It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Earth is 6,000 Years Old"

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

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?


So you are saying that you don't support the generally accepted 'Scientific' viewpoint that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?

Or...

Do you somehow sense I'm slowly leading you into a well laid trap?


edit on 2-5-2012 by golemina because: Typos!




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Which part of what I wrote here was difficult for you to understand?

I'll try to simplify it for you.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




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.


Attacks?



Are you saying 'someone' is out to get you? How long have you felt this way?

Back on topic.

Dude... You were provided with several volumes of evidence...

You simply refused to go READ it.



Apparently, your haven't yet installed that interface that allows you to just click on those physical pages of those volumes*...

From the comfort of your arm chair...

I have provided PLENTY of answers.

And made MANY repeated offers to personally assist you to get your coach potatoeness up the side of Mt. Rainier, so that you can see it with your own eyeballs.

Exactly which part of this apparently confuses you?



Here we go, TheComte has cowboyed up and posted a link to Radiometric dating.

(That wasn't so hard now boys was it?.
)



* Actually these volumes have been scanned and are available. But you would STILL have to read AND interpret them for yourself, instead of having someone do some type of reasoning for you as on those intellectual malady sites (Read: Wiki), you seem so addicted to.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
This thread is amazing. I didn't think that these people actually existed. I feel like I have seen an elf or something.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soshh
This thread is amazing. I didn't think that these people actually existed. I feel like I have seen an elf or something.


Hey.


Stick around...

You ain't seen NOTHING yet.




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by Soshh
This thread is amazing. I didn't think that these people actually existed. I feel like I have seen an elf or something.


Hey.


Stick around...

You ain't seen NOTHING yet.



I can't wait.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Several volumes??

And yet all your posts in this thread fit on a single web page so far.

And not one of them actually contains a link to anything else.

and you won't actually say which of your posts contain any evidence at all - from which I also conclude that you do not think there is any evidence in any of them.

you have offered to help.......and yet have not bothered to answer the 1 question I have asked.

apparently there is something up Mt Rainier that is evidence - but you won't say what it is, or link to any analysis of it.

I think 12 years old might be overestimating your age.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

You ain't seen NOTHING yet.


Correct.


Originally posted by Soshh

I can't wait.


I think you will have to tho'...for a very long time...and even then you will find it is only more pointless drivel.

But it is entertaining to watch the train wreck in action

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



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina
 


Several volumes??

And yet all your posts in this thread fit on a single web page so far.

And not one of them actually contains a link to anything else.

and you won't actually say which of your posts contain any evidence at all - from which I also conclude that you do not think there is any evidence in any of them.

you have offered to help.......and yet have not bothered to answer the 1 question I have asked.

apparently there is something up Mt Rainier that is evidence - but you won't say what it is, or link to any analysis of it.

I think 12 years old might be overestimating your age.


Nothing personal dude, but I'm going to leave you out here at the end of this branch...

And I REALLY do enjoy your Cirque du Soleil rhetorical parrot approach/routine...

But theComte is about to make my point for me.

Tune in... There MIGHT even be a 'link' or two with 'someone else's analysis' in it.

Chiao.




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte


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.


Zealot!

Zealot?

You flaterer you!






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


Radiometric dating?

Good.

Now show me the math.




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

Radiometric dating?

Good.

Now show me the math.



I could, but why would I take the time when you don't take the time to answer anybody's questions? You tell everyone to go read Velikovsky. Well, I did and found him to be less than credible. He even admits his physics are not correct. He's right up there with Sitchin.

Now it's your turn. Go read up on radiometric dating. You asked how we arrive at the figure of 4.5 billion years old and that's the answer right there.

When you're done come back here and post your thoughts. I look forward to your critique of the material presented.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by golemina

Radiometric dating?

Good.

Now show me the math.



I could...



Oh my... What a CURIOUS turn of events...



(((Timeout.

(Be my witness God-fearing (and God-loving
) people!

Tiny narrative of the last few days events in this thread.

I've been stalked/harassed/mocked/ignored/insulted continuously the last few days... etc.

It's a laughable methodology designed to frustrate and put the target of these type activities, always on the defensive, the focus of the stalkers efforts are to absolutely deny ANYTHING that could be offered as 'evidence', forcing the target into self-justification mode, yada yada yada.

Obviously it doesn't work on me.


Anyhow the point I'm getting to...

Is NO ONE would even acknowledge the concept of (let alone the word) 'Velikovsky'...

Yet here where after I let these guys paint themselves into a corner they CAN NOT get out of...

They DON'T have the prerequisite SKILLZset.



SUDDENLY someone could actually say the words VELIKOVSKY!

TOLD you guys this would get good.



Oh! We ARE back in. )))

Nah. If I were a betting man, I would bet that you CAN'T.





, but why would I take the time when you don't take the time to answer anybody's questions? You tell everyone to go read Velikovsky. Well, I did and found him to be less than credible. He even admits his physics are not correct. He's right up there with Sitchin.


THAT my friend, besides NOT being even close to accurate, would be a rather lame excuse.




Now it's your turn. Go read up on radiometric dating. You asked how we arrive at the figure of 4.5 billion years old and that's the answer right there.

When you're done come back here and post your thoughts. I look forward to your critique of the material presented.


Nope.

You have it backwards...



YOU said that the 'Radiometric dating' is how the age of the Earth is determined.

I can MORE than follow you if you know what I mean...

I've got the horsepower. Varoom! Varoom! (Thank you Jesus! Thank you Lord!
)

Roll up your sleeves...

Show me.

Let's work an example.

(Don't leave ANYTHING out!)


edit on 3-5-2012 by golemina because: Typos!




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
More gibberish. I'm truly shocked.

So, I guess you didn't read up on how we KNOW the age of the earth.

I have to admit you are the type of character ATS needs to remain entertaining. Keep up the good work.



edit on 3-5-2012 by TheComte because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
More gibberish. I'm truly shocked.

So, I guess you didn't read up on how we KNOW the age of the earth.

I have to admit you are the type of character ATS needs to remain entertaining. Keep up the good work.



edit on 3-5-2012 by TheComte because: (no reason given)




This is SO funny...

Oh you 'know'...

Please do share.



We will be publishing the complete results here on ATS for ALL to see.

I have acquired several samples from a mountain on the Enumclaw Plateau. Check.

Am ready to acquire samples from both Mt. Rainier as well as the Olympic Mt range. Date to be determined. Check.

The workspace has already been cleared in the lab (Read: It's really just a workshop. But it will do.
). Check.

Let's see... All we are missing is TheComte recommending to us which 'Radiometric dating' method is preferable in his expert opinion...

What's next theComte?

Did you want to take the time to prep our threadmates on the theoritical basis for the process I'm going to personally vet...

We're waiting Oh SO knowledgeable one...


edit on 3-5-2012 by golemina because: Typos+new sentence.




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
This is SO funny...

Oh you 'know'...

Please do share.


why don't you ever actually "share"??


I have acquired several samples from a mountain on the Enumclaw Plateau. Check.

Am ready to acquire samples from both Mt. Rainier as well as the Olympic Mt range. Date to be determined. Check.

The workspace has already been cleared in the lab (Read: It's really just a workshop. But it will do.
). Check.

Let's see... All we are missing is TheComte recommending to us which 'Radiometric dating' method is preferable in his expert opinion...



Why don't you just take your samples to a lab and get them tested??



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Given the human record of Earth that might be correct.
Documentation is always important.
Given Velikovsky fixed the Exodus at -1500AD thats 3512 years right there.
So God fixing things in a matter of days the rest of the time fits in
well with Velikovsky up to -1500AD.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


I have acquired several samples from a mountain on the Enumclaw Plateau. Check.

Am ready to acquire samples from both Mt. Rainier as well as the Olympic Mt range. Date to be determined. Check.

The workspace has already been cleared in the lab (Read: It's really just a workshop. But it will do.
). Check.

Let's see... All we are missing is TheComte recommending to us which 'Radiometric dating' method is preferable in his expert opinion...



Why don't you just take your samples to a lab and get them tested??



Now what would be the POINT of that?



Maybe, it's because we have only just began to make points against this FALSE RELIGION you 're preaching...

Or maybe, it's just ME being a displaced cartoon charactor... Who seems QUITE intent on doing something like... I'm going to huff... I'm going to puff... and I'M GOING TO BLOW YOUR HOUSE OF CARDS DOWN!!!

Or maybe it's cuz a GREAT visionary was wronged and the chickens are coming to roost.

It's hard to say...



I'm sorry did I REALLY say that out loud?



I've NEVER really hid where this was going have I?


Back to the matter at hand.

Come on boys...

What is it exactly is it you're afraid of?

It can't EXACTLY be little ole me... I mean after all you have the ENTIRE 'Scientific' establishment behind you.

So let's talk "Radiometric dating' methodologies... And, of course, theoritical bases of said methodologies.

And ALL of that good stuff.




edit on 3-5-2012 by golemina because: Missing line.




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


I have acquired several samples from a mountain on the Enumclaw Plateau. Check.

Am ready to acquire samples from both Mt. Rainier as well as the Olympic Mt range. Date to be determined. Check.

The workspace has already been cleared in the lab (Read: It's really just a workshop. But it will do.
). Check.

Let's see... All we are missing is TheComte recommending to us which 'Radiometric dating' method is preferable in his expert opinion...



Why don't you just take your samples to a lab and get them tested??



Now what would be the POINT of that?



Aren't you proposing to do some radiological testing or something similar, and then debunk it??


What would be a better start for such a process than a radiological test result from a "recognised" lab?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


What would be a better start for such a process than a radiological test result from a "recognised" lab?


(((Timeout.

(Be my witness God-fearing (and God-loving ) people! )

Quick narrative of the recent drift in this thread.

Every single aspect of 'dating' methodology is being challenged by YOURS TRULY.

Despite ALL of the prior grandstanding by those standing in for 'establishment' 'Science'...

We only seem to be getting a whole lot of POSTURING...

Not much in the providing of the nuts and bolts of how these seemingly VERY specific numbers somehow automagically appear.

And we're back. )))

That's a REALLY good idea Aloysius!

Why don't you run along and do just that.



Still waiting to hear from the 4.5 billion years camp...


edit on 3-5-2012 by golemina because: Typos, etc.




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


What would be a better start for such a process than a radiological test result from a "recognised" lab?

That's a REALLY good idea Aloysius!

Why don't you run along and do just that.


'cos I'm not the one questioning or supporting it.

you seem to think there's a problem with it - I would have thought you'd have been ble to provide some evidence to support your contention by now.

But all you do is obfuscate.

Is that how you're going to show us the earth if 6000 years old? By waiting for us all to die so no-one questions you and then claiming "victory"???? Puz:

I find people who refuse to back up their claims a strange bunch - I can't figure out whteher you are dishonest, stupid, playing games, or some mix of the 3.


Still waiting to hear from the 4.5 billion years camp...


Why not critique the easy hanging fruit then - wiki article on the age of the earth - claims 4.5 billion years by the look, has lots of references - I look forward to you showing us how and why they are wrong.



new topics




 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join