The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In reply to post 242 comment that the idea of true humans going back 200,000 years or so doesn’t make sense…
200,000 years makes sense, considering that we discovered things through chance. I wonder how long (and how many generations) it took our ancestors to discover which mushrooms were edible (if any)
How many summers does it take a person to discover he has hay fever?

As for discovering which mushrooms are edible, it would be about three generations because the true human being does not have to depend on chance.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.
 
Oh I wasn’;t trying to imply that our thumbs are vestigal. But trying to come up with an explanation as to why we donlt have opposable thumbs on our feet.
Could the explanation be that the two sole parents of the human species did not need thumbs on their feet? The human species is distinct physically and spiritually in many ways from others. The similarities between the human species and others come from the unity of creation. “(II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds;”
(paragraphs 355 -368, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition)

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s gift of faith in the future.
 
Redshift is not a measure of distance, but an effect on the wavelengths of light as they span a great distance. If a star (e.g.) is moving or is extremely distant from us, the wavelength is altered: The blue end of the spectrum has shorter wavelengths, the red end is longer (wider): Redshift and blueshift is normally seen as a result of the doppler effect:
http://people.finearts.uvic.ca/~aschloss/course_mat/MU207/images/Image2.gif
As for sound, a similar consequence results for light coming fom objects which are travelling at high velocities.

Now, the redshift observed from distant galaxies could result from two possibilities:

Either the galaxies are travelling away from us at extremely high velocities due to the rapid expansion of the universe:
(us–>) 🙂 ( ( ( ( ( :mad: )))))))))) (<–galaxy)

Or the galaxies are so far away, that the photons (light) emitted from them take so long to get to us, that they “stretch out” (theoretically):

🙂 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (((((((:mad:
Unless you can provide credible texts from astronomical publications or web sites, I don’t think your information is credible. There are redshift anomalies out there. The one everyone agrees on is the Sun. It is redshifted as well, which calls into question the whole idea. And yes, it is related to distance. I think the distances are wrong based on scientific data.

God bless,
Ed
 
Could the explanation be that the two sole parents of the human species did not need thumbs on their feet?
Granny, you cling to this belief with a tenacity that exceeds even that of Robert Sungenis in his denial of earth’s revolution around the sun!
 
a world-wide flood was brought up here, too

we’re having trouble staying on the topic of evidence for age of the earth, although I keep asking for information on the page that Phil posted way back
If the book by Dr. Roberto de Mattei is ever published in English I will write the web master and suggest the whole paper be to posted then you can contact the authors. Then excavation methods, exact location of where the femur bones were found, C-14 methods etc. can be presented.

However I have e-mailed the Glendive Montana museum director and learned the following about the type of soil where his team discovered and excavated the femur bones, sawed them in half and eventually C-14 dated:

*The Triceratops and Hadrosaur femurs were found in popcorn clay. The term, popcorn clay is non-technical. It looks like popcorn. It usually refers to any clay that swells and shrinks. The color varies from grey to grey-green to green to tan; it is found in distinct thick strata. It contains much volcanic material such as bentonite, or clays such as montmorillonite or vermiculite. It is very slippery in wet, and crunchy in dry condition, according to paleontologist Otis Kline. *

Geology of the Montana Badlands*: Most of the strata are the brownish-grey sediments of the Hell Creek formation thought to date back 65 million years (when the Rocky Mountains were rising in the West and there was much volcanic activity). At that time, much of the region was part of river-plains similar to the present southeastern United States with sub-tropical climate and vegetation of the Cretaceous period or the Age of Reptiles. Rivers draining the Western Mountains deposited layer upon layer of sediments which over alleged millions of years compacted to form the sandstones, mudstones, clays, and shales that form the Montana Badlands landscape according to the Makoshika State Park web site.:

*fwp.mt.gov/lands/site_283890.aspx and fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2003/makoshika.htm or makoshika.org/photos.htm

Comment # 1: Some of the photos I took while in the Montana Badlands are possibly superior to the ones on the above web sites which I’d love to try and post and will try when I can find the time and practice doing it.

Comment # 2: The above description from the state park web site is what makes the C-14 dating of the femur bones so intriguing and why it is important to refer to the Flood of Noah noted in all cultures. Mudstones are not formed in lake bottoms over eons of time; they are formed in rapidly moving waters [mudstone page on www.dinosaurc14ages.com ] perhaps even in rivers but not uniformly to a depth of 5000 feet. That was no little river flood.😃

For instance even shale which is a rocky material containing 10 % carbon [up to 25 % carbon in some formations and a potential for oil extraction] was RC dated at 45,130 ± 270years BP. BUT shale is claimed by uniformitarianism to be 35 million to 55 million year old in the green River formation of Western United States where the sample was taken from a shale quarry. The strata there is reported to be 2500 feet thick and up to 5000 feet thick in some spots according to Note the accuracy of the above C-14 age as plus or minus 270 years using the AMS method. Uhm! some river!😃

What is interesting is that there have been over 60,000 radiocarbon dates performed World-wide since the discovery of the C-14 dating method in the late 1940’s [Ref: private correspondence report from our team physicist who is studying the whole gamut of RC dates in the radiocarbon literature. AND, to his knowledge no one has ever C-14 dated shale. Why? Because now falsified Lyellian assumptions were accepted by the Academic community WITHOUT testing through the many decades. So what I’m reporting to you is cutting edge research which falls in line with the RC dating of dinosaur bones, fossil human footprints and dinosaur depictions world wide. Many such reports are in peer reviewed journals world-wide.

Thus the real world of testing earth science assumptions from the 19th and 20th centuries are now just EVOLVING in the last 20 or so years and results are coming in slowly where ever scientists can get under Academic’s censorship radar guns so be patient; the truth will out. Soooooooooo If you all want to know more, buy the book, EVOLUZIONISM: il tramonto di una ipotesi [Evolutionism: the decline of an hypothesis]. The book can be purchased @ info@famigliadomani.it antagalli@edizionicantagalli.com

See you later alligators:)
 
Granny, you cling to this belief with a tenacity that exceeds even that of Robert Sungenis in his denial of earth’s revolution around the sun!
The truth of the real two sole parents of the human species is a belief which answers questions about our relationship with Jesus Christ. The true purpose of human life is important. I shall cling to the teachings of the Catholic Church with my entire being, rational/corporeal, spirit/matter, soul and body.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.
 
The truth of the real two sole parents of the human species is a belief which answers questions about our relationship with Jesus Christ. The true purpose of human life is important. I shall cling to the teachings of the Catholic Church with my entire being, rational/corporeal, spirit/matter, soul and body.
It might be theologically true but scientifically false. Unless you invent your own science of genetics, the proposition “two sole human parents” cannot be scientifically true. If you don’t believe me, take a basic intro course in genetics.
 
It might be theologically true but scientifically false. Unless you invent your own science of genetics, the proposition “two sole human parents” cannot be scientifically true. If you don’t believe me, take a basic intro course in genetics.
I have figured out your stance. You must not be keeping up on the latest literature, because it seem your arguments are coming from obsolete textbooks.
 
Unless you can provide credible texts from astronomical publications or web sites, I don’t think your information is credible. There are redshift anomalies out there. The one everyone agrees on is the Sun. It is redshifted as well, which calls into question the whole idea. And yes, it is related to distance. I think the distances are wrong based on scientific data.

God bless,
Ed
Here is one online article which treats redshift pretty well: scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=most-distant-grb

I got my main information from my current college education (astronomy class). I could cite the textbook, but would it matter?

Where exactly do you get your information from? I would like a clear definition and the source thereof which you are using for “redshift”.

I’ve given a sensible and intelligible explanation of redshift and blueshift. How about you?
 
The truth of the real two sole parents of the human species is a belief which answers questions about our relationship with Jesus Christ. The true purpose of human life is important. I shall cling to the teachings of the Catholic Church with my entire being, rational/corporeal, spirit/matter, soul and body.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.
There is nothing in Catholic doctrine or current science which denies the following:

Human beings evolved.
Human beings have a soul.
The soul is what makes us human.
God implanted a soul in two original human beings.
We have common descent from these two human beings (“Adam & Eve”).

Science and religion win! In fact, they seem to be in perfect accord with one another. Thank you again St. Thomas Aquinas. Thank you faith and reason…
 
It might be theologically true but scientifically false. Unless you invent your own science of genetics, the proposition “two sole human parents” cannot be scientifically true. If you don’t believe me, take a basic intro course in genetics.
May I respectfully point out that a basic course in genetics cannot explain the true, fully complete human nature. Genetics, being science, is limited to the material/physical realm. It cannot address the supernatural, immaterial, immortal, eternal, spiritual soul. It is important to realize that human nature is a unique unification of rational/corporeal, spirit/matter, soul and body destined for complete happiness with God, the lone Creator.

It is your free will choice to deny the reality of Adam and Eve. But then, what do you do about people who have the same nature as Adam and Eve. Do you also deny their existence?

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55
 
I have figured out your stance. You must not be keeping up on the latest literature, because it seem your arguments are coming from obsolete textbooks.
Nope. I haven’t looked at textbooks.
 
I have figured out your stance. You must not be keeping up on the latest literature, because it seem your arguments are coming from obsolete textbooks.
I don’t think any of us are referencing 19th century manuscripts, but if you go to sciam.com I believe you will find an abundance of references to things we have already been discussing.

Albeit, that post is simply poor rhetoric. I can just as easily say that you are continually re-qualifying your position and denying logical conclusions which are impossible according to your own biases.

I have figured out your stance. You are stubborn: Only your assumptions are acceptable.
 
I don’t think any of us are referencing 19th century manuscripts, but if you go to sciam.com I believe you will find an abundance of references to things we have already been discussing.

Albeit, that post is simply poor rhetoric. I can just as easily say that you are continually re-qualifying your position and denying logical conclusions which are impossible according to your own biases.

I have figured out your stance. You are stubborn: Only your assumptions are acceptable.
I admit I am stubborn. I am stubborn that faith and reason cannot be opposed.

The rest - you have to prove your case.
 
But not only from these two; we have common descent from many of the others who were alive at the same time Adam and Eve were alive.
This is the point where hundreds of people deny the Catholic teachings regarding Adam.
 
But not only from these two; we have common descent from many of the others who were alive at the same time Adam and Eve were alive.
That bit may be hazy in relation to the Catholic faith. As of now, all we really have to go on is Pius XII’s and JPII’s encyclicals, which of course aren’t dogma.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top