Why do you keep believing I'm mad at you, Sybil? I believe you are mentally ill, not someone to fear or hate.
A mortal blow to Young Earth creationism
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Why do you keep believing I'm mad at you, Sybil? I believe you are mentally ill, not someone to fear or hate.
Which would tell you the rock was a certain age but not when the hand prints were placed.
I'd wonder if they tested the pigments they used... that could actually net a time period when the prints were placed.
I mean, if I repaint a car that was built in the 70s and leave a fingerprint on it, that does not mean the fingerprint was placed in the 70s if they prove the car was built then... eh?
evince
Truthmatters
I would think they would figure the age by the length of time that mud becomes a rock.
What you said made no difference in what I noted, in fact it underlines the issue rather than dismisses it. The rock could be there hundreds of thousands of years before the hand print was made, dating the rock does not give you the date of the print.
Regardless of whether you think I am the same person, the better test of the age of the prints would be the media the prints were made in rather than the rock on which they were made. Which is what I was pointing out...
My guess is they tested the handprint media which gave them a better age, basically I was saying that Cypress may be giving the wrong impression of what was tested, not that the prints weren't old.
Yes, testing the handprint media, not the rock they were placed on. I was attempting to tell folks how the age tests were done.
My understanding is key word "impressions" meaning they put their prints in soft mud which later fossilized, not paint. Actual indentations.
My understanding is that the rock is the media. Obviously it wasn't rock at the time like the great dinosaur chase footprints.
Exactly.
Again. Third time. The second line in the post makes it clear I was noting that they dated the handprint media rather than the rock it was placed on.
You know where I said: "I'd wonder if they tested the pigments they used... that could actually net a time period when the prints were placed."
Fucking kids always vandalizing all the natural wonders!
You are misunderstanding my attempted point, and purposefully so now.
I believe they tested the media that was used to make the handprints (fossilized mud/pigments on the rock face) rather than the rock face. Cypress' post had given another poster the impression that they tested the rock face by only mentioning rock...
I was trying, and clearly failing, to get folks to understand what was tested, not saying he was wrong.
My understanding is there is no pigment at all.
From my then-9 year old grandson, now 17 in concrete as I built a back porch fence:
If buried several feet under ground, how long could it last?
Okay. So we're agreed the print and the rock are the same? The kids put prints on mud and then it hardened, later fossilized. There is no pigment or media as in the example of my grandson. Agreed?
This isn't the bison cave paintings. These are tracks in mud, but guessed to be purposefully placed there by children. The purposefullness giving reason to call it "art" as opposed to simply track marks.
Into the Night
Contributor
So do you believe that so-called 'dinosaur bones' actually come from dinosaurs?
Into the Night
Contributor
You can't measure the age of a void.
Into the Night
Contributor
Why are you bringing up the Apollo program?? It is YOU that denies science.
Like you?
Science isn't economics.
Yes. I believe that dinosaur bones come from animals that went extinct millions of years ago.
I also believe that the universe is over 14 Billion years old.
Tell us what you believe. I'd love to hear your "hypotheses".
Into the Night
Contributor
So you openly admit that you have socks.
I don't.
No.
The FBI can scan what they want. There is nothing illegal there. You must think they are really bored.