XPost: alt.paranormal, alt.atheism, alt.religion.christian
From: none@none.non
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.
>
> 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 Bible says the flood
happened 2,000 years ago” As if that were an established fact that was
relative to our time.
>
>
> So why did you cite those
> numbers and what do they prove?
It was answers to your question asked.and as to proof of anything, you accept
nothing as proof of anything.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
