Re: Myths created by Evolutionists Mark

X-No-Archive: yes

"Leonard Abbott" <leonard-abbott@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:16449-475DB521-494@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mark=We have stone tool records that date back also between 50,000 -
200,000 years approximately.
----------------------------------------------------
le=That is erroneous there is absolutely no way to tell how old a stone
is, even if there was a way to measure the age of a stone, that still
would not tell you when it was carved or chipped to make a weapon. or a
utensil.


You miss the most obvious explanation.
Implements that are *found* alongside very datable remains become very
datable in themselves......
Those implements are therefore, by definition, no younger than the remains.
Further, experience of existing evidence indicates very rough periods into
which the implements will have originated from [style, type, size, shaped,
slivered.. etc.]
However, you avoid the core point which is that we HAVE skeletal evidence
for humans pre-dating, by a very long way, your assessment of creation.
The two notions are incompatible [ evolutionary dates and creation
theory...] and as such, since the evidence of humans exists from at least
50,000 years ago, your theory falls.
It is not even challengeable, I'm afraid.



Mark=The problem you have is that the evidence actually exists for
skeletal remains [..let alone artefacts!] dating back to these dates -
far in excess of your 6,000 years.
It is a critical point on which you cannot find an answer to if you
insist on man
being created some 6,000 years ago, earliest. Your belief system may
insist on such conclusion of the creation but it is impossible to fit
that into the existing knowledge
--------------------------------------------------
LEN= i don't know why but I have caught the experts in so many lies they
have no credibility

Which *lies* do you refer...?
Are you now suggesting the the existence of skeletal remains is a hoax?
wrong? incorrect? lies?
To dismiss such level of evidence is futile. This is not about opinion,
this is about factual evidence.
Surely you are not going to dispute it with derisory remarks that "experts"
have no "credibility".




SAME ANSWER That is erroneous there is absolutely no way to tell how old
a stone is, even if there was a way to measure the age of a stone, that
still would not tell you when it was carved or chipped to make a weapon
or a utensil. you can tell the age of a pot by the design, but stone?
never that is not theory, that is common sense..


Len, did you bother to read ANY of the links I posted...??
45 scientists from 14 countries, specialists in geology, archaeology,
paleontology, using Argon dating, isotopic aging, volcanic dust,
mitochondrial dna, uranium 238 - thorium 238 and more.
Scholarly experience enabled clear identification of dating through
knowledge and a variety of techniques......


Even the experts agree Carbon 14 is good only up to 50,000 yrs, and only
something that once lived and was not contaminated with petrification.If
it is a petrified fossil carbon 14 is useless.

See above. You must keep up with current expertise.


There is no way to predict the age of fertilized bone, they are just
guessing.

No they're not and in any event, preserved bone exists and has been
accurately dated.



The problem with Evolution is, from its beginning it was a political
theory not science, Politicians rarely if ever tell the truth.if they do
they loose followers and get kicked out of office...

You are not dealing with the issue at hand.
Man existed on this planet at least 50,000 years ago.
You tell me how, under your scheme...??
Not "I don't believe the experts" or "the dating process is wrong" or "we
can't accurately date" or "you cannot date bone" or whatever obfuscation ad
infinitum.



Nothing indicates there was a stone age in Northern Europe..The absence
of religious idols indicants N. Europeans are descendants of biblical
Jews.
It just doesn't........
Mark=Other posters have pointed you in the direction of archaeological
sites that date at least 50,000 years back, that possess many implements
and adornary.
Some are in the UK........... N. Europe, if you wish.
------------------------------------------------------
Adornry yes, religious idol no, In the UK yes among the celtic people,
they probably migrated to the UK about the time the Aztecs and Incas
migrated to South America, both of these people are related to the
Egyptians, and came to S, America about 1500BC.


....and skeletal remains...!!
Dated to 50,000 years ago, or thereabouts.



Mark





.

Relevant Pages

  • "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad"
    ... The best and most sound evidence would be evidence from the great ... present stone cube to be what is meant by The God in the great reading. ... Allah whom there is no ilaah except Him. ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: Kensington runestone in the Scandinavian press
    ... >>> evidence for something then you cannot say there is NO evidence ... you construct arguments with no facts at all. ... >authenticity, and by default it is a hoax]. ... >what happened to the stone between 1898 to 1910 that has little to do ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Cameron M. Smith PhD: "Primitive watercraft"
    ... Notice that he is into mountain climbing also. ... Evidence for mountain climbing appears in the archaeological record ... It turns out that almost 99% of all the stone tools are ... Toth claims ground axes first show up in the archaeological record ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... using runic full-stops as a preecedent for KRS ... Unless, of course, you believe that some evidence conclusively supports ... exclaiming that there is conclusive evidence to support the authenticity ... The AVM stone presents the rare exception (the hoaxers admitted the hoax, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Hooked X Runes and where they have been found.
    ... using runic full-stops as a preecedent for KRS ... Unless, of course, you believe that some evidence conclusively supports ... exclaiming that there is conclusive evidence to support the authenticity ... The AVM stone presents the rare exception (the hoaxers admitted the hoax, ...
    (sci.archaeology)