Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8946 total)
22 online now:
caffeine, candle2, jar, PaulK, Pressie, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 16 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,937 Year: 20,973/19,786 Month: 1,370/2,023 Week: 321/557 Day: 14/47 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Feedback about reliability of dating
Confidence
Member (Idle past 4639 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 31 of 77 (365874)
11-24-2006 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
11-17-2006 9:04 PM


Re: Lesson to be learned
I do not fully understand who is correct on dating, but as a creationist I tend to be biased. I hear that radioactive dating usually generates multiple dates, and the correct date is chosen if it agrees with geological dates (does this make sense?). I also understand that dating methods usually rely on 3 assumptions;
1-constant radioactive decay
2-parent/daughter relationships
3-contamination/leaking

From these assumptions alone it seems that dating can be extremely biased, if dating results do not agree, tweak a few of these valuse to suit your dates.

There is a RATE (Radioisotopes and the age of the earth) team out there to 'investigate', now these are creationists (of course, why would evolutionists want to undermine their own methods). So at the moment the research will appear heavily biased. I just hope once the research is finished, some evolutionists opinions can be collected on this.

"RATE geophysicist Dr. John Baumgardner reported on the detection of 14C in coal and in diamonds. Since 14C is a short-lived radioisotope, it cannot survive for millions of years. This is compelling evidence that these diamonds and coal deposits are thousands of years old at most. In particular, the hard lattice structure of a diamond makes any sort of contamination extremely unlikely. Dr. Baumgardner also stated that 14C is found in essentially all fossil organic material throughout the geologic column."

"Dr. Andrew Snelling (Ph.D. in geology) reported on the topic of radiohalos (tiny spheres of discolored crystal produced by the decay of radioactive material at their center) and fission tracks. His research strongly indicates that uranium must have decayed much more quickly in the past—an independent confirmation of accelerated decay."

quotes from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp

These are seemingly powerful evidence, but until these folks are done their research and evolutionist have been given the chance to confirm this, most of this is debatable.

This is just exciting news for creationists and gives us( for those Christians who need it) more reason to doubt evolutionists when they oppose the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2006 9:04 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2006 11:05 PM Confidence has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20271
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 32 of 77 (365887)
11-24-2006 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Confidence
11-24-2006 9:07 PM


Re: Lesson to be learned
Welcome to the fray Confidence.

I do not fully understand who is correct on dating, but as a creationist I tend to be biased.

The real question is whether you choose to ignore evidence that shows the earth is old. If bias leads to denial, then it will affect your understanding, not the behavior of the natural world.

I hear that radioactive dating usually generates multiple dates, and the correct date is chosen if it agrees with geological dates (does this make sense?).

What is usually done is to determine age from a number of different methods to reduce the possiblity of contamination or sample error. When there is a major difference between one and another, then another method will be tried AND reasons for the errors will be sought. These will also be reported.

quotes from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1107rate.asp

These are seemingly powerful evidence, but until these folks are done their research and evolutionist have been given the chance to confirm this, most of this is debatable.

Most of their "work" has already been refuted by scientists. "Evolutionists" don't do the dating - that is geology and physics.

See "Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

The problem with the Young Earth Scenario is that there is unrefutable evidence for an old earth. For a discussion of this there is another thread that deals with some of the specific reasons why this is unrefutable - see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), where several annual systems that don't rely on radioactivity are reviewed along with two radiometric systems and the correlations between them. They correlate for age and for climate and for world wide events (like ice ages).

Showing that dating methods CAN have errors does not show that the methods ALWAYS have errors. This is like pointing out one or two spelling errors in the bible and then claiming that the whole bible is therefore false.

Enjoy.


ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Confidence, posted 11-24-2006 9:07 PM Confidence has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Confidence, posted 11-24-2006 11:57 PM RAZD has responded

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 4639 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 33 of 77 (365895)
11-24-2006 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
11-24-2006 11:05 PM


Re: Lesson to be learned
Most of their "work" has already been refuted by scientists.

You are talking as if no creationists can be scientists. This in itself is ignorant and lends discredit to your position as an evolutionist. For there are plenty of scientists who are creationists. And their "work" is of no less value than a scientists with an evolutionary stand. Both have the same evidence at hand, but their interpretations differ due to their different presuppositions.

The article/online book you pointed me to is long, and it will be a while for me to read it. But I look forward to see what it has to say.

Until then.


Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 11-24-2006 11:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by anglagard, posted 11-25-2006 12:46 AM Confidence has not yet responded
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2006 10:57 AM Confidence has responded
 Message 37 by iceage, posted 11-26-2006 3:38 AM Confidence has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 34 of 77 (365899)
11-25-2006 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Confidence
11-24-2006 11:57 PM


Re: Lesson to be learned
Confidence states:

You are talking as if no creationists can be scientists. This in itself is ignorant and lends discredit to your position as an evolutionist. For there are plenty of scientists who are creationists.

According to Newsweek via Religioustolerance.org at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

quote:
According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%

Evidently it all depends upon one's definition of "plenty."

And their "work" is of no less value than a scientists with an evolutionary stand.

Evidently not, according to 99.86% of all scientists that work directly with 'creation science' evidence.

Both have the same evidence at hand, but their interpretations differ due to their different presuppositions.

No, they have the same data. Before such data becomes evidence, it must be interpreted according to a rational framework. The real debate is if your framework is logically derived, or built upon obvious misinterpretations and intentional falsehoods.

ABE - Oh, almost forgot, welcome to EvC :)

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Confidence, posted 11-24-2006 11:57 PM Confidence has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20271
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 35 of 77 (365932)
11-25-2006 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Confidence
11-24-2006 11:57 PM


Real Age versus falsified concepts
The article/online book you pointed me to is long, and it will be a while for me to read it. But I look forward to see what it has to say.

And it is but the tip of the iceberg compared to the amount of knowledge and information that has been accumulated in the science that surrounds dating techniques.

You are talking as if no creationists can be scientists.

No, what I said was that the "work" has been refuted by scientists (as opposed to say high school students) -- by people that know the subject and have the evidence to back up their claims.

In spite of this refutation, the "RATE" group is proceeding and still soliciting funds from creationists to continue this invalidated "work" -- that makes this "work" a scam and not science, no matter whether they have a degree or not.

At best they are looking for anomalies - anomalies that only show that in certain conditions the dating techniques do not work. These anomalies are already known by the scientists (Wiens discusses several) and are tested for when doing scientific age dating -- the "reservoir" effect on 14C dating is a common one that creatortionistas (creationists that intentionally misuse science and information) use. They also know the reason these anomalies occur (the only carbon available is already ancient carbon and so will be depleted in 14C compared to carbon taken from the atmosphere).

Polonium "halos" are a similar case. From Wiens:

quote:
13. "Radiation halos" in rocks prove that the Earth was young.

This refers to tiny halos of crystal damage surrounding spots where radioactive elements are concentrated in certain rocks. Halos thought to be from polonium, a short-lived element produced from the decay of uranium, have been found in some rocks. A plausible explanation for a halo from such a short-lived element is that these were not produced by an initial concentration of the radioactive element. Rather, as water seeped through cracks in the minerals, a chemical change caused newly-formed polonium to drop out of solution at a certain place and almost immediately decay there. A halo would build up over a long period of time even though the center of the halo never contained more than a few atoms of polonium at one time. "Hydrothermal" effects can act in ways that at first seem strange, such as the well-known fact that gold--a chemically un-reactive metal with very low solubilities--is concentrated along quartz veins by the action of water over long periods of time. Other researchers have found halos produced by an indirect radioactive decay effect called hole diffusion, which is an electrical effect in a crystal. These results suggest that the halos in question are not from short-lived isotopes after all.

At any rate, halos from uranium inclusions are far more common. Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth.


As I said: already refuted.

And their "work" is of no less value than a scientists with an evolutionary stand.

Age dating science has nothing to do with evolution. The people involved are geologists and physicists and chemists. This means several independent means of coming to the same conclusion based on different evidence evaluated without any preconceptions.

Both have the same evidence at hand, but their interpretations differ due to their different presuppositions.

Yes, one group has presuppositions - creationists - and the other group does not - scientists (other that they can deduct theory from evidence and then test it to see if it is true, discarding all that are invalidated - but that is not so much a 'presupposition' as it is a general operational concept).

There is also the issue of the annual dating mechanisms that no amount of handwaving over radioactivity will refute. This is amply demonstrated on the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) without need to discuss radioactivity.

The earth is older than 10,000 years. Learn to live with it, just as you have learned to live with the earth orbiting the sun.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Confidence, posted 11-24-2006 11:57 PM Confidence has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Confidence, posted 11-25-2006 7:00 PM RAZD has responded

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 4639 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 36 of 77 (365991)
11-25-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
11-25-2006 10:57 AM


Re: Real Age versus falsified concepts
In spite of this refutation, the "RATE" group is proceeding and still soliciting funds from creationists to continue this invalidated "work" -- that makes this "work" a scam and not science, no matter whether they have a degree or not.

How this makes sense to you is beyond me. How are science and scams differentiated by funds alone?

In any case, these guys ARE conducting scientific experiments (which require funds, since the government only funds experiments which are in agreement with evolution/big bang, it is hard for creationists to come up with money, and I realize that creationists are not the only scientists who run into these problems but other scientists who deny the big bang or the ones who question that evolutionary processes alone could bring about life as we know it) to show that radioactive decay have changed dramatically in the past. Now, this is science only if other scientists are able to reproduce the results they come up with. So until they come to a conclusion all we can do is either support their research, or just dismiss it as desperate creationists grasping for straws as they fall down their slopes of ignorance.

Besides this research is an attempt to attack the WHOLE concept of dating, not just a particular case.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

See http://www.cosmologystatement.org/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2006 10:57 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 11-26-2006 12:11 PM Confidence has responded
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2006 8:36 PM Confidence has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4236 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 37 of 77 (366014)
11-26-2006 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Confidence
11-24-2006 11:57 PM


Re: Lesson to be learned
For there are plenty of scientists who are creationists. And their "work" is of no less value than a scientists with an evolutionary stand. Both have the same evidence at hand, but their interpretations differ due to their different presuppositions.

Bunk! Truth is not relative.

If your premise is false your conclusions will also be false.

For example, take celestial mechanics. If two different "scientists" take the same orbital evidence and one makes "interpretations" based on a heliocentric solar system and the other based on a geocentric solar system is their "work" of the same value? Just different based on different presuppositions?

Along these lines how many major oil companies hire "young earth creationist" geoscience graduates? The reason why YEC are not in great demand, is that their presuppositions of a young earth is false and any work based on this premise will lead to costly failure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Confidence, posted 11-24-2006 11:57 PM Confidence has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2006 9:04 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5410
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 38 of 77 (366065)
11-26-2006 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Confidence
11-25-2006 7:00 PM


Re: Real Age versus falsified concepts
it is hard for creationists to come up with money,

Ummmm....Answers in Genesis has just about finished their $25,000,000 "creation museum" up by Cinncinnati. Doesn't sound like chicken feed....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Confidence, posted 11-25-2006 7:00 PM Confidence has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Confidence, posted 11-26-2006 6:58 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Confidence
Member (Idle past 4639 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 11-23-2006


Message 39 of 77 (366141)
11-26-2006 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coragyps
11-26-2006 12:11 PM


Re: Real Age versus falsified concepts
Ummmm....Answers in Genesis has just about finished their $25,000,000 "creation museum" up by Cinncinnati. Doesn't sound like chicken feed....

lol, I guess I stand corrected then? It is just that not all projects go as smoothly as that one. But its not just us creationists that I was talking about.


We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 11-26-2006 12:11 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20271
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 40 of 77 (366160)
11-26-2006 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Confidence
11-25-2006 7:00 PM


Re: Real Age versus falsified concepts
How this makes sense to you is beyond me. How are science and scams differentiated by funds alone?

Not by funding. If someone was seeking funding to pursue cold-fusion research, that too would be a scam. If someone were seeking funding to pursue research into a flat earth, that too would be a scam.

What makes is a scam is that the concept is already refuted, invalidated, falsified (show to be false), wrong. Not the funding.

In any case, these guys ARE conducting scientific experiments ...

IE - they are putting on an entertaining dog-and-pony show for the gullibles, one that caters to both their ignorance and their preferred beliefs. Anyone can do experiments that appear scientific (especially to gullible people), but the proof is in the pudding: dealing with the evidence that refutes their concept. Without dealing with that evidence it is like trying to play chess while your king is in check but doing nothing about it.

Science does explain contradictory evidence or changes the concept (theory). Pseudo-science -- and scams based on pseudo-science -- don't.

Besides this research is an attempt to attack the WHOLE concept of dating, not just a particular case.

So, like the Taliban, they will be destroying everything that refutes their "research"? Will they burn the histories of other cultures? Will they burn the trees and rocks and the sun and the earth?

Or will you end up with "last thursdayism" -- with an ideology incapable of considering that yesterday was real?

quote:
delusion –noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Either the whole world is an illusion or they are ... shall we list the usual suspects? Stupid, Ignorant, Malicious, Insane ... or Deluded? ... want to take a pick?

The cosmological evidence is that the universe is very old
The astronomical evidence is that the solar system is old
The geological evidence is that the earth is old
The physic\chemistry\radiation evidence is that the earth is old
The physical evidence is that the earth is old
The biological evidence is that the earth is old

The evidence in each science is multi-fold and corroborative
The evidence between each science is also corroborative

That the earth is old is the only logical and rational conclusion.

The earth orbits the sun.

The earth is old.

There is no escaping the evidence for it except through denial.

...and I realize that creationists are not the only scientists who run into these problems but other scientists who deny the big bang or the ones who question that evolutionary processes alone could bring about life as we know it) to show that radioactive decay have changed dramatically in the past.

Neither of which have anything to do with how radioactivity behaves, to say nothing of having some mythical magical mystery mechanism change a physical process and that is totally unexplained by ANY theory and for which there is a total LACK of evidence anywhere.

...but other scientists who deny the big bang ...

And yet -- strangely --string theory, 'brane theory and ekpyrosis theory that go in different directions from big bang theory are funded for experiments and do get published in scientific journals.

Personally I expect a new theory in physics. But I'll make a prediction: it won't come from creationists proposing a young earth.

Now, this is science only if other scientists are able to reproduce the results they come up with.

Which they do manage to do in evolution and sciences that deal with dating the age of the earth, the solar system and the universe.

Have you made it through Wiens yet?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Confidence, posted 11-25-2006 7:00 PM Confidence has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20271
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 41 of 77 (366165)
11-26-2006 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by iceage
11-26-2006 3:38 AM


Helio vs Geocentricity
For example, take celestial mechanics. If two different "scientists" take the same orbital evidence and one makes "interpretations" based on a heliocentric solar system and the other based on a geocentric solar system is their "work" of the same value? Just different based on different presuppositions?

It's not just a matter of finding evidence in support of a position, but also of being able to deal with the evidence that contradicts that position.

Shoot two probes into solar north space, directly towards the north star, free of any orbit around the earth, have one probe programed to keep itself in line with polaris, the earth and octanis, and the other programed to keep itself in line with polaris, the sun and octanis.

At the end of one year compare:

  • Fuel consumption
  • Course corrections compared to earth stationary and sun orbiting earth
  • Course corrections compared to sun stationary and earth orbiting sun
  • Explain how this evidence is consistent with a geocentric theory
  • Explain how this evidence is consistent with a heliocentric theory.

One theory will be consistent with the data, the other won't, and no amount of fudging of the data will make it comply with the other - only denial can do that.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by iceage, posted 11-26-2006 3:38 AM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 4:14 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Casey Powell 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 42 of 77 (374485)
01-04-2007 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
11-26-2006 9:04 PM


Re: Helio vs Geocentricity
See you're stuck in your whole affirming the consequent world here. Open minded and Intellectual Honesty aren't bad things to acquire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2006 9:04 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by AdminQuetzal, posted 01-04-2007 4:28 PM Casey Powell has not yet responded

  
AdminQuetzal
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 77 (374496)
01-04-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Casey Powell
01-04-2007 4:14 PM


Forum Guidelines Warning
Casey,

Although I'm not attempting to either suppress or stalk you, you are pushing fairly near to violating forum guidelines concerning "debating the topic, not the poster". Rule 10 is pretty clear: "Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics."

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. If you feel that RAZD was committing a fallacy, you need to support that contention with some reasoned argument. Simply asserting same is bordering on deliberate insult.

On a possibly related note, I see you have amassed over 100 posts in the last 36 or so hours. There's nothing inherently wrong with being prolific. However, I strongly urge you to consider making fewer - but more substantive - posts if you want to "get along" on this forum.

Comments? Take it to the appropriate thread.


"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
    Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 42 by Casey Powell, posted 01-04-2007 4:14 PM Casey Powell has not yet responded

      
    elcano
    Member (Idle past 2574 days)
    Posts: 60
    From: Moscow
    Joined: 01-12-2007


    Message 44 of 77 (376885)
    01-14-2007 6:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Jydee
    03-24-2005 12:22 PM


    Re: Dating of manuscripts
    There are facts, that Pompeii was lost on December, 16th, 1631.

    On the Via Nazionale road from Naples to Reggio/Calabria, at 15 km, a so-called "Epitaphio" on the face of the Villa Faraone Mennella today presents two memorial inscriptions in Latin on a monumental volcanic stone.

    It is translation from latin.

    "This road from Naples to Reggio [i.e. the Royal City], infamous for continuous robberies [raids] and difficult transit on account of the arid stones of Mount Vesuvius, has been freed from ambush, levelled, straightened and broadened, by means of the funds given by the Province.
    Later 68 years in 17 Calend. (on December, 16th) January in Phillip's reign IV.
    Smoke, flame, roaring, shaking, ashes, eruption awfully wild at that time Vesuvius has obviously caused fear in one, and at weight of people. The heated heat from an aperture of the fiery cave, violently loudly roaring, has opened the way through constraining surface to an output, has moved to Hellespont, has furiously destroyed top of mountain, monstrously suddenly widely having opened a pharynx of mountain, next day a tail of ashes was dragged all filling similarly to the sea hostile to the sea. The river of the sulfur, burning bitumen, fetid квасцовых stones, the various deformed metal ores, a mix of water and fire, moving an avalanche, a smoke, ashes, disastrous sewage have unloaded a ridge of mountain.

    Pompeii, Herculaneum, Octavianum, partially Retina and Portici, woods and country houses, and houses has in a flash scattered, has burnt, has destroyed, (stream) bearing all this before itself, as extraction in mad devastating triumph. Marble monuments have disappeared actually also, are deeply buried, the inquiring monument of Vice-king has really been destroyed. Emmanuel Fonseca and Zunica.
    As memory of the sizes of human disaster, as well about the accepted measures on clearing of a stone rain and rescue completely each of our fellow tribesmen. Year of Redemption 1634. Prefect of road of Antonio Suares Messia." http://www.torreomnia.com/Vesuvio/vesuvio_dicristo/vesuvio_dicristo2.htm

    Edited by elcano, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Jydee, posted 03-24-2005 12:22 PM Jydee has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 45 by Wepwawet, posted 01-14-2007 8:18 AM elcano has responded

      
    Wepwawet
    Member (Idle past 4430 days)
    Posts: 85
    From: Texas
    Joined: 04-05-2006


    Message 45 of 77 (376891)
    01-14-2007 8:18 AM
    Reply to: Message 44 by elcano
    01-14-2007 6:18 AM


    Re: Dating of manuscripts
    Are you trying to tell us that the Roman city of Pompeii was destroyed in the eruption of 1631 and not 79? Or are you confusing it with the modern Italian city of Pompei?

    My Italian is extremely limited, but I can see references to the devastating eruption of 79 on the site. Vesuvius is an active volcano and has erupted many times; the last eruption was in 1944.


    When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
    - Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 44 by elcano, posted 01-14-2007 6:18 AM elcano has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 46 by elcano, posted 01-14-2007 8:50 AM Wepwawet has responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019