supporting evidence do you have?
We have discussed this extensively on alt.atheism
for the last three decades at least. Where have you
been!?
Here.
Furthermore, God has specifically told us that it
would not happen again, by water. Next time He
is going to use FIRE!
This is what will happen.
Is this your belief based upon your silly superstition or do
you have actual unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and
credible evidence to support your assertion?
Quotes from unverified source removed. They support
nothing.
There will be a wonderful, clean and very
beautiful new Earth.
Yes!
I need a lot more than you your assertion.
Why is that?
You could be delusional or lying. How am I to know?
How do I know you are not delusional or
lying?
When the fire falls, you will definitely know.
What fire?
"Andrew" wrote:
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
This bit of disinformation has appeared repeatedly on creationist
websites. No matter how often debunked, it squirms out and festers.
Potassium-argon dating of rocks is accurate over an age range of roughly 100,000 to 4.5 billion years. Any younger, it's difficult to accurately
measure the trace amounts of argon 40 that has been generated. Results
below the lower age limit are invalid, as this result was. It shows the alleged testers were either incompetent or lying, or the whole story was invented.
Measuring new rock by K-Ar dating is like trying to measure the diameter
of a hair with a yardstick.
Please apologize for your dishonesty, and promise never to repeat it
again.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
be honest.
"Attila" wrote in message news:qn44bk9q4e1lmau9oc5mt72rvpa41camgk@4ax.com... >> "Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Since the origional subject has still not yet been addressed
(the so-called world wide flood) and since you assert it did
occur what is your basis for such an assertion? What
supporting evidence do you have?
We have discussed this extensively on alt.atheism
for the last three decades at least. Where have you
been!?
Here.
So you were "here", but you were not "here" when you
were "here". Thanks, that helps explain the problem.
Furthermore, God has specifically told us that it
would not happen again, by water. Next time He
is going to use FIRE!
This is what will happen.
Is this your belief based upon your silly superstition or do
you have actual unambiguous, unrelated, verifiable and
credible evidence to support your assertion?
Quotes from unverified source removed. They support
nothing.
There will be a wonderful, clean and very
beautiful new Earth.
Yes!
I need a lot more than you your assertion.
Why is that?
You could be delusional or lying. How am I to know?
If you are unable "to know", then this tells
us that you are one who is ''easily deceived''.
How do I know you are not delusional or
lying?
You testify that you are one who cannot tell.
When the fire falls, you will definitely know.
What fire?
The one that will dissolve your flesh while you
stand on your feet; and will dissolve your eyes
in their sockets, and will dissolve your tongue
in your mouth.
Then there will be a wonderful, clean and very
beautiful new Earth.
You "deal with that" by accepting the truth,
which you have consistently refused to do.
"Trevor" wrote in message
news:ka65bk567p5mnncui71tp4vp17ilcls3o6@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
This bit of disinformation has appeared repeatedly on creationist
websites. No matter how often debunked, it squirms out and festers.
Potassium-argon dating of rocks is accurate over an age range of
roughly 100,000 to 4.5 billion years. Any younger, it's difficult to
accurately
The fact that we can give the testing labs samples where the starting
date is known..should tell you that such dating methods they use are invalid.
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB34AD0EF96948629555@69.80.101.16...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:Funny that wasn't your position
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> having formed during the collision of the Indian and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eurasian tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> million years ago and created the Himalayan mountain >>>>>>>>>>>>>> range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and >>>>>>>>>>>> that fit with other data that has been recorded by
professionals over time and that has been verified by
unrelated data that fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/ar >>>>>>>> ti
cle-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Hi >>>>>>>> ma laya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods >>>>>>>> have been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities >>>>>>>> prevailing in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm
four main events, the Precambrian, the Late
Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian), the Late
Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary Himalayan >>>>>>>> Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in
delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan
orogeny which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan
metamorphism around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous
phase of major uplift during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible >>>>>>>> for the rise of the deeper part of the Himalaya into great
folds and thrust slices and the formation of nappe structures." >>>>>>>>
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..
you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods
used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which
frankly can usually be checked for), it's geochemically
unfeasible that different dating methods like those used here
could converge on the same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical properties*
are so different that a geochemical explanation for matching dates
simply isn't viable.
So are they matching? No.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
Your prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason about
science.
My interest is in the truth.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial
daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks) old
rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
That's what the results tell you.
What I was saying above, is that samples having
recent known dates were radiometric tested, but
results came back assigning them as having long
ages.
Radiocarbon dating is more universally accepted
as a reliable dating method.
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going to
happen without those dates reflecting the actual passage of time
No, not "the actual passage of time". However you
may "believe" it to be so. Because you believe in the
reliability of the tests. That's where the problem is.
Radiocarbon dating does not have such problems.
when that same radiocarbon dating
proved Ye Shroud was a fake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turi
n
There was no dispute that I know of with the tests.
It was determined scientifically that the material
they tested was not representative of the original
cloth. Therefore the results of the 1988 test were
invalid as to truthfully determining the true date
of the original fabric.
Please read these,
http://shroudnm.com/docs/2004-09-12-Rogers.pdf
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:rRzsQ.2661$4Ct1.202@fx09.ams4:
"Trevor" wrote in message
news:ka65bk567p5mnncui71tp4vp17ilcls3o6@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
This bit of disinformation has appeared repeatedly on creationist
websites. No matter how often debunked, it squirms out and festers.
Potassium-argon dating of rocks is accurate over an age range of
roughly 100,000 to 4.5 billion years. Any younger, it's difficult to
accurately
The fact that we can give the testing labs samples where the starting
date is known..should tell you that such dating methods they use are
invalid.
What test results do you believe are valid?
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in
news:rRzsQ.2661$4Ct1.202@fx09.ams4:
"Trevor" wrote in message
news:ka65bk567p5mnncui71tp4vp17ilcls3o6@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
This bit of disinformation has appeared repeatedly on creationist
websites. No matter how often debunked, it squirms out and festers.
Potassium-argon dating of rocks is accurate over an age range of
roughly 100,000 to 4.5 billion years. Any younger, it's difficult to
accurately
The fact that we can give the testing labs samples where the starting
date is known..should tell you that such dating methods they use are
invalid.
What test results do you believe are valid?
syphilis can affect the brain.
"Trevor" wrote in message news:ka65bk567p5mnncui71tp4vp17ilcls3o6@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
This bit of disinformation has appeared repeatedly on creationist
websites. No matter how often debunked, it squirms out and festers.
Potassium-argon dating of rocks is accurate over an age range of roughly 100,000 to 4.5 billion years. Any younger, it's difficult to accurately
The fact that we can give the testing labs samples where the starting
date is known..should tell you that such dating methods they use are invalid.
But to those who believe otherwise, there's nothing you can do to
help them. It is akin to a religion to them, and they are staunch,
true believers.
Their religion is false, because it is based on falsehood.
measure the trace amounts of argon 40 that has been generated. Results below the lower age limit are invalid, as this result was. It shows the alleged testers were either incompetent or lying, or the whole story was invented.
Measuring new rock by K-Ar dating is like trying to measure the diameter
of a hair with a yardstick.
Please apologize for your dishonesty, and promise never to repeat it
again.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:Funny that wasn't your position
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having formed during the collision of the Indian and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eurasian tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million years ago and created the Himalayan mountain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and >>>>>>>>>>>>> that fit with other data that has been recorded by
professionals over time and that has been verified by >>>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated data that fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/ar >>>>>>>>> ti
cle-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Hi >>>>>>>>> ma laya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods >>>>>>>>> have been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities >>>>>>>>> prevailing in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm >>>>>>>>> four main events, the Precambrian, the Late
Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian), the Late
Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary Himalayan >>>>>>>>> Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in
delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan
orogeny which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan >>>>>>>>> metamorphism around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous
phase of major uplift during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible >>>>>>>>> for the rise of the deeper part of the Himalaya into great
folds and thrust slices and the formation of nappe structures." >>>>>>>>>
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or.. >>>>>>>>>>you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods >>>>>>>>> used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which
frankly can usually be checked for), it's geochemically
unfeasible that different dating methods like those used here
could converge on the same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical properties*
are so different that a geochemical explanation for matching dates
simply isn't viable.
So are they matching? No.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
Your prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason about
science.
My interest is in the truth.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial
daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks) old
rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
That's what the results tell you.
What I was saying above, is that samples having
recent known dates were radiometric tested, but
results came back assigning them as having long
ages.
Radiocarbon dating is more universally accepted
as a reliable dating method.
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going to
happen without those dates reflecting the actual passage of time
No, not "the actual passage of time". However you
may "believe" it to be so. Because you believe in the
reliability of the tests. That's where the problem is.
Radiocarbon dating does not have such problems.
when that same radiocarbon dating
proved Ye Shroud was a fake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
There was no dispute that I know of with the tests.
It was determined scientifically that the material
they tested was not representative of the original
cloth. Therefore the results of the 1988 test were
invalid as to truthfully determining the true date
of the original fabric.
Please read these,
http://shroudnm.com/docs/2004-09-12-Rogers.pdf
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
3D analysis reveals Shroud of Turin image
likely came from sculpture, not Jesus' body
August 3, 2025 <-------
A new 3D digital analysis offers compelling
evidence that the Turin Shroud-long believed
by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus-was
likely not created by contact with a real
person's body, but was actually crafted as
a form of medieval religious art. https://archaeologymag.com/2025/08/shroud-of-turin-image-came-from-sculpture/
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB34B57DA76227629555@69.80.101.15...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:Funny that wasn't your position
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having formed during the collision of the Indian and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eurasian tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million years ago and created the Himalayan mountain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that fit with other data that has been recorded by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> professionals over time and that has been verified by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated data that fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/ >>>>>>>>>> ar ti
cle-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the- >>>>>>>>>> Hi ma laya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating
methods have been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic >>>>>>>>>> activities prevailing in the Himalaya. In general, the age >>>>>>>>>> data confirm four main events, the Precambrian, the Late
Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian), the Late
Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly
significant in delineating different phases of the last i.e. >>>>>>>>>> the Himalayan orogeny which indicates main activity of the >>>>>>>>>> young Himalayan metamorphism around 70 to 50 Ma and followed >>>>>>>>>> by a momentous phase of major uplift during 25 to 10 Ma,
which was responsible for the rise of the deeper part of the >>>>>>>>>> Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and the formation >>>>>>>>>> of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or.. >>>>>>>>>>>you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods >>>>>>>>>> used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which
frankly can usually be checked for), it's geochemically
unfeasible that different dating methods like those used here
could converge on the same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical properties*
are so different that a geochemical explanation for matching
dates simply isn't viable.
So are they matching? No.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
Your prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason about
science.
My interest is in the truth.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial
daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks)
old rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
That's what the results tell you.
What I was saying above, is that samples having
recent known dates were radiometric tested, but
results came back assigning them as having long
ages.
Radiocarbon dating is more universally accepted
as a reliable dating method.
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going to
happen without those dates reflecting the actual passage of time
No, not "the actual passage of time". However you
may "believe" it to be so. Because you believe in the
reliability of the tests. That's where the problem is.
Radiocarbon dating does not have such problems.
when that same radiocarbon dating
proved Ye Shroud was a fake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Tu
rin
There was no dispute that I know of with the tests.
It was determined scientifically that the material
they tested was not representative of the original
cloth. Therefore the results of the 1988 test were
invalid as to truthfully determining the true date
of the original fabric.
Please read these,
http://shroudnm.com/docs/2004-09-12-Rogers.pdf
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
3D analysis reveals Shroud of Turin image
likely came from sculpture, not Jesus' body
August 3, 2025 <-------
A new 3D digital analysis offers compelling
evidence that the Turin Shroud-long believed
by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus-was
likely not created by contact with a real
person's body, but was actually crafted as
a form of medieval religious art.
https://archaeologymag.com/2025/08/shroud-of-turin-image-came-from-scu
lpture/
We have peer-reviewed papers today
on this issue by professional scientists.
https://www.shroud.com/papers.htm
They summarize their conclusions here
https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm
Consider also that the image on the Shroud
appears as a "photographic negative". And
it wasn't until 1898 when a photographer
took the first photograph of the Shroud,
Which was the first time that the "positive
image" was revealed (1898).
To say it was an elaborate forgery would
be to say that the hoaxter was able to produce
a photographic negative image even before
the invention of the camera.
"Andrew" <andrew.321.remov@usa.net> wrote in news:IAtsQ.29125$NzO3.28339@fx01.ams4:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message3D analysis reveals Shroud of Turin image
news:XnsB34AD0EF96948629555@69.80.101.16...
"Andrew" wrote:There was no dispute that I know of with the tests.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:Funny that wasn't your position
"Andrew" wrote:So are they matching? No.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical properties*
"Andrew" wrote:You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which
"Andrew" wrote:So how confident can we be that these
"Attila" wrote:From:
"Andrew" wrote:The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
"Attila" wrote:There is far more supporting evidence for geology and
"Andrew" wrote:You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
"Attila" wrote:Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and >>>>>>>>>>>>> that fit with other data that has been recorded by
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having formed during the collision of the Indian and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eurasian tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million years ago and created the Himalayan mountain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range.Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
professionals over time and that has been verified by >>>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated data that fits the overall picture.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
related sciences than there is for your position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/ar >>>>>>>>> ti
cle-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the-Hi >>>>>>>>> ma laya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating methods >>>>>>>>> have been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic activities >>>>>>>>> prevailing in the Himalaya. In general, the age data confirm >>>>>>>>> four main events, the Precambrian, the Late
Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian), the Late
Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary Himalayan >>>>>>>>> Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly significant in
delineating different phases of the last i.e. the Himalayan
orogeny which indicates main activity of the young Himalayan >>>>>>>>> metamorphism around 70 to 50 Ma and followed by a momentous
phase of major uplift during 25 to 10 Ma, which was responsible >>>>>>>>> for the rise of the deeper part of the Himalaya into great
folds and thrust slices and the formation of nappe structures." >>>>>>>>>
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or..There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods >>>>>>>>> used.
you were lying.
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
frankly can usually be checked for), it's geochemically
unfeasible that different dating methods like those used here
could converge on the same "wrong" answer.
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
are so different that a geochemical explanation for matching dates
simply isn't viable.
My interest is in the truth.Since they concur with your philosophicalYour prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason about
science.
That's what the results tell you.In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks) old
rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
What I was saying above, is that samples having
recent known dates were radiometric tested, but
results came back assigning them as having long
ages.
Radiocarbon dating is more universally accepted
as a reliable dating method.
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going toNo, not "the actual passage of time". However you
happen without those dates reflecting the actual passage of time
may "believe" it to be so. Because you believe in the
reliability of the tests. That's where the problem is.
Radiocarbon dating does not have such problems.
when that same radiocarbon dating
proved Ye Shroud was a fake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turi
n
It was determined scientifically that the material
they tested was not representative of the original
cloth. Therefore the results of the 1988 test were
invalid as to truthfully determining the true date
of the original fabric.
Please read these,
http://shroudnm.com/docs/2004-09-12-Rogers.pdf
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
likely came from sculpture, not JesusrCO body
August 3, 2025 <-------
A new 3D digital analysis offers compelling
evidence that the Turin ShroudrColong believed
by many to be the burial cloth of JesusrCowas
likely not created by contact with a real
personrCOs body, but was actually crafted as
a form of medieval religious art. https://archaeologymag.com/2025/08/shroud-of-turin-image-came-from- sculpture/
"Attila" wrote in message
news:8dih8kt66i0m01in7o79rhcrm6is0psgbb@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"I have swallowed nothing but smoke.
I have intoxicated myself with the
incense that turned my head. You can do nothing for me."
"Send me an insane doctor!
"Have compassion on me."
"I am mad!!"
-a ~ Voltaire, during his last illness
Even if he said that, so what?!-a What's the point??
That death is difficult???
Difficult to face one's Maker after
spending one's life fighting against
Him.
Or not.-a It's your silly superstition, not
-amine.
Nevertheless you will soon find out, Since the life expectancy of the average American
male is 76.1 years, and you are 'well beyond'
that!
Therefore based on that fact, you will soon
join the rest of our atheist friends who have departed this realm and
are awaiting the call
to stand before the Great Judge, and King.....
Jesus (glory to Him!).
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every
one may receive the
things done in-a his body, according to what
he hath done, whether it be good or bad."-a-a -a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ~ 2
Corinthians 5:10
"It is appointed unto men once to die, but -aafter this the judgment."
~ Hebrews 9:27
"Attila" wrote in message
news:7k6q8kd70qhoks078gkgd1tmkp768h62d6@4ax.com...
-a"Andrew" wrote:
He simply gave his testimony. What will yours be like?
-aI expect mine to be the usual complete silence.-a Dead, you
-aknow.
Yes, that will be your case - until the resurection.
Because you -will- be raised, like everyone else.
'Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming
-a in which 'all' that are in the graves shall hear His voice and shall
come forth.'
The fact that we have *solid evidence* that
Jesus was raised
supports the above claim.
It is both foolish as well as futile to fight against the truth.
"Attila" wrote in message
news:uro09kphecs3mdns6g846jpv97nqt2tmnr@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
-a"Andrew" wrote:Yes, that will be your case - until the resurection.
He simply gave his testimony. What will yours be like?
-aI expect mine to be the usual complete silence.-a Dead, you know. >>>>>
According to your silly superstition.-a It is meaningless to me.
Until it actually happens.
Or not.-a I will wait.
You acknewledge that you don't know for sure.
But you "will wait".-a THEN you will know for
sure! Oh yes ~ you sure will.
Because you -will- be raised, like everyone else.
-a 'Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming
-a in which 'all' that are in the graves shall -a hear His voice and >>>>> shall come forth.'
The fact that we have *solid evidence* that
Jesus was raised supports the above claim.
You don't even have "solid evidence" he even existed.
However I note that ~every one~ of your posts has been dated in
reference to Him!
That simply shows the political power of the catholic church
in the past.-a The use of BC and AD is being replaced by the
more accurate BCE and CE to reflect this loss of power.
How could it be "more accurate" since the ~same dates~ are used?!
We must start a calendar from somewhere and just about
everyone uses the same one today - unlike in the past.
Since the actual 'reference date' is unknown one was rather
arbitrarily picked.
The 'reference date' was Jesus Christ, Son of the Most High God,
Creator of heaven and Earth.-a Who will soon come to-a judge the quick
and the dead. All glory to Him! Amen!
We may _prepare now_ to meet Him...in peace.
Meaningless analogy.Especially in a form that matches your mental picture.
It is both foolish as well as futile to fight against the truth.
But I ca ignore silly superstitions such as your's.
A man falling off a tall building can ignore (temporarily) his
fate.-a But soon he will meet it an with overwhelming force.
The analogy is in reference to 'fools' who foolishly choose to 'ignore
the inevitable' that they must face.
On 8/3/2025 12:18 PM, Andrew wrote:
"Attila" wrote in message
news:tm2u8kh4lmur42pl21cclj7ld9j3f0fqmq@4ax.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
-a"Andrew" wrote:
He simply gave his testimony. What will yours be like?
-aI expect mine to be the usual complete silence.-a Dead, you know.
Yes, that will be your case - until the resurection.
According to your silly superstition.-a It is meaningless to me.
Until it actually happens.
Because you -will- be raised, like everyone else.
-a 'Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming
-a in which 'all' that are in the graves shall -a hear His voice and
shall come forth.'
The fact that we have *solid evidence* that
Jesus was raised supports the above claim.
You don't even have "solid evidence" he even existed.
However I note that ~every one~ of your posts has been dated in
reference to Him!
Especially in a form that matches your mental picture.
It is both foolish as well as futile to fight against the truth.
But I ca ignore silly superstitions such as your's.
A man falling off a tall building can ignore (temporarily) his fate.-a
But soon he will meet it an with overwhelming force.
Not if there is a good bungee cord with an appropriate harness attached:
https://www.newzealand.com/us/bungy/
Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote in news:1070tj9$3n28s$2@dont- email.me:
On 8/5/2025 8:32 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:Back in my day the disciplining of
Dawn Flood <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote inThat's a myth! (Real) women take care of it ourselves!!
news:106u0ng$31dt9$2@dont-email.me:
No, this is when Mom grabs her paddle that is hanging from the wall in >>>> her kitchen.
Or in the case of boys, "wait until
your father (and his belt) gets home"
Dawn
boys was a man's job. Behind the woudshed
if he had one. Boys understood and Mama
stayed out of the away.
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:There was no dispute that I know of with the tests.
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:Funny that wasn't your position
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having formed during the collision of the Indian and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eurasian tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million years ago and created the Himalayan mountain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim?
Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that fit with other data that has been recorded by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professionals over time and that has been verified by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated data that fits the overall picture.
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and >>>>>>>>>>>>> related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old."
From:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindia/ >>>>>>>>>>> ar ti
cle-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-the- >>>>>>>>>>> Hi ma laya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating
methods have been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic >>>>>>>>>>> activities prevailing in the Himalaya. In general, the age >>>>>>>>>>> data confirm four main events, the Precambrian, the Late >>>>>>>>>>> Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian), the Late
Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly
significant in delineating different phases of the last i.e. >>>>>>>>>>> the Himalayan orogeny which indicates main activity of the >>>>>>>>>>> young Himalayan metamorphism around 70 to 50 Ma and followed >>>>>>>>>>> by a momentous phase of major uplift during 25 to 10 Ma, >>>>>>>>>>> which was responsible for the rise of the deeper part of the >>>>>>>>>>> Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and the formation >>>>>>>>>>> of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or.. >>>>>>>>>>>>you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating methods >>>>>>>>>>> used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which >>>>>>>>> frankly can usually be checked for), it's geochemically
unfeasible that different dating methods like those used here >>>>>>>>> could converge on the same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical properties* >>>>>>> are so different that a geochemical explanation for matching
dates simply isn't viable.
So are they matching? No.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
Your prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason about >>>>>>> science.
My interest is in the truth.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial
daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks)
old rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
That's what the results tell you.
What I was saying above, is that samples having
recent known dates were radiometric tested, but
results came back assigning them as having long
ages.
Radiocarbon dating is more universally accepted
as a reliable dating method.
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going to
happen without those dates reflecting the actual passage of time
No, not "the actual passage of time". However you
may "believe" it to be so. Because you believe in the
reliability of the tests. That's where the problem is.
Radiocarbon dating does not have such problems.
when that same radiocarbon dating
proved Ye Shroud was a fake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin >>>>
It was determined scientifically that the material
they tested was not representative of the original
cloth. Therefore the results of the 1988 test were
invalid as to truthfully determining the true date
of the original fabric.
Please read these,
http://shroudnm.com/docs/2004-09-12-Rogers.pdf
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
3D analysis reveals Shroud of Turin image
likely came from sculpture, not Jesus' body
August 3, 2025 <-------
A new 3D digital analysis offers compelling
evidence that the Turin Shroud-long believed
by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus-was
likely not created by contact with a real
person's body, but was actually crafted as
a form of medieval religious art.
https://archaeologymag.com/2025/08/shroud-of-turin-image-came-from-sculpture/
https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm
Andrew wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Dawn Flood" wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"I have swallowed nothing but smoke.
I have intoxicated myself with the
incense that turned my head. You can
do nothing for me."
"Send me an insane doctor!
"Have compassion on me."
"I am mad!!"
~ Voltaire, during his last illness
Even if he said that, so what?! What's the point??
That death is difficult???
Difficult to face one's Maker after
spending one's life fighting against
Him.
Or not. It's your silly superstition, not
mine.
Nevertheless you will soon find out, Since
the life expectancy of the average American
male is 76.1 years, and you are 'well beyond'
that!
Therefore based on that fact, you will soon
join the rest of our atheist friends who have
departed this realm and are awaiting the call
to stand before the Great Judge, and King.....
Jesus (glory to Him!).
"For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ, that every one may receive the
things done in his body, according to what
he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
~ 2 Corinthians 5:10
"It is appointed unto men once to
die, but after this the judgment."
~ Hebrews 9:27
otoh you will die and discover there is no afterlife, except you won't because you will have ceased to exist and have any form of consciousness
this suggests to me a compelling argument that the
imprint on the shroud is not from a deceased human.
"Felix" wrote in message news:mhhsd6FriedU1@mid.individual.net...
this suggests to me a compelling argument that the
imprint on the shroud is not from a deceased human.
True, it is not. It is from the *Prince of Life,*
Jesus Christ, at the time of His Resurrection.
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsB34BD8641DCBE629555@69.80.102.23...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Mitchell Holman" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:Funny that wasn't your position
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:From:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:
"Andrew" wrote:
"Attila" wrote:Only by methods that are basic to a complex science and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that fit with other data that has been recorded by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> professionals over time and that has been verified by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated data that fits the overall picture.
Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having formed during the collision of the Indian and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eurasian tectonic plates, which began about 50 to 60 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million years ago and created the Himalayan mountain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range.
Can you prove your 50 to 60 million year claim? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You cannot prove it. Neither can anyone else.
You believed what someone told you because
of your gullibility.
There is far more supporting evidence for geology and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> related sciences than there is for your position.
The issue here happened to be--->YOUR position.
You stated,
"Mount Everest is approximately 50 million years old." >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geosocindia/jour-geosocindi >>>>>>>>>>>> a/ ar ti
cle-abstract/23/6/290/640217/Radiometric-Geochronology-of-th >>>>>>>>>>>> e- Hi ma laya
"The radiometric age data obtained by different dating >>>>>>>>>>>> methods have been interpreted in terms of possible orogenic >>>>>>>>>>>> activities prevailing in the Himalaya. In general, the age >>>>>>>>>>>> data confirm four main events, the Precambrian, the Late >>>>>>>>>>>> Precambrian-Cambrian Assyntian (Caledonian), the Late
Palaeozoic-Hercynian and the Late Cretaceous-Tertiary
Himalayan Orogeny. The mineral dates are particularly
significant in delineating different phases of the last >>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. the Himalayan orogeny which indicates main activity of >>>>>>>>>>>> the young Himalayan metamorphism around 70 to 50 Ma and >>>>>>>>>>>> followed by a momentous phase of major uplift during 25 to >>>>>>>>>>>> 10 Ma, which was responsible for the rise of the deeper >>>>>>>>>>>> part of the Himalaya into great folds and thrust slices and >>>>>>>>>>>> the formation of nappe structures."
Either you didn't know what you were talking about, or.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>you were lying.
There were apparently a number of radiometric dating
methods used.
So how confident can we be that these
dating methods give us accurate dates?
Do you want answers that concur with
your philosophical prejudices ~or~ do
you want the truth?
If you want the truth, then you want to
understand that various *assumptions*
are made when using radiometric dating
So if these assumptions are off, then the
results of these tests will not be the truth.
Whatever assumptions there are with radiometric dating (which >>>>>>>>>> frankly can usually be checked for), it's geochemically
unfeasible that different dating methods like those used here >>>>>>>>>> could converge on the same "wrong" answer.
You're dealing with 'dating methods' that
all have the same, or similar assumptions.
Broadly speaking, that's true but their *geochemical
properties* are so different that a geochemical explanation for >>>>>>>> matching dates simply isn't viable.
So are they matching? No.
Since they concur with your philosophical
prejudices you believe in the dates they tell
you.
Your prejudices are deep-seated theological, emotional, and
psychological ones, and detract from your ability to reason
about science.
My interest is in the truth.
In 1992 a block from the lava dome of Mt.
St Helens was tested using the potassium-
argon method at Geochron Laboratories of
Cambridge, MA. The results came back as
long ages, whereas the actual true age was
known to be recent.
There are many other examples. The point
is, if you want the truth, you will want to
do more research and not believe every
thing they tell you.
When radiometric dating is done properly (checking for initial >>>>>>>> daughter product and from contamination from surrounding rocks) >>>>>>>> old rocks yield long ages and young rocks don't.
That's what the results tell you.
What I was saying above, is that samples having
recent known dates were radiometric tested, but
results came back assigning them as having long
ages.
Radiocarbon dating is more universally accepted
as a reliable dating method.
concordant dates from different dating methods are not going to >>>>>>>> happen without those dates reflecting the actual passage of
time
No, not "the actual passage of time". However you
may "believe" it to be so. Because you believe in the
reliability of the tests. That's where the problem is.
Radiocarbon dating does not have such problems.
when that same radiocarbon dating
proved Ye Shroud was a fake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_ >>>>>> Turin
There was no dispute that I know of with the tests.
It was determined scientifically that the material
they tested was not representative of the original
cloth. Therefore the results of the 1988 test were
invalid as to truthfully determining the true date
of the original fabric.
Please read these,
http://shroudnm.com/docs/2004-09-12-Rogers.pdf
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
3D analysis reveals Shroud of Turin image
likely came from sculpture, not Jesus' body
August 3, 2025 <-------
A new 3D digital analysis offers compelling
evidence that the Turin Shroud-long believed
by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus-was
likely not created by contact with a real
person's body, but was actually crafted as
a form of medieval religious art.
https://archaeologymag.com/2025/08/shroud-of-turin-image-came-from-s
culpture/
"The same pewer that raised Jesus from the
dead made that image on the Shroud."
~ from your owr site above
We have peer-reviewed papers today
on this issue by professional scientists
who had hands on access to the relic.
https://www.shroud.com/papers.htm
They summarized their conclusions here
https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm
"Felix" wrote in message news:mhhsd6FriedU1@mid.individual.net...
this suggests to me a compelling argument that the
imprint on the shroud is not from a deceased human.
True, it is not. It is from the *Prince of Life,*
Jesus Christ, at the time of His Resurrection.
He declares.
-a"I am He that liveth, and was dead; and -a behold, I am alive
for evermore, Amen, -a and have the keys of hell and of death."
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ~ Rev 1:18
"Felix" wrote in message news:mhhsd6FriedU1@mid.individual.net...
this suggests to me a compelling argument that the
imprint on the shroud is not from a deceased human.
True, it is not. It is from the *Prince of Life,*
Jesus Christ, at the time of His Resurrection.