Replies

[DTN:] What makes them think it was 50,000 years ago?
[newgeezer:] It's a matter of faith. Good luck getting them to admit it, though.

[Ich.:] Please stop repeating lies.

I haven't lied. Stop making baseless accusations.

I didn't say that *you* lied, I said that you were repeating lies (lies told by others) which you made the mistake of believing. I stand by that statement.

You can't prove it happened 50,000 years ago any more than you can prove it happened yesterday.

If you mean "prove" in the common sense of the word, yes I can, actually.

If you mean "prove" in the strict mathematical sense, then I can't, but then by that standard almost nothing can be "proven". It can't be proven that the Earth is actually not flat, for example (all the apparent evidence of its roundness may be misleading in a way we haven't yet realized). But that doesn't mean that it would be accurate for some stubborn Freeper to post something as clueless as "the round-Earth view is a matter of faith, but good luck getting them to admit it."

Hint: Just because something can't be proven with 100.00% certainty in a mathematical sense, that doesn't mean that it reduces to being nothing but a "matter of faith" either.

There are multiple, independent lines of evidence, involving well-understood and repeatedly tested methods based on principles that are very well-established and verified, all of which produce an age of close to 50,000 years for the crater.

So far from being a "matter of faith" or a "guess" or an "assumption" as others here have incorrectly claimed, it's *way* up there on the scale which has "untested matter of faith" at the bottom, and "something proven beyond all doubt" at the top. The age of the crater is based on independently confirming lines of evidence and well-established principles. It has a great deal of *support*, a very firm foundation. So as I said earlier, it's repeating a lie to dismiss it as being nothing more than an unsupported "matter of faith".

It's a matter of faith in other men and their assumptions.

No, it isn't. Since you don't understand the procedures and methods and how they have been repeatedly verified and independently confirmed countless times, please don't post your presumptions about them as if they were fact. There's enough of that from the liberal side.