XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian   
   From: none@none.non   
      
   On Sep 13, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote   
   (Message-ID: ):   
      
   > None   wrote in news:10a4nhc$n3jh$4@dont-email.me:   
   >   
   > > On Sep 13, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote   
   > > (Message-ID: ):   
   > >   
   > > > None   wrote in news:10a49gr$j4ov$1@dont-email.me:   
   > > >   
   > > > > On Sep 13, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote   
   > > > > (Message-ID: ):   
   > > > >   
   > > > > > Mitchell Holman  wrote in   
   > > > > > news:XnsB358CF3E8E274629555@ 69.80.101.15:   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > > Mitchell Holman  wrote in   
   > > > > > > news:XnsB3584D7933A7629555@ 69.80.101.18:   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > None   wrote in   
   > > > > > > > news:10a081v$366mu$1@dont-email.me:   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote   
   > > > > > > > > (Message-ID: ):   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > None   wrote in   
   > > > > > > > > > news:109vbc8$2tbin$1@dont-email.me:   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 2025, Mitchell Holman wrote   
   > > > > > > > > > > (Message-ID: ):   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > "Andrew"  wrote in   
   > > > > > > > > > > > news:rKAwQ.12261$7F4e.8283@fx05.ams4:   
   > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > "Dawn Flood" wrote in message   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > news:109tfa4$29gbi$1@dont-email.me...   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > To sum-up, paleoanthropology is a valid science,   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > because,   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Major universities exist which offer doctoral   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > degrees in paleoanthropology.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) The US National Academy of Sciences has   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > admitted paleoanthropologists to its ranks.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Peer-reviewed research journals exist for   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > paleoanthropology.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) Few, if any, scientists dispute the fact that   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > > paleoanthropology is a valid science.   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > In spite of all that you say above, it is noted   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > that you are at a complete loss of words when I ask   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > you to tell us about any specific   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > paleo-anthropological discovery that shows that   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > they have enlightened us about ~anything~...in your   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > own words.   
   > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > And you are a "complete loss of words"   
   > > > > > > > > > > > to tell us the age of the earth, or even   
   > > > > > > > > > > > us your opinion of it.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > The earth as you know it was not until it was called   
   > > > > > > > > > > earth on the 3rd day of this realm. The planets stars,   
   > > > > > > > > > > etc were not until the 4th day of this realm. All this   
   > > > > > > > > > > occurred around 6,000 years ago.   
   > > > > > In   
   > > > > > > > > > > literal time, not figurative nor theoretical.   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > Why 6,000?   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > How do you determine that date?   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > What date? I mentioned time approximate.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > OK, "time approximate"   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Why 6000 years?   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > What happened then?   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > And are their so called ""discoveries"" built upon   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > scientific method, or are they built upon fantasy?   
   > > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > Those who want the truth do not accept stories that   
   > > > > > > > > > > > > are built upon fantasy.   
   > > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > > Modern Christian: Someone who believes   
   > > > > > > > > > > > in dragons, unicorns, talking snakes and   
   > > > > > > > > > > > transmutation (all mentioned in the Bible)   
   > > > > > > > > > > > but accuses those citing scientific data   
   > > > > > > > > > > > of "indulging in fantasies".   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > Then I do not fit your daffynition.   
   > > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > > Scientific data only recounts what is reversed   
   > > > > > > > > > > engineered, and   
   > > > > > from   
   > > > > > > > > > > that understanding, some try to create variations based   
   > > > > > > > > > > on the   
   > > > > > same   
   > > > > > > > > > > things that always existed in the time of man, reshape,   
   > > > > > > > > > > and reuse, and most generally it all contaminates the   
   > > > > > > > > > > earth and its environment.   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > What other data is there to   
   > > > > > > > > > measure time but scientific data?   
   > > > > > > > > > The universe expands at a known   
   > > > > > > > > > rate, the continents move at a   
   > > > > > > > > > known rate, starlight reaches our   
   > > > > > > > > > eyes at a known rate. If those   
   > > > > > > > > > known rates are wrong what rates   
   > > > > > > > > > are right?   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > If the continents moved at a known rate then there would be   
   > > > > > > > > no earthquakes. All volcanos would erupt and known cycles   
   > > > > > > > > and explosive rates.   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > If such massive errors are made then what credibility does   
   > > > > > > > > the rest   
   > > > > > of   
   > > > > > > > > your statement have.   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > Science has recently recognized another light form, one   
   > > > > > > > > that was spoken of near 5,000 years ago + or - and they   
   > > > > > > > > have yet to determine its parameters.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > Where was this "spoken of" 5000 years ago?   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Historically both answers are written in the Bible.   
   > > >   
   > > > "The answer is written in the   
   > > > Bible somewhere, just read the Bible"   
   > > > is another Christian evasion.   
   > >   
   > > It sure seems like that to people who have been pointed out the   
   > > answers many times, all to no avail and remember it not.   
   >   
   > Your claim is based on a   
   > passage in the Bible? Which one?   
      
   I didn’t say that.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > Point in fact the Bible makes   
   > > > no reference to the numbers 6000 or   
   > > > 5000.   
   > >   
   > > Why would it? the Bible we have was written long ago. So then how   
   > > logical would it be to declare how long ago things happened, when   
   > > people like you would point to it and say things like “Well the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)