Archaeologist sees proof for bible in ancient wall

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 10 2011,03:55)

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 09 2011,09:24) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2011,04:09) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 07 2011,08:04) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2011,23:57) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 06 2011,16:54) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2011,18:34) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 06 2011,04:04) stu Quote What is a god? Stuart HE IS THE INTELLIGENCE THAT MADE ALL THINGS THAT WE CAN SEE AND THAT WE DO NOT SEE ,THE THINGS WE DO UNDERSTAND AND THE THINGS WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND, THE MYSTERY S OF LIVE IS ONLY EQUAL TO OUR IGNORANCE. Pierre If you had asked me what aluminium is, and I had replied that it is shiny and conducts electricity, would you have been happy that I had answered the question. All you did was list properties of your god concept, you did not say what a god is. Stuart stu       that is what God his So actual existence is not one of the necessary properties of this god? Stuart stu think again to what i have said,and understand it Pierre I thought for the amount of time warranted.  Nothing logical sprang from what you wrote. Stuart stu the logic is if you(we)have  Intelligence   then we are living beings and so the origin of intelligence is intelligence NO? or is it the bomb explosion ? Neither. Stuart

refusing to see to ear,and understand

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 10 2011,08:17)

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 10 2011,03:55) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 09 2011,09:24) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2011,04:09) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 07 2011,08:04) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2011,23:57) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 06 2011,16:54) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2011,18:34) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 06 2011,04:04) stu Quote What is a god? Stuart HE IS THE INTELLIGENCE THAT MADE ALL THINGS THAT WE CAN SEE AND THAT WE DO NOT SEE ,THE THINGS WE DO UNDERSTAND AND THE THINGS WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND, THE MYSTERY S OF LIVE IS ONLY EQUAL TO OUR IGNORANCE. Pierre If you had asked me what aluminium is, and I had replied that it is shiny and conducts electricity, would you have been happy that I had answered the question. All you did was list properties of your god concept, you did not say what a god is. Stuart stu       that is what God his So actual existence is not one of the necessary properties of this god? Stuart stu think again to what i have said,and understand it Pierre I thought for the amount of time warranted.  Nothing logical sprang from what you wrote. Stuart stu the logic is if you(we)have  Intelligence   then we are living beings and so the origin of intelligence is intelligence NO? or is it the bomb explosion ? Neither. Stuart refusing to see to ear,and understand Pierre

No, just refusal to settle for platitudes and facile treatments of those questions.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 11 2011,03:32)

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 10 2011,08:17) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 10 2011,03:55) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 09 2011,09:24) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2011,04:09) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 07 2011,08:04) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2011,23:57) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 06 2011,16:54) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 06 2011,18:34) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 06 2011,04:04) stu Quote What is a god? Stuart HE IS THE INTELLIGENCE THAT MADE ALL THINGS THAT WE CAN SEE AND THAT WE DO NOT SEE ,THE THINGS WE DO UNDERSTAND AND THE THINGS WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND, THE MYSTERY S OF LIVE IS ONLY EQUAL TO OUR IGNORANCE. Pierre If you had asked me what aluminium is, and I had replied that it is shiny and conducts electricity, would you have been happy that I had answered the question. All you did was list properties of your god concept, you did not say what a god is. Stuart stu       that is what God his So actual existence is not one of the necessary properties of this god? Stuart stu think again to what i have said,and understand it Pierre I thought for the amount of time warranted.  Nothing logical sprang from what you wrote. Stuart stu the logic is if you(we)have  Intelligence   then we are living beings and so the origin of intelligence is intelligence NO? or is it the bomb explosion ? Neither. Stuart refusing to see to ear,and understand Pierre No, just refusal to settle for platitudes and facile treatments of those questions. Stuart

stu
you say;
No, just refusal to settle for platitudes and facile treatments of those questions.
========================
I can also use your words and send them to you,
your version of events are also a platitude and mystery ,

your science that you contemplate is by no means against a creator,and I recognize the work of the greatest intelligence at work,

it is your believe in the origin of the MYSTERY and the IF,boom.

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 11 2011,04:47)

I can also use your words and send them to you, your version of events are also a platitude and mystery , your science that you contemplate is by no means against a creator,and I recognize the work of the greatest intelligence at work, it is your believe in the origin of the MYSTERY and the IF,boom. Pierre

Let me know when you have something interesting to say.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 12 2011,03:50)

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 11 2011,04:47) I can also use your words and send them to you, your version of events are also a platitude and mystery , your science that you contemplate is by no means against a creator,and I recognize the work of the greatest intelligence at work, it is your believe in the origin of the MYSTERY and the IF,boom. Pierre Let me know when you have something interesting to say. Stuart

stu
Isa 47:10 You have trusted in your wickedness
and have said, ‘No one sees me.’
Your wisdom and knowledge mislead you
when you say to yourself,
‘I am, and there is none besides me.’

   

[terraricca]

stu

something to look at;

By IB Times Staff Reporter | August 19, 2011 3:02 AM EDT
Adding to a long list of mysteries surrounding the moon, a new analysis has suggested that our nearest interplanetary object may not be as old as we believe.

Currently, it's believed that soon after the solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago, a Mars-sized object hit Earth, splashing large volumes of molten material into space. This material later got cooled and formed today's moon. While some researchers have said that the sea of molten rock covering the moon surface solidified anywhere between 4.43 billion and 4.53 billion years ago, many others don't agree that it cooled that fast.

Based on a new analysis of lunar rock samples brought back by the Apollo 16 in 1972, scientists suggested that the moon may be 200 million years younger than its widely believed age.

This photo shows a moon rock collected during NASA's Apollo lunar landings. New research based on studies of lunar samples suggests the moon may be younger than thought, or formed differently that theories have indicated, scientists say. CREDIT: Lars Borg
The researchers examined the isotopes of lead, samarium and neodymium within the purified samples of the lunar rocks, and discovered that they apparently shaped up about 4.36 billion years ago, well after the widely believed time period of moon's formation. This suggests that either the moon is significantly younger than we thought so far, or the existing concept of quickly cooling molten rock is wrong.

Like us on Facebook

“If our analysis represents the age of the moon, then the Earth must be fairly young as well,” study lead author Lars Borg, a planetary scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

Borg further added that Mars, one of the first formed lunar rocks, is argued to have formed around 4.53 billion years ago. Considering that, the moon must be some 165 million years younger than Mars and about 200 million years younger than large asteroids, Etidbits reported.

Scientists gave another surprising explanation. According to them, the crustal rock called ferroan anorthosite is not at all linked to magma dynamics. They suggested that the moon never had a sea of molten rocks, and there could have been another reason for the formation of the rocks, Los Angeles Times reported.

“After many years of trying, we have found a way to reliably date the ages of lunar crustal rocks with high precision,” said Borg. “We can apply this technique to address many questions regarding the timing of ancient events on the moon,” Borg added.

Borg and his team “have done a fantastic job of putting together a beautiful study of this rock, one of the most pristine samples of early lunar crust,” said Alex Halliday, an isotopic geochemist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. Halliday said that the new findings suggest that the moon had a fiery start at an age much later than previously considered, ScienceNOW reported.

Follow us on LinkedIn LinkedIn

News From Partners

Pierre

[Stu]

And what analysis would you make of that article, terraricca?

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 20 2011,05:57)

And what analysis would you make of that article, terraricca? Stuart

stu

I am always looking to increase my knowledge about Gods creation and I found this article to share it with you,

that s all

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 20 2011,15:26)

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 20 2011,05:57) And what analysis would you make of that article, terraricca? Stuart stu I am always looking to increase my knowledge about Gods creation and I found this article to share it with you, that s all Pierre

I didn't see anything about gods in the article, so I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 20 2011,22:48)

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 20 2011,15:26) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 20 2011,05:57) And what analysis would you make of that article, terraricca? Stuart stu I am always looking to increase my knowledge about Gods creation and I found this article to share it with you, that s all Pierre I didn't see anything about gods in the article, so I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Stuart

stu

was i talking about God ? i do not think so

but i was talking about his creation or what you call the big explosion big bang.

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 20 2011,16:45)

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 20 2011,22:48) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 20 2011,15:26) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 20 2011,05:57) And what analysis would you make of that article, terraricca? Stuart stu I am always looking to increase my knowledge about Gods creation and I found this article to share it with you, that s all Pierre I didn't see anything about gods in the article, so I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Stuart stu was i talking about God ? i do not think so but i was talking about his creation or what you call the big explosion big bang. Pierre

So was it not your god's creation or was it that you were talking about?

I don't think you know what you want to say.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 21 2011,07:31)

Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 20 2011,16:45) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 20 2011,22:48) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 20 2011,15:26) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 20 2011,05:57) And what analysis would you make of that article, terraricca? Stuart stu I am always looking to increase my knowledge about Gods creation and I found this article to share it with you, that s all Pierre I didn't see anything about gods in the article, so I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Stuart stu was i talking about God ? i do not think so but i was talking about his creation or what you call the big explosion big bang. Pierre So was it not your god's creation or was it that you were talking about? I don't think you know what you want to say. Stuart

[TimothyVI]

I never quite know what this means.

” “

Tim

[Stu]

Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 21 2011,08:01)

I never quite know what this means.               ”       “         Tim

It is the creationist's considered and detailed debunking of scientific theories, in which he provides a cogent, falsifiable alternative explanation that is based in evidence.

Stuart

[TimothyVI]

[charity]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo0ZkgqM1TE&feature=related

12000 YEAR OLD (Göbekli Tepe) DISCOVERED IN 1994

creation verse's evolution? I often consider neither  

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 07 2010,05:53)

Was it this find? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Stone_Structure The Wikipedia article includes this: A bone has been radiocarbon dated by Elisabetta Boaretto at the Weizmann Institute, showing a probability date between 1050 and 780 BCE So radiocarbon dating confirms the date in line with the biblical narrative. Which means radiocarbon dating must be a valid technique! Which, given the number of objects that date to many tens of thousands of years, means young earth creationism is wrong. Unless there are any YECs here who would like to argue against the archeological evidence for the bible narrative? The evidence says that the bible is historical fiction.  Jerusalem exists, and has a history that matches of the biblical account.  The story of a man walking again after he was executed is one of the fictional parts. Stuart

stu

Quote

Which means radiocarbon dating must be a valid technique!

if a span of 200 years is close enough ,I don't know if it is steady 200 or could it be more or less ??

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 17 2011,10:26)

Quote (Stu @ July 07 2010,05:53) Was it this find? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Stone_Structure The Wikipedia article includes this: A bone has been radiocarbon dated by Elisabetta Boaretto at the Weizmann Institute, showing a probability date between 1050 and 780 BCE So radiocarbon dating confirms the date in line with the biblical narrative. Which means radiocarbon dating must be a valid technique! Which, given the number of objects that date to many tens of thousands of years, means young earth creationism is wrong. Unless there are any YECs here who would like to argue against the archeological evidence for the bible narrative? The evidence says that the bible is historical fiction.  Jerusalem exists, and has a history that matches  of the biblical account.  The story of a man walking again after he was executed is one of the fictional parts. Stuart stu Quote Which means radiocarbon dating must be a valid technique! if a span of 200 years is close enough ,I don't know if it is steady 200 or could it be more or less ??

Did anything you built ever stay up?

The range gives a measure of uncertainty. Why would you ask what the uncertainty is on the uncertainty?

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ Oct. 18 2011,05:45)

Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 17 2011,10:26) Quote (Stu @ July 07 2010,05:53) Was it this find? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Stone_Structure The Wikipedia article includes this: A bone has been radiocarbon dated by Elisabetta Boaretto at the Weizmann Institute, showing a probability date between 1050 and 780 BCE So radiocarbon dating confirms the date in line with the biblical narrative. Which means radiocarbon dating must be a valid technique! Which, given the number of objects that date to many tens of thousands of years, means young earth creationism is wrong. Unless there are any YECs here who would like to argue against the archeological evidence for the bible narrative? The evidence says that the bible is historical fiction.  Jerusalem exists, and has a history that matches  of the biblical account.  The story of a man walking again after he was executed is one of the fictional parts. Stuart stu Quote Which means radiocarbon dating must be a valid technique! if a span of 200 years is close enough ,I don't know if it is steady 200 or could it be more or less ?? Did anything you built ever stay up? The range gives a measure of uncertainty.  Why would you ask what the uncertainty is on the uncertainty? Stuart

STU

that was not my questions ,I still feel the need to know

[Proclaimer]

Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 21 2011,08:01)

I never quite know what this means.               ”       “         Tim

You can interpret it using the Rosetta Stone.

[Author]

Posts