20 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo the land mass that the Himalayas are on is as old as the earth itself.
The earth crust moved during the Japanese earthquake because of the earthquake not because of the tsunami, the tsunami was a result of the earthquake.
So not only are the Himalayas only 4,300yrs old, now the movement of the earths crust didn't start occurring until 4,300yrs ago. Do you have any scientific evidence for this, or is this just something your making up as you go along?!
We have had this discussion before and I presented plenty of evidence then and no need to do it again. I just presented this new evidence from this gentleman to add to the discussion of the flood.
I think it would be interesting on your part to look at this find and the general dating of it, as this is being found in many parts of the earth and explain what you think this layer of plants are?
20 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75You have not presented any evidence that is it being found in many parts of the earth.
I think it would be interesting on your part to look at this find and the general dating of it, as this is being found in many parts of the earth and explain what you think this layer of plants are?
20 May 11
Try to pay attention to the finer points of the Mayan prophecy.
for one, it says that time will cease. It does not herald Armageddon (G-man) neccesarily.
We all have a creative input into these upcoming Earth changes, but it doesn't have to be as bad as some commentators make out.
Earth Changes - absolutely neccesary
End of the world - If it didn't happen already you might have to think why not?
You just dont know and thats the truth.
I've invested a bit of time into this stuff, living near the water and all, and the best thing I can say is that when the wave comes I will hopefully be visiting the mountains on that day.
It's all good people ... it's all good
20 May 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelI give no due to the Mayan prophicies as they contradict the Bibles explination of the future.
Try to pay attention to the finer points of the Mayan prophecy.
for one, it says that time will cease. It does not herald Armageddon (G-man) neccesarily.
We all have a creative input into these upcoming Earth changes, but it doesn't have to be as bad as some commentators make out.
Earth Changes - absolutely neccesary
End of the world - If it d ...[text shortened]... ll hopefully be visiting the mountains on that day.
It's all good people ... it's all good
21 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75Well sadly I cannot watch the whole episode. So I must just trust that you got it right, and the makers of the episode got it wrong (or they made it up to further their interests).
If you can find the whole episode and watch it you will see that fact stated.
I do feel compelled to point out however that episodes on National geographic are not necessarily science. They apparently quote scientists but distort those scientists claims.
21 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75The rocks of the Himalayas are as old as the earth itself. But you're claiming they only existed as mountains for 4,300 years, as before the flood they were at the bottom of the sea. The problem you have is that the levels of erosion seen on these mountains is far greater than 4,300 years old.
No the land mass that the Himalayas are on is as old as the earth itself.
We have had this discussion before and I presented plenty of evidence then and no need to do it again. I just presented this new evidence from this gentleman to add to the discussion of the flood.
I think it would be interesting on your part to look at this find and the general ...[text shortened]... s is being found in many parts of the earth and explain what you think this layer of plants are?
Secondly, as i've pointed out already; and something you have been keen to ignore. The dating of these flowers doesn't even match when you think the flood occurred. There's nearly a 1,000 year discrepancy. You're out by a long way.
21 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis wasn't a quote from this gentleman, it is what he actually said himself.
Well sadly I cannot watch the whole episode. So I must just trust that you got it right, and the makers of the episode got it wrong (or they made it up to further their interests).
I do feel compelled to point out however that episodes on National geographic are not necessarily science. They apparently quote scientists but distort those scientists claims.
21 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobI never said the rock of Himalayas was only 4300 years old but the mountains were. And exactly how is erosion measured? Is it caused by water erosion or in the case here or by snow melt?
The rocks of the Himalayas are as old as the earth itself. But you're claiming they have only been in existence for 4,300 years, as before the flood they were at the bottom of the sea. The problem you have is that the levels of erosion seen on these mountains is far greater than 4,300 years old.
Secondly, as i've pointed out already; and something yo hink the flood occurred. There's nearly a 1,000 year discrepancy. You're out by a long way.
If that's where your going, there would have been a tremendous erosional effect from the agitated flood waters on this area when it was being uplifted during the flood and the extreme turbulance this would have seen during this event and like nothing the earth has ever experianced. It would have happened in a very short time or equal to what normally would take the thousands of years your implying.
And as far as man and science dating objects on the planet, it's still a guessing game as we see all the time dates being constantly changed and readjusted.
The obvious point here is the actual plant evidence not only at this site but of many other sites where the ice caps are melting at these high elavations that have been raised up by the affects of a tremendous event all at the same time earthwide is being seen. The only event that could have caused this as well as other evidence such as all the animals that have been found flash frozen in latitudes where they should not be living.
The evidence is mounting in favor of the flood the Bible describes. But you will probably never admit to it because if you do then that sort of blows your whole concept of life...right?
21 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75Heed the words of evangelical Christian Davis Young, who happens to be a geologist -
I never said the rock of Himalayas was only 4300 years old but the mountains were. And exactly how is erosion measured? Is it caused by water erosion or in the case here or by snow melt?
If that's where your going, there would have been a tremendous erosional effect from the agitated flood waters on this area when it was being uplifted during the flood ...[text shortened]... ever admit to it because if you do then that sort of blows your whole concept of life...right?
"The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest. . . . Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel.
This my good man applies to you more than me -
But you will probably never admit to it because if you do then that sort of blows your whole concept of life
The irony.
21 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobI think in this case I'll stick to the Bible and God's word as well as the evidence the earth clearly shows about the flood over this man who was obviously not there to say it did or didn't happen. Deal?
Heed the words of evangelical Christian Davis Young, who happens to be a geologist -
"The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reas ...[text shortened]... o it because if you do then that sort of blows your whole concept of life
The irony.
