"Earth is 6,000 Years Old"

reply to post by golemina


Well, you didn't disappoint me. I thought you would reply with total nonsense and you didn't let me down. I'm just pointing out that you're 100% wrong about the age of mountains. Oh, and the whole "earth has almost been destroyed twice in the last 4500 years" is another fairy tale. Take it how you will.

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by golemina

 

Well, you didn't disappoint me. I thought you would reply with total nonsense and you didn't let me down. I'm just pointing out that you're 100% wrong about the age of mountains. Oh, and the whole "earth has almost been destroyed twice in the last 4500 years" is another fairy tale. Take it how you will.

Hey TheComte.

Wow... Just an amazing take no prisoners rebuttal!



Just a little light on the evidence there big guy...

The sum total of your 'evidence' is what... A link or two to Wiki?

Do you understand that at ANY institute of higher learning if you present ANY type of paper relying on Wiki as a 'source' you will almost certainly get a failing grade.

Why at a premiere website, ATS, whose motto is Deny Ignorance, do you think we would accept any less of a standard?



Do you even know the difference between GRADUALISM and CATASTROPHISM?



I guess philosophically speaking we live in two different worlds TheComte...

Yours is apparently populated by numerous 'Scientists' who have retreated into the practice of the RELIGION of 'Science' and totally violate the most basic tenets of Science...

Let's go slightly OT...

In your Wikipedia (FAIRY TALE) world 'they' are still searching for the CURE FOR CANCER and despite BILLIONS being spent... With millions still dying, horrible, horrible, painful, really ugly deaths.

Sacrificed on the alter of the God of human STUPIDITY.



In my world, there is NO such disease as 'cancer'. It is simply a type of extreme self-toxicity that is TOTALLY remedied with SIMPLE DIET.



(I could go on for weeks highlighting the differences in PERCEPTION, but I'm just such a nice guy. ).

In mine, in keeping with the 98/2 rule, there are far fewer members...

But when you have guys with names like Naessens, Tesla, Schauberger and my main man, Immanuel Velikovsky...

They tend to do all of the heavy lifting.

(Search on my avatar... I might tend to talk about a couple of them. )

If you are so inclined we can get into the nuts and bolts of a REAL picture of the geology, etc of the Earth...

If not, I understand...

Till next time TheComte.

Originally posted by onecraftydude

I also studied theology and it convinced me that God does not exist and a lot of weak people are driven by threats of eternal damnation. Fortunately I was also studying psychology and figured out that these same people are exactly like the German's who supported Hitler even after they had to deny to themselves that all those innocent Jews had been systematically weeded out of their country. They knew those people were being killed and that Hitler was insane, but they were scared so they made up their own reality and decided to support their Fuhrer fervently.

wow, did you just compare Christians to Hitler followers....lol, come on. That's just ridiculous. In fact I would say the complete opposite is true. Hitler was good speaker and made people want to follow him. To me he was more like todays media were if most people keep hearing something enough they start to believe it rather its true or not. People tend to like to follow and go along with public opinions. Christians aren’t really that way, they have put themselves into believe system and tend to believe it no matter what the media or public opinion says. I would think Christians would be harder to manipulate then non-Christians when comes to believing in some cause. In fact public opinion has moved into the favor of not believing in Christ yet there are still allot Christians out there.

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Sorry - thought it was a joke.

OK - got any actual evidence to support that assertion?

I'm sorry... Were my instructions to climb a mountain and examine the rocks TOO complicated?

no - but I lack the expertise to do such analysis, therefore your instructions were useless.

They weer also not actually EVIDENCE.

Come on guys! STOP believing your FAIRY TALE 'Science' and embrace the REALITY... of the world around you

Trouble with this idea that science is a "fairy tale" is that science keeps managing to explain things well, and it keeps being repeatable - you can "do the science" yourself and get the same answers...time after time after time. And it's process keeps finding better and better information overall.

Ah! THERE is the rub...

There are a LOT of REAL Scientists. And guess what?

They see that your so-called 'science' simply doesn't match that little tiny thing some of us like to call REALITY.

another assertion by you - got any actual evidence to back it up?

It's just so damned inconvenient that all the theistic explanations simply cannot compete in those terms.

This would be you making an invalid assumption... And being wrong to boot.

Wrong because of what? This is getting a bit repetitive, but how about you provide some evidence to support your assertion??

However they try - theists always seem to try to co-opt science by trying to make their ideas sound scientific - trying to copy scientific techniques such as , by trying peer review for example.

Quoting Wiki anything?

Please... This is supposed to be a serious discussion.

Is my reference actually wrong? Again - got any actual EVIDENCE, or is it wrong jsut 'cos you disagree with it?

Dude... Let me help you out.

I'm not one of your Bible thumpers...

Yes, a bit of a paradox.

The Earth having been practically destroyed TWICE during the last 4500 years!

Well, you see, it's pretty much a new planet.

Still looking for any actual evidence - 'cos you saying it is so doesn't actually carry much weight...and the more you say it without any evidence the lighter and lighter it gets......

Which would make the Bible thumpers you show such disdain for... MORE correct than you.

Ouch!

Yes it would.....if there was any credible EVIDENCE to support such a contention.

Perhaps you couold, you know....provide some of that??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

no - but I lack the expertise to do such analysis, therefore your instructions were useless.

Well... Today is YOUR lucky day.

I AM a hero!

What? No... hold on a second... Ah... WRONG movie!



I MIGHT have some geology skillz...

The rocks have ALL of the properties of NEW formations.

Since we seem to be operating somewhere along the lines of a 1st or 2nd grade level...



The rocks have VERY sharp edges. (Read: NOT suffering from extensive weathering in a very harsh mountain environment... as in worn down.)

They weer also not actually EVIDENCE.

Dude, 'evidence' like any good tool is typically only as good as the guy wielding it.

another assertion by you - got any actual evidence to back it up?

Asked. And answered.

Wrong because of what? This is getting a bit repetitive, but how about you provide some evidence to support your assertion??

Repetitive?

What? As is in... Asked. And answered.

Is my reference actually wrong? Again - got any actual EVIDENCE, or is it wrong jsut 'cos you disagree with it?

Wait! I think I know the answer to this one...

Oh yeah!

Asked. And answered.

Still looking for any actual evidence - 'cos you saying it is so doesn't actually carry much weight...and the more you say it without any evidence the lighter and lighter it gets......

Well... this is kinda embarrassing...

After separating the wheat from the chaff in your post...

It would appear that there is no ACTUAL content to your post.

What are WE going to do?

Oh yeah! Help my newly found apparently memory-impaired, comprehension-impaired, perception-impaired friend!

Cuz at ATS... THAT is what we do!

(We ACHE to serve! )

I will speak real sloooowwwwwllllly...

If you have ANY REAL interest*, go read Velikovsky's comprehensive books on the subject of CATASTROPHISM. Even this many years later, Immanuel is STILL his own best spokesman.



Curiously, I checked one of the intellectual malady type sites you seem SO intent on pushing... Wikipedia

Guess what?

There isn't a single accurate piece of information representing this GIANT of Science' s tour de force theories!

What?

Yeap!

Not... one... single... solitary... piece... of... information... representing... Velikovsky's... views!

NOT ONE!

You dig?



The second suggestion I made was to go examine the rocks on your favorite local mountain range.

Apparently, your keyboard doesn't reach that far...



I am making an open offer to you. If you are ever in the Seattle area (starting in the next few weeks. Can't wait! )

I will DRAG your couch potatoeness up Mt Rainier...

And RUB YOUR NOSE in your ('got any actual EVIDENCE') 'evidence'...



(Just PM me. Serious! )

Summiting Rainier might help you with that...

Oh, WHO am I kidding?



I await your next round of rhetoricalityness.



* A laughable premise, that you are any type of honest observer or interlocutor of this area of inquiry.

reply to post by golemina


Here's a list of your posts in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=golemina

Perhaps you could identify which of them answered anything at all?

sharp edges on rocks?? Gosh - who would have thought that would ever happen....

Mt Cook, New Zealand - lost 10m off its top in 1991...might have made a sharp rock or 2 I think......

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina

 

Here's a list of your posts in this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=golemina

Perhaps you could identify which of them answered anything at all?

sharp edges on rocks?? Gosh - who would have thought that would ever happen....

Mt Cook, New Zealand - lost 10m off its top in 1991...might have made a sharp rock or 2 I think......

Blah! Blah! Blah! Mr. Jesus basher sir!



If you want to have a REAL conversation... You gotta at least PRETEND to make some kind of effort to actually... YOU KNOW... Engage on the topic..

If I might be so bold as to suggest decide which Jesus-bashing lie... Ah... line of 'reasoning' you want to (SO desperately) cling to....

So when are you available for our Mt Rainier excursion my Gallic friend?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
for sure ? science doesn't even have an answer at all. all it has is the southpark underpants gnome profit chart

step 1 - water
step 2 - ?
step 3 - DNA molecule !

it's the greatest question of them all, and all I'm saying is there is no answer so the creation theory is as good as any

and fwiw, I believe in evolution, just not as an explanation for the origins of life

just speciation

In the past, science did not have an answer for things that science DOES have an answer for now. As technology and knowledge increases and gets better, the better we can understand things. So, who's to say that the origins of life won't be figured out by scientists in the next 100 years?

We are finding more and more planets every day. One of these days we may reach these planets, heck we may find the beginnings of life on one of our local planets, who knows? Did god put all those there too? Some may exist in conditions that we thought were impossible. You know what creationists will say? That their god put that there too. Science can't win for losing.

reply to post by golemina


Why don't you just identify where you provided these answers??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina

 

Why don't you just identify where you provided these answers??

You've totally dismissed everything that has been offered to you without a nanoseconds consideration... without so much as a single glance...

With prejudice AND derision.



Let's try something different...

It's obvious that you believe that your viewpoint is above suspicion. That your dismissal of the information that has been layed before you simply doesn't even have to be accounted for.

Maybe you even think you believe yourself to be quite tolerant of someone so clueless as having the views that I have espoused.

Thank you for your consideration of one obviously SO lowly as myself...

Thank you deGaulle! (Seriously!)

Yes, the Earth can NOT possibly be just a few thousand years old, cuz you and your buddy Wiki say so...

I want to STOP sinning.... No. no. Wrong confession!



I want to STOP being such a moron... (Yes, MUCH better. )

Help me out...

How is it we believe the Earth to be 4.5 billions years... EXACTLY what is our basis in fact? How did Mr. Magic Cueball come up with the number 4.5 billion in the little view port? What is our evidence Aloysius the Gaul?

Hmmmm......

Hey HydroMan.

Originally posted by Hydroman

In the past, science did not have an answer for things that science DOES have an answer for now. As technology and knowledge increases and gets better, the better we can understand things. So, who's to say that the origins of life won't be figured out by scientists in the next 100 years?

I have an alternative narrative...

'Scientists' think they know the answer(s).

When you IN FACT look at the basis for the vast majority of the theories... That are NO longer viewed as theories but are IN FACT preached to the public as an ABSOLUTE TRUTH...

And FURTHER are no longer even ALLOWED to be challenged...

What you have is NO longer Science, but IN FACT a new RELIGION based on an utterly unquestionable dogma called 'Science'.

We are finding more and more planets every day. One of these days we may reach these planets, heck we may find the beginnings of life on one of our local planets, who knows? Did god put all those there too? Some may exist in conditions that we thought were impossible. You know what creationists will say? That their god put that there too. Science can't win for losing.

EXACTLY which other planet has Man walked on that allows the ridiculous premises of the above paragraph to be offered up?

Isn't it SIMPLY amazing how we know SO much about the ENTIRE universe when we haven't even really left the surface of this one single planet* that is the home to our species.

If our 'Science' is SO advanced... Why are all of the planets of our solar system NOT colonized?

Any clues?



* Many of us are firmly convinced that NASA is essentially a fake front for our military. AND that the 'Moon' missions were utter hoaxs to an oh SO gullible public.

reply to post by Hydroman


I was a biotechnology major. I am fascinated by science. I'll never forget the day I was in class, and a movie (hey, this was the 80's) was on showing the spindle fibers at work. I remember thinking, "hey maybe that is where god does her thing ?"

if you like the primordial soup with magic lightning theory, the monolith theory or the meteor transpermia theory, it happened so long ago there will never be any reasonable proof, the best science can hope for is a general concensus

unless we find a monolith on the moon of course

I GENUINELY cannot think of anything more ridiculous than the earth being 6000 years old. No wait a minute!....... Nope, still nothing.

Originally posted by golemina
How is it we believe the Earth to be 4.5 billions years... EXACTLY what is our basis in fact? How did Mr. Magic Cueball come up with the number 4.5 billion in the little view port?

Radiometric Dating

Originally posted by OpenEars123
I GENUINELY cannot think of anything more ridiculous than the earth being 6000 years old. No wait a minute!....... Nope, still nothing.

I know. And yet you'll never convince a zealot.

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina

 

Why don't you just identify where you provided these answers??

You've totally dismissed everything that has been offered to you without a nanoseconds consideration... without so much as a single glance...

With prejudice AND derision.

Really? I though I had looked at every single post you have made in this thread, taking about 10-15 minutes to do so, provided a link to that search here on ATS.

But since the only "answer" I can see that yo provided is that there are sharp rocks on mountains that have not weathered, then yes I have dismissed it - but it did take me longer than nanoseconds - microseconds would be more accurate.

And I see you still don't actually provide any actual evidence for to support your claims other than sharp rocks - just more attacks on me because I dare to say you haven't provided any answers.

Apparently it is OK for you to do so, but not OK for me to have missed those answers - all you have to do is provide a link to the post or posts where you provided them - surely it would be simple enough to do

How is it we believe the Earth to be 4.5 billions years... EXACTLY what is our basis in fact? How did Mr. Magic Cueball come up with the number 4.5 billion in the little view port? What is our evidence Aloysius the Gaul?

I don't recall every having said the earth is 4.5 billion years old anywhere in this thread. Where did you get that I had done so?

Sciences, theories and results you have to ignore or provide alternative explanations for to believe the earth is recently created, regardless of whether you think that for religious reasons or not:

these support the contention that it is >10,000 years old:
Dendrochronology
Human Y-chromosomal ancestry
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating
Rock varnish
Thermoluminescence dating


>100,000 years:
Coral
Fission track dating
Ice layering
Lack of DNA in fossils
Permafrost
Weathering rinds

>1,000,000 years:
Amino acid racemization
Continental drift
Cosmogenic nuclide dating
Erosion
Geomagnetic reversals
Impact craters
Iron-manganese nodules
Length of the prehistoric day
Naica megacrystals
Nitrogen in diamonds
Petrified wood
Sedimentary varves
Stalactites
Space weathering

>1,000,000,000 years:

Lunar retreat
Radioactive decay

Taken from here - except I have removed those that I think relate to the creation of the universe rather than just the earth, such as relativistic jets and distant starlight.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Sciences, theories and results you have to ignore or provide alternative explanations for to believe the earth is recently created, regardless of whether you think that for religious reasons or not:

these support the contention that it is >10,000 years old:
Dendrochronology
Human Y-chromosomal ancestry
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating
Rock varnish
Thermoluminescence dating


>100,000 years:
Coral
Fission track dating
Ice layering
Lack of DNA in fossils
Permafrost
Weathering rinds

>1,000,000 years:
Amino acid racemization
Continental drift
Cosmogenic nuclide dating
Erosion
Geomagnetic reversals
Impact craters
Iron-manganese nodules
Length of the prehistoric day
Naica megacrystals
Nitrogen in diamonds
Petrified wood
Sedimentary varves
Stalactites
Space weathering

>1,000,000,000 years:

Lunar retreat
Radioactive decay

Taken from here - except I have removed those that I think relate to the creation of the universe rather than just the earth, such as relativistic jets and distant starlight.

Can I ask a dumb question...

Where is the answer for the age of the Earth? (You know 4.5 bill.... etc. etc.)

That is a fairly specific assertion... I'm looking for that specific methodology.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina

 

Why don't you just identify where you provided these answers??

You've totally dismissed everything that has been offered to you without a nanoseconds consideration... without so much as a single glance...

With prejudice AND derision.

Really? I though I had looked at every single post you have made in this thread, taking about 10-15 minutes to do so, provided a link to that search here on ATS.

But since the only "answer" I can see that yo provided is that there are sharp rocks on mountains that have not weathered, then yes I have dismissed it - but it did take me longer than nanoseconds - microseconds would be more accurate.

And I see you still don't actually provide any actual evidence for to support your claims other than sharp rocks - just more attacks on me because I dare to say you haven't provided any answers.

Apparently it is OK for you to do so, but not OK for me to have missed those answers - all you have to do is provide a link to the post or posts where you provided them - surely it would be simple enough to do

How is it we believe the Earth to be 4.5 billions years... EXACTLY what is our basis in fact? How did Mr. Magic Cueball come up with the number 4.5 billion in the little view port? What is our evidence Aloysius the Gaul?

I don't recall every having said the earth is 4.5 billion years old anywhere in this thread. Where did you get that I had done so?

edit on 2-5-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Are you saying the Earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old?

reply to post by golemina


I do not know how old the earth is. there is quite a lot of evidence around that supports the contention that it is quite old - certainly a lot more than 6000 years - and it looks quite convincing.

What I am doing is asking you, repeatedly, to tell me & anyone else reading, what is the basis for you saying it is only 6,000 years old.

But you seem to think that insulting my intelligence and making up stories about what I have written is a better use of your time than providing any justification for your own position.

From that I have concluded that you are about 12 years old.

Originally posted by golemina
Can I ask a dumb question...

why stop now?

Where is the answer for the age of the Earth? (You know 4.5 bill.... etc. etc.)

That is a fairly specific assertion... I'm looking for that specific methodology.

why don't you ask someone who made that assertion?