Author Topic: Yellowstone N.P. Bisons Caught running down a road (Read 6350 times)

Nadir · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2014, 06:15:17 AM »

Beautiful scenery! Good road! Keeping to the right! All is well! Thanks for posting!

RomanCatholic1953 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2014, 09:37:24 AM »

Thanks for your answers, it was migration after all.

Here is a few photos from a 1960's vacation at Yellowstone N.P.

Sure hate to see this beautiful area destroyed in an eruption. It has only
been about 600,000 years since the last one.

poche · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2014, 11:08:18 PM »

If we get enough of them maybe we could eat bison instead of steak.
:ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat: :ready-to-eat:

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2014, 09:39:13 PM »

Quote from: RomanCatholic1953

Thanks for your answers, it was migration after all.

Here is a few photos from a 1960's vacation at Yellowstone N.P.

Sure hate to see this beautiful area destroyed in an eruption. It has only
been about 600,000 years since the last one.

Six hundred thousand, eh? And where do they get that figure?

Do you really want to know?

If you inquire, you will find lots of 'experts' eager to answer you. They'll tell you that we know it's been that long because of how old the rocks are.

Then ask them how they know how old the rocks are, and they'll tell you that there are many ways of dating rocks. For example, they have evidence of age by looking at fossils in the metamorphosed and sedimentary rocks, and of course, we already know how old the fossils are, so that dates the rocks.

Okay, now go to the other side of town, or the other side of the wall at a museum, and ask the 'experts' in the fossil department how do they know how old fossils are, and they'll tell you that the age of fossils are based on the age of the rocks in which they are found, and since we already know how old the rocks are, then we know how old the fossils are.

Get it?

In Logic Class and Rhetoric, that's known as "circular reasoning." IOW it proves nothing.

Therefore, 600,000 years is a WAG, a shot in the dark, and a fantasy, basically. They have no real evidence to support that much time.

Another example of their unreliable estimates is ice cores. They have sample ice cores in cold storage where they say they can count the 'seasonal rings' in the ice, showing one line per season, and since a core 300 feet long has 100 rings per foot, or 30,000 rings, with 4 per year, so that's 7,500 years, correct? Well, then why is it that new snow falling in one winter can pile up showing about 300 rings, for one season? It's because the eggheads who presume there's only one ring per season never bothered to verify that with testing. Those 300 foot-long cores with 30,000 rings represent not seven thousand years but only 100 years, when there are 300 rings per year, presuming snow only falls in the winter. The rings are caused not by a 'season' but by daily or hourly changes in temperature, or wind blowing dirt around, or sunshine melting the snow surface when the cloud cover opens up for a few minutes. When more snow falls, and more wind blows, there's another 'ring' so it looks to the egg-heads like another "season," all in one day, or maybe a few minutes of time.

The whole large-scale-millions-of-years myth that gets cast into bronze plaques at museums or national parks is based on the fantasy that evolution is "proven true," when it has only been proclaimed as dogma by atheists and other enemies of the truth.

So take that 600,000 figure and toss it in the ash can where it belongs. Or, as the Brits say, 'the dust bin'.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** March 30, 2014, 10:29:08 PM »

.

If you want to know about another method of dating rocks, they'll tell you there is radiometric dating, whereby they measure the amount of radioactive uranium in the rocks, compared to the element and atomic number and isotope into which uranium degrades to when it decomposes or breaks down. Then, because the half-life of the uranium is known, they can say how long the rock has been there in that form, or, the "age" of the rock.

But there's a problem with this. Uranium that occurs naturally in rocks is always in the form of uranium salts. The problem is, that when a rock is subjected to submersion under water like all the rocks are under the ocean or in lakes or UNDER GROUNDWATER (a lot of mountains have water flowing through them; take a look at Yosemite and the Merced River), then the uranium salts, since they're SOLUBLE IN WATER dissolve, much of it washing away.

So we can't know how much uranium was there in the first place (since some unknown amount washed away under submersion). And the element(s) into which the decaying uranium turn (they turn into other elements), are then going to be in greater abundance, because they had already degraded BEFORE the rock was submerged, and many of them are less soluble than the uranium salts are, and now years later (how many, nobody can say for sure using only physical scientifically collected data) this abundance makes the rock appear to be far OLDER than it really is, by a factor of 100 or up to 1,000 times, maybe more.

Question: How long does it take for this dilution by submersion in water to occur?

Answer: Only a few days.

Question: What difference does it make whether uranium salts are soluble in water, when these rocks are found near the surface of the ground and above groundwater level?

Answer: According to universal worldwide historical accounts about 5,000 years ago there was a worldwide flood, when all the land of the earth was covered with water for over a year.

Question: Oh, so are you're one of those "Noah's Flood" lunatics who won't listen to reason?

Answer: Maybe you weren't paying attention. At the risk of repeating myself, I'm going to repeat myself: According to UNIVERSAL, WORLDWIDE HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS, about 5,000 years ago there was a worldwide flood. All of the objective and truly scientific evidence points to exactly this happening, and there is absolutely no evidence of the great Flood NOT having happened.

You might like to read last week's Eleison Comments for example, the one with the erroneous Roman Numeral, when the correct one is CCCXLIX (the error has "cccxil").

You see, unlike the mythical "600,000" year-old Yellowstone eruption, a 'past time' when nobody was around to record the fact of any eruption going on, we have an eyewitness account of the Flood of Noah, and it is widely available for all with eyes to see. There were exactly 8 people who lived through that global catastrophe, and we even know what their names were. That is what we call "historical record" and "historical evidence." It cannot be ignored. But if that isn't enough, we have over 30 other independent ancient historical records of that Flood happening, which are ancient writings from as many diverse places all over the world, and we have exactly ZERO ancient historical records of that time 5,000 years ago that do NOT have any mention of the great Flood.

Normally, this would be called "irrefutable evidence" but instead, today, we have fairy tales like undocuмented gas chambers -- powered by Russian diesel engines (for which Germans had no access for parts) which burn fuel so cleanly they are unable to generate enough carbon monoxide to make your pet cat take a cat nap, &c. -- being called "irrefutable."

.