Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9170 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Happy Birthday: ameliajack
Post Volume: Total: 917,270 Year: 4,527/9,624 Month: 302/1,096 Week: 7/119 Day: 7/22 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Destruction of Pompei is 1631 year.
Percy
Member
Posts: 22555
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 16 of 132 (377220)
01-15-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by elcano
01-15-2007 4:14 PM


Hi Elcano,
I'm not sure what the problem is here. I can't tell if this is a comprehension issue or a language barrier, but I see no indication that repeating contrary evidence yet again would help.
I'd ask you how things are in Moscow, but your ISP seems to be in Massachusetts.
--Percy
PS to Creationists: Elcano is arguing that correlation of radiocarbon dating with the 79 AD eruption of Mt. Vesuvius is invalid because the eruption that buried the 1st century town of Pompeii actually happened in 1631. I suggest that it would be a good idea for other creationists to either help Elcano support his point so he doesn't look like another totally loony creationist, or to make clear that creationism does not actually support denial of the 79 AD eruption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by elcano, posted 01-15-2007 4:14 PM elcano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 01-15-2007 4:44 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 18 by elcano, posted 01-15-2007 4:51 PM Percy has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3343 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 17 of 132 (377224)
01-15-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
01-15-2007 4:28 PM


Actually, I would like to point out that Elcano hasn't said he's a creo.

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.
George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 01-15-2007 4:28 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by elcano, posted 01-15-2007 5:00 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 22 by Admin, posted 01-15-2007 5:47 PM Taz has not replied

  
elcano
Member (Idle past 4304 days)
Posts: 60
From: Moscow
Joined: 01-12-2007


Message 18 of 132 (377226)
01-15-2007 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
01-15-2007 4:28 PM


I do not know, that does mine ISP, can glance on our Russian site, there there are my messages with the same anybody.
Russian Link
Edited by elcano, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminNosy, : shorten link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 01-15-2007 4:28 PM Percy has not replied

  
elcano
Member (Idle past 4304 days)
Posts: 60
From: Moscow
Joined: 01-12-2007


Message 19 of 132 (377228)
01-15-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taz
01-15-2007 4:44 PM


What is creo?
There are surprising facts and with them it would be desirable to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 01-15-2007 4:44 PM Taz has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5959
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 20 of 132 (377229)
01-15-2007 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by elcano
01-15-2007 3:58 PM


Re: Confused
Date can be understood without text translation.
I would recommend that you get it translated nonetheless. The same goes for the Italian page about the monument.
We have the following message.
Luce iam sexta decimal Decembris; Sexdecim seclis pariter peractis:
Atque sex lustris prope iam voluto Mensibus anno.
Saxa ructantem glomerata flammis; Igne combustos cineres Veseuum
Vidimus, circum penitus ruentem Ruraque, Villas.
Igneus Naphthae fluuius recursat; Vnde Pompeios Populos, & agros
Funditos vastat, ruit Herculanum, Et pecus omne.
Motibus diris tremuere turres, Ictibus crebris quatiuntur aedes;
Et cauernoso resonat boatu Vesubius ore. Giuliani Gianbernardino, 1632, Trattato del Monte Vesuvio e de' suoi incendi, Napoli - p.181
http://mdz1.bib-bvb.de...
That does not properly represent the source. This part, "Giuliani Gianbernardino, 1632, Trattato del Monte Vesuvio e de' suoi incendi, Napoli - p.181", is not part of the text being quoted. Rather, it is the source. On the page we are linked to, an image of page 181 of the treatise is displayed inside of a web page frame and above and outside of that web page frame we see displayed:
Giuliani, Giovanni Bernardino: Trattato del monte Vesuvio e de suoi incendi, Napoli 1632
That it was from page 181, we see on the image itself.
The date of 1632 is the date in which Giuliani published his treatise in Naples, not the date when the Roman city of Pompeii was destroyed.
Here's a novel idea that you might want to consider. This year, a historian in Moscow publishes an article about the 1917 Revolution (known in the US as "The Russian Revolution"). The date of publication will be 2007. Does that mean that the Russian Revolution took place in 2007?
Think about it. And in the meantime, get your sources translated. Learn what they say. If you are going to make a claim that "refutes" what everybody else knows, then you will need knowledge to support your claim, not ignorance. And right now you are ignorant of what your "sources" say.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by elcano, posted 01-15-2007 3:58 PM elcano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by elcano, posted 01-15-2007 5:39 PM dwise1 has replied

  
elcano
Member (Idle past 4304 days)
Posts: 60
From: Moscow
Joined: 01-12-2007


Message 21 of 132 (377233)
01-15-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by dwise1
01-15-2007 5:05 PM


Re: Confused
Luce iam sexta decimal Decembris; Sexdecim seclis pariter peractis:
Atque sex lustris prope iam voluto Mensibus anno.
It is date December, 16th, 1631.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2007 5:05 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2007 6:16 PM elcano has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13071
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 22 of 132 (377237)
01-15-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Taz
01-15-2007 4:44 PM


I'm going to slip into Admin mode because Elcano has me concerned.
Tazmanian Devil writes:
Actually, I would like to point out that Elcano hasn't said he's a creo.
True, but he's operating way outside the clarity envelope we usually like to see here. If we're struggling with a language barrier that's one thing, but if we're actually dealing with a debate tactic that involves avoiding addressing rebuttals by faking a language barrier that's another.
I'm concerned that people are starting to feel the need to explain the most basic things, such as that an article about the Russian revolution written in the year 2000 doesn't mean the revolution took place in the year 2000. I don't really believe language barriers cause these types of misunderstandings, but there's no urgency for figuring out what's really going on. I expect the truth will emerge soon.
I must have made a typo when entering his IP into the lookup program. I did it again and it turns out he does have a Russian IP.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 01-15-2007 4:44 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Chiroptera, posted 01-15-2007 5:50 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 24 by jar, posted 01-15-2007 5:52 PM Admin has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 132 (377238)
01-15-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Admin
01-15-2007 5:47 PM


quote:
If we're struggling with a language barrier that's one thing, but if we're actually dealing with a debate tactic that involves avoiding addressing rebuttals by faking a language barrier that's another.
The English-speaking world doesn't have a monopoly on cranks. Elcano could be both sincere and have difficulty with English.

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Admin, posted 01-15-2007 5:47 PM Admin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 132 (377239)
01-15-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Admin
01-15-2007 5:47 PM


shorten link????????
Can some Admin go through this thread and shorten the long links so the thread displays on something other than full screen?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Admin, posted 01-15-2007 5:47 PM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by AdminAsgara, posted 01-15-2007 6:08 PM jar has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2354 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 25 of 132 (377243)
01-15-2007 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
01-15-2007 5:52 PM


Re: shorten link????????
I had fixed on link this morning, and I wasn't having a problem but I shortened the posts you said you had problems with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 01-15-2007 5:52 PM jar has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5959
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 26 of 132 (377246)
01-15-2007 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by elcano
01-15-2007 5:39 PM


Re: Confused
Luce iam sexta decimal Decembris; Sexdecim seclis pariter peractis:
Atque sex lustris prope iam voluto Mensibus anno.
It is date December, 16th, 1631.
I can see what could be "16 December", but I do not at all see what could possibly be "1631".
Complete and accurate English translation of the Latin, please.
And anyone familiar with Latin, do please jump in any time here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by elcano, posted 01-15-2007 5:39 PM elcano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by elcano, posted 01-18-2007 3:00 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 132 (377251)
01-15-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by elcano
01-15-2007 3:29 PM


Re: Carbon-14 does NOT rely on vesuvius at ALL
All you have done is restate your position. This is not substantiation for your position or refutation of what I posted.
If all you can do is repeat your position then there is absolutely no point in discussing anything with you.
Your point is refuted by the evidence that says otherwise.
Until you deal with that fact you are in denial.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by elcano, posted 01-15-2007 3:29 PM elcano has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5959
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 28 of 132 (377254)
01-15-2007 7:10 PM


So where's that problem, elcano?
From Wikipedia, English edition, "Mount Vesuvius" at Mount Vesuvius - Wikipedia:
quote:
Later eruptions
Since the eruption of 79, Vesuvius has erupted around three dozen times. It erupted again in 203, during the lifetime of the historian Cassius Dio. In 472, it ejected such a volume of ash that ashfalls were reported as far away as Constantinople. The eruptions of 512 were so severe that those inhabiting the slopes of Vesuvius were granted exemption from taxes by Theodoric the Great, the Gothic king of Italy. Further eruptions were recorded in 787, 968, 991, 999, 1007 and 1036 with the first recorded lava flows. The volcano became quiescent at the end of the 13th century and in the following years it again became covered with gardens and vineyards as of old. Even the inside of the crater was filled with shrubbery.
Vesuvius entered a new and particularly destructive phase in December 1631, when a major eruption buried many villages under lava flows, killing around 3,000 people. Torrents of boiling water were also ejected, adding to the devastation. Activity thereafter became almost continuous, with relatively severe eruptions occurring in 1660, 1682, 1694, 1698, 1707, 1737, 1760, 1767, 1779, 1794, 1822, 1834, 1839, 1850, 1855, 1861, 1868, 1872, 1906, 1926, 1929, and 1944. The eruption of 1906 was particularly destructive, killing over 100 people and ejecting the most lava ever recorded from a Vesuvian eruption. Its last major eruption as of 2007 came in March 1944, destroying the villages of San Sebastiano al Vesuvio, Massa di Somma, Ottaviano, and part of San Giorgio a Cremano, as well as all 88 planes in a U.S. B-25 bomber group [32], as World War II continued to rage in Italy.
The volcano has been quiescent ever since. Over the past few centuries, the quiet stages have varied from 18 months to 7 years, making the current lull in activity the longest in nearly 500 years. While Vesuvius is not thought likely to erupt in the immediate future, the danger posed by future eruptions is seen as very high in the light of the volcano's tendency towards sudden extremely violent explosions and the very dense human population on and around the mountain.
So Vesuvius erupted about 32 more times since the 79 AD eruption that buried Pompeii. Each eruption was a separate event.
Elcano, please explain to us your intricate logic in determining that the 1631 eruption would have made it impossible for the 79AD eruption to have occurred.

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by elcano, posted 01-16-2007 2:30 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Wepwawet
Member (Idle past 6160 days)
Posts: 85
From: Texas
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 29 of 132 (377262)
01-15-2007 8:11 PM


Still paying attention here
I manage to fall behind quite a bit with a day at work. I think all the issues that Elcano posed to me were addressed above by Percy and others.
The location of the first century city of Pompeii was hardly in doubt. People had been digging in the area for centuries "Looking for Treasah" as Terrence and Phillip would put it. It's not amazing to see it on a map although one could always wonder if the map refers to the ancient city of Pompeii or the contemporary Italian city of Pompei. Spelling of the name is really not a decisive indicator.
Percy gave a date of 1592 for a "rediscovery" of Pompeii, although I would suspect that Pompeii had been discovered many times since it was destroyed. The 1592 date (1599 according to the Wikipedia article mentioned above) is related to incidental discovery of the ruins during an engineering project. The 1748 date is when serious attempts at excavation began.
Anyway, the evidence that the city of Pompeii was destroyed in the first century is overwhelming. Cite all the documents you like; you can walk the streets of Pompeii and see that it is a first century city and not one from the seventeenth. Elcano needs to stop this blathering and address why no seventeenth century structures or artifacts have been unearthed at the site.
I see that Elcano appears to be living in Moscow by the Hudson. I might like to point out that my limited study of C14 dating methods never once indicated that it was calibrated against historical events. They do write books in Russian you know...or do we need to have them translated into New York Troll dialect?

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by elcano, posted 01-16-2007 2:47 PM Wepwawet has replied

  
elcano
Member (Idle past 4304 days)
Posts: 60
From: Moscow
Joined: 01-12-2007


Message 30 of 132 (377379)
01-16-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by dwise1
01-15-2007 7:10 PM


Re: So where's that problem, elcano?
Who is the witness of destruction Pompeii and Herculaneum in 79 year? (Xiphilin the author of 11 centuries!)
The monument in Torre del Greco approves, that Pompeii and Herculaneum have been destroyed in 1631.
In previous I already wrote messages, there are witnesses of destruction of these cities In 1631 (Guliani, Moscolo).
There are maps 16 - 17 centuries on which are present cities which were lost 1500 years ago. Why?
All the mentioned facts confirm destruction Pompeii and Herculaneum in 1631.
What facts confirm destruction Pompeii and Herculaneum in 79 year?
Such facts is not available. There are only incorrectly dating archeological finds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 01-15-2007 7:10 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 01-16-2007 2:45 PM elcano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024