|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: One for Ed ? |
    |
|
New York Times
June 4, 2008
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Would Stonehenge Be Built Today?
By YONI BRENNER
"At least part of the mystery of Stonehenge may have now been solved: It was from the beginning a monument to the dead."
— The Times, May 30
GREETINGS. It good to see such big crowd.
Many here know Og personally. Others know Og by reputation and prowess with weighted thighbone. Some of you not know Og at all, but just attracted by big pile of viscera over at buffet. That O.K. too. If we not want to attract you, we not arrange for so much viscera.
Regardless: there no question that before untimely mauling, Og touched many people. Even more people, he bludgeoned. As person both touched and bludgeoned by Og — often during same dinner party — I can say that Og was truly one of kind. I will miss most his sense of humor. I will miss least his bludgeoning.
Now, me well aware of controversy surrounding new Og Memorial Complex, also known as Massive-Rocks-Arranged-in-Mysterious-Circle. Some say it eyesore. Some say it waste of massive rocks. Some like concept of mysterious circle but find execution pedestrian. On behalf of Memorial Committee for Remembering of Og, me want to take opportunity to address concerns directly, and unpack some of artistic decisions involved in approving project like Massive-Rocks-Arranged-in-Mysterious-Circle.
First: many complain that monument not look anything like Og. This true. When committee first conceive of memorial, we consider finding massive rock that resemble Og. But then we realize: Og really not a handsome man. In fact, Og sufficiently creepy-looking that convincing Og-rock pose health risk to pregnant women and elderly. So while on the one hand we committed to memory of Og, on the other hand there’s the pregnant women.
So liability first reason we go abstract — but not only reason!
After all, Og mean different things to different people. For instance: some think of Og as ruthless tyrant, splattered with the blood of his enemies. But me remember a gentler Og: modest and soft-spoken, splattered with the blood of a few close friends. With non-representational installation like Massive-Rocks-Arranged-in-Mysterious-Circle, we invite viewer to construct personal interpretation of monument, thus making powerful statement on subjective nature of memory. Besides, we not forget Great Bog War Memorial? When Shiny-Black-Slab first unveiled, it too condemned as pretentious and impersonal, and now it celebrated for quiet majesty.
There is also symbolism. Just as Og crush many enemies, massive rocks crush many day laborers. Just as Og hate small talk, so are massive rocks difficult to engage in conversation. Just as Og, with weighted thighbone, protect men from death by wolves, so massive rocks protect men from death by wolves, by crushing them preemptively.
Look, me realist. Me know that there is no memorial to Og that make everyone happy. As Og himself say: “You can please all of people some of time, and some of people all of time, but bludgeoning — bludgeoning is magic.” And if one day future civilization devise system of written language, me fervently hope they will inscribe this insight on massive rock.
But although we may never see eye to eye on legacy of Og or Massive-Rocks-Arranged-in-Mysterious-Circle, me believe this debate is valuable in itself; and me think we can all agree that when public work of art generate this sort of spirited dialogue, it can only be good thing.
Yoni Brenner is a screenwriter.
© NY Times 2008[/code] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 522
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:25 am Post subject: Stone Henge as a cartoon or comedy routine. Sure!? |
|
|
Comedy like music can help in explaining, Steve, but when an interesting news article is posted without comment from you, what do I gain?
I would love to hear your opinion on the subject beyond Yoni's viewpoint, and I understand your frustration on other major, major issues, which I feel are much more important than anything I have ever added here.
Beyond this, hopefully in the next week I can post some of what I have found on Stonehenge, including a Washington Post, New York Post article that the Stonehenge structure was a burial ground for 500 years of ancient English royalty. That short-sighted, disappointing information came allegedly from Sheffield University, and I am backtracking on that story too.
Can you imagine 8000 years of confirmed history on a location, diminished to a 500 year sample? That is what the latest opinion brings us, and I don't buy it for the big picture.
Regarding the 8000 years of Stonehenge history, I have found the following layering pieces, of unknown value...call it all pseudo scientific tourist observations, but here goes...
1. That Stonehenge, and the previous oak-tree-woodhenge, show the ancient-classic worldwide Thuban alignment layout containing a Venus geoglyph, stellar alignment layout of ??? 30 degrees or so, with a stone sun circle, with an oblong moon circle to the North east. Note: The highway convergence of A344 and A303 are one point of the surviving Venus star, in my humble opinion.
2. That Stonehenge in a more modern derivation shows a male standing figure, with possible phallic symbol, very similar to the "Long Man" arrangement of Marre Man, Finnis Springs Australia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Marree_man_greyscale_outline.jpg
or the Cerne Abbas "Rude Man", Dorset, UK
http://www.mysteriousbritain.co.uk/majorsites/cerne_abbass.html
3. That the three facial images I found may be identifiable by the Crown headress seem to correspond exactly with the first and only English Pope...
a. Nicholas Breakspear, 1154-1159...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_IV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pope_Hadrian_IV.jpg
b. ...and plausibly the Holy Roman Emperor at that time... Frederick Barbarosa... 1155 on, who was the great tormentor of the Pope...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_I,_Holy_Roman_Emperor
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Frederick+Barbarossa
c. The third image may be that of the anti-pope Victor IV, 1159 to 1164.
4. That Stonehenge and many other stone circles were explained by "Uriel's Machine", which explained many layers of occupation, by many cultures, many purposes, including fertility, funerary and birthing ceremonies, all held within the same grounds. When a King died, his body was not placed into the ground until the formal "birthing" times, and the birth arrivals of Royal sons of religiously inseminated "virgins" took place. So as one King was buried around the death of a year (December-January), another Royal son was born within the same stone complex.
Hold your garlic in front of you, cover your ears, purge my demons.....
If I pull that same fountain of knowledge even further... it follows that these "virgins", who had been specifically inseminated (no need for details, I realize) at the fertility rites of 9 months previous, would then give birth to the new set of Kingly sons, born explicitly when the old year ends, and the new year begins.
I am not intending to be sacrilegious or blasphemous...
This might explain somewhat to me, how in my most fundamental faith of my life, how a Virgin mother could have three sons! Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Jesus had two brothers, which are not really talked about, but now I understand how it might have come to pass, as it has been speculated he was from the House of David, as are all the Monarchies of Europe and Japan, I believe. Yes, Jesus was "King of the Jews" in historical lineage, as explained/eluded to in "DaVinci Code", "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", "Uriel's Machine" etc.
Steve, choose to believe nothing what I am telling you, except one...
Stonehenge was not a comedy routine, not a joke, but more important... I still have no idea of what is going on in your life, and YES, I care.
How are you doing?
Let me leave you with Creed... taking you to another di-men-sion....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea_iZ3NfwSU
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: Re: Stone Henge as a cartoon or comedy routine. Sure!? |
|
|
| Ed Ziomek wrote: | 4. That Stonehenge and many other stone circles were explained by "Uriel's Machine", which explained many layers of occupation, by many cultures, many purposes, including fertility, funerary and birthing ceremonies, all held within the same grounds. When a King died, his body was not placed into the ground until the formal "birthing" times, and the birth arrivals of Royal sons of religiously inseminated "virgins" took place. So as one King was buried around the death of a year (December-January), another Royal son was born within the same stone complex.
Hold your garlic in front of you, cover your ears, purge my demons.....
If I pull that same fountain of knowledge even further... it follows that these "virgins", who had been specifically inseminated (no need for details, I realize) at the fertility rites of 9 months previous, would then give birth to the new set of Kingly sons, born explicitly when the old year ends, and the new year begins.
I am not intending to be sacrilegious or blasphemous...
This might explain somewhat to me, how in my most fundamental faith of my life, how a Virgin mother could have three sons! Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Jesus had two brothers, which are not really talked about, but now I understand how it might have come to pass, as it has been speculated he was from the House of David, as are all the Monarchies of Europe and Japan, I believe. Yes, Jesus was "King of the Jews" in historical lineage, as explained/eluded to in "DaVinci Code", "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", "Uriel's Machine" etc. |
As for the first part -
Most plausible explanation --- "Uriel's Machine" got it right.
Next one - Virgin mother of three? A mis-understanding. Mother of only one. Other brothers came later. She was no longer a virgin by then.
DaVinci code? That one has been reasearched by Nat Geo among others, and shown that there is no proof for the ideas as held by those secret societies.
Jesus in the line of David - not a speculation. Is clearly stated in the Bible. Monarchies of Europe and Japan from the same house of David? Never heard that one....don't know if I believe that, I really doubt it.
Note: I moved away from the Architectural forum, when I found the members there very prejudiced into a close knit group that ridicules opposite conservative points of view on the world.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 522
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: Thanks for your responses |
|
|
Archimotion...
I wish you had been a part of these discussions earlier as your common sense is valued here.
On items like your opinion of the DaVinci Code, I am not asking you to believe anything. One comment about the National Geographic "not having proof", and it is at this point I would like to mention here...
Suspend all scientific knowledge concepts you have been taught, for the moment.
Without any prior interest or intent, I am being sucked into pre-history events, of an era which we have no documentation whatsoever.
But we have clues. We have pieces of turquoise that only a tweezer could pick it up, from graves 500 years before Moses, and the ancients drilled holes in them.
We have quartz crystal objects at Newgrange in Ireland that were carved in an optical sense to split sunlight into two streams to illuminate interior rooms, and that may have been 5000 years ago. Who today can carve quartz crystal, so hard and so brittle as it is?
The ancients allegedly poured a synthetic rock, more dense than concrete, into shapes that have survived 5000 years perfectly intact.
Or color-fast pigments that have survived 4000 years.
Or a rock cutting tool that made not sound... were they focused sun-beam cutting tools?
Or Egyptian sarcophagi that show concentric drilling holes into extremely hard rock, so perfect it cut like butter, with rock-walls so thin light passes through.
Or 600 ton building stones placed in the Western Wall of the Temple on the Mount.
As shown in my other thread, we apparently have undersea geoglyphs of the human face 98 miles long, in the Yucatan Channel, which must have been used for land navigation orientation, from the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, looking up.
We have many examples via radar images of the ocean floors showing land bridges and/or canals, 600 to 800 miles long in laser beam straight lines. I have tested these images in my amateurish way, where the Hudson River at one mile across disappears from satellite view at 850 miles up, where some of these bridges/canals disappear at 1500 miles up! This indicates these manmade objects construction projects were 2 miles across, several hundred miles long, probably in a timeframe of 10,000 BC. What nation could do this today? Isn't it easier to dismiss all that is in front of our eyes as "impossible" and "having no proof"?
Our present culture finds too many of these things as "having no proof", or being too unbelievable to even mention, yet they physically exist!
So for every amazing thing I find, I cannot claim them as facts, and at the same time, I certainly cannot claim that they do not exist, nor can I claim that my eyes are fooling me. I simply don't have all the facts or education to understand the pre-historic world I am discovering.
I can only be like the 10,000 authors who wrote about these things before me, and put them on the table for public view. Do you know how many of these books I have found at tag sales, garbage heaps, and dusty library sections where no one reads?
And if places like the Vatican Library horde all these materials in secret, as they do, who am I to be able to challenge them and try and educate people? And how can I challenge the National Geographic challengers who validly demand "proof"? Note: They have done an amazing job as it is, I am not complaining.
In fact, though, I think the general public is very comfortable in their "knowledge" levels they have now, and don't want the troubling past to pop its ugly head, that entire civilizations came before us, who had knowledge and technology higher than our own!
Welcome back, and please keep posting your great comments.
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for the comments Ed and I do find these discussions very interesting as well.
I find the discussions on these pre-modern history events of highly developed ancient technology the most fascinating of all. Do you have any theories of how such incredible feats as these were achieved, in a manner seemingly beyond the capabilities of man, of the science and construction technology of those ancient times? Setting religion aside, as you mentioned, one still cannot find any logical explanation for such feats, beyond the possibility of super-human creatures, giants, extra-terrestrial beings, or answers of the type. But then again, even in Biblical records we have references to giants existing in ancient times, during the times of the tribes of Israel, and the possibility of inter-mixing between humans and "Nephelins". There are even reports in the scriptures of giant oceanic beings - the Leviathan, that to me are more then alligators or small sea serpents. We even have reference there of flying saucer type heavenly objects, which are actually referred to as angelic beings. Then, we have reference to signs in the sky as signaling important global events, and these as well could be an explanation for many Ufo type sightings.
Therefore, I do admire this sense of exploration and search to find traces of ancient cultures, unique events, a greater knowledge of past cultures and technology, in the manner being done. It would be good to see some alternate scholarly input on these discoveries - have you posted this info on other sites as well, which tend to gather researchers, archeologysts and other scientists? It would be nice to see also more people participating.
In any event, keep up the good work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Ziomek
Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 522
Location: Stamford, Connecticut
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: Aliens, maybe. Knowledge, absolultely. |
|
|
Archimotion…
Your question…”Do you have any theories of how such incredible feats as these were achieved, in a manner seemingly beyond the capabilities of man, of the science and construction technology of those ancient times?”
Answer, I guess, is that they had much better technology than we do today. Can you name me varieties of potatos? The Peruvians of today can name you 2200 varieties, 600 of which grow in 6000 feet + altitude.
I can’t name 3.
And the fairly acknowledged thought that all domesticated animals happened between 11,000 and 10,000 BC, the legend says they were doing animal cross breeding at that early time.
I have read of factories of ceramic mother goddesses having been found in the Hungary area, in the 25,000 BC time frame.
I think the primary fact is that we make the enormous assumption that we are more smart today, than any previous culture, yet take away the last 250 years of the steam engine and what do you have? A culture basically leveled out with ancient Greece and ancient China for the last 3000 years. In fact, some of the weapons of ancient Rome were not exceeded until the last 100 years.
So we look back and say they must have been space aliens, which I can’t rule out, but most likely is that some specialized cultures evolved into mega-intelligent cultures.
By the way, I think it is no coincidence that Scientists and Zionists have such a close sounding name, with the “sia” meaning ancient knowledge.
There were cultures dedicated not to worshipping Goats or Eagles or forefathers or mysticisms, but rather “knowledge”, which included Chemistry, Architecture, Sacred Mathematics, Geology.
Knowledge was the God. Knowledge was power. Math and sciences were the totality of existence.
They treasured it, they used it, and they did not share it.
But what the hell do I know? Believe me, nothing!!!
_________________
Ed Ziomek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Finally -- the truth ! 
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: The knowledge of the past is hidden |
|
|
Good to see you back Ed. It seems there has not been much life around these regions of cyber-space, until you showed up a short while ago.....
This seems most feasible, that the technology and cultures were in fact more advanced at that time, and with the rise and fall of civilizations, and the rise of less technologically developed nations, those ancient cultures and their knowledge became slowly buried in history.
Not to dispel science, but many are not aware that we have something like 10 different dating methods and carbon dating is one of them. Sad to say they all give different results, and the fractions of difference and error are quite large. It is like sending a plane to China just a small fraction of a degree off. By the time it arrives there, it is far off target. So much for modern dating mechanisms and their accuracy..... this is no small point, being that the majority of modern science is dependent on conflicting dating systems.
In the study of past cultures and religions, we see many trends, hundreds of gods, (Astorah God-Wife, sex rituals, sacrifice of innocent, worship of the stars, of the sun, of the moon, we have the gods of Greece, (Aphrodite, Zeus..) Egypt (Ra-Horakhty. Sekhmet, Seshat, Seth, Shu, Sobek, Tawaret,Tefnut, Thoth - they believed in a one god from which all emanated) of Rome (olympian Gods such as Jupiter or Mars), of ancient Babylon (TIAMAT, the Great Mother and Apsu, god of the fresh sweet water), Mesopotanea, and then those which pre-date or modern knowlege and who venerated the created rather then a creator. Only sad to see such cultures and systems become a pile of rubish in light of some much greater knowledge they could at the time only hope to understand. This, without being englightened in the ignorance of human perceptions which faded away..... however advanced the technology may have been. So in essence we have man achieving a climax of technological achievement but never achieving the same degree of evolution in terms of advancing their belief systems beyond the context of those cultures.
So this is completely true, what do we know today. All our knowledge and science is nothing in comparison to this wealth of information we uncover from ancient ages, all hidden in a veil of mystery and secrecy that time cannot afford all the answers. Nor can our present knowledge. This is where I do not subscribe to many modern views of science and the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
" All our knowledge and science is nothing. . ."
If you say so. Believe what you like, I guess.
What are the other dating methods you mention ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArchiMotion
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 315
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: Flawed dating methods used by evolutionists |
|
|
http://- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm
| Quote: | FLAWED DATING METHODS
Evolutionists try to prove long ages of time by certain theoretical dating methods. Yet as we analyze those dating methods, we find each of them to be highly flawed and extremely unreliable.
"The dating of ancient events [millions of years ago] is an inexact science. " *Roberta Conlan, Frontiers of Time (1991), p. 29.
Aside from the known inherent weaknesses in assumption and methodology (which we shall begin discussing shortly),we cannot even verify those dates objectively. Not even uranium dating can be confirmed, for no one has sat around watching uranium decay for thousands or millions of years, and testing its decay loss rate from time to time.
Apart from recorded history, which goes back no farther than about 2200-3000 B.C., we have no way of verifying the supposed accuracy of theoretical dating methods. In fact, not even the dating methods confirm the dating methods! They ALL give different dates! With but very rare exception, they always disagree with one another!
There are a number of very definite problems in those dating methods. We are going to learn below that there are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating that most of the dates are discarded and never used at all. Only those are used which bear some similarity to one another.
Some people think that the various dating methods (uranium, carbon 14, etc.) can be verified by rock strata and fossils, or vice versa. But this is not true either. The geologic column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating. There is no relation between the two theories, or between the dates they produce. More information on this will be given later in this same chapter under Rock Strata Dating.
LONG AGES NEEDED For nearly two centuries, evolutionists have known that, since there was no proof that evolution had occurred in the past and there was no evidence of it occurring today, they would need to postulate long ages as the means by which it somehow happened! *Weisz, in his book, The Science of Biology (p. 636), tells us that by the beginning of the eighteenth century, evolutionists "recognized that any concept of evolution demanded an earth of sufficiently great age, and they set out to estimate this age." The long ages were the result of wishful thinking.
* Darwin himself recognized the problem. "The belief that species are immutable [unchangeable] productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration.''*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species [conclusion to second edition].
That is a meaningful statement. *Darwin said it because there is no evidence of evolution occurring at any time in recorded history. Evolution could not occur in the past unless the earth had been here for long ages. But there is clear-cut evidence that our planet is not over 6-10,000 years old (see chapter 6, Age of the Earth). And when all the facts are studied, the age of the earth leans more toward the 6,000 mark than the 10,000 mark.
Scientific dating evidence is needed to prove long ages. But no such evidence exists. All the non-historical dating methods are unreliable. That is what we will learn in this present chapter, and chapter 17, Fossils and Strata.
Darwinists claim that our planet is 5 billion years old. Long ages of time are desperately needed by evolutionary theorists, for, whenever confronted with the facts disproving the possibility of evolutionary processes, they can reply, "Well, given enough time, maybe it could occur." Ironically, even if the earth were trillions upon trillions of years old, evolution still could not have taken place. The chapters, DNA and Probabilities, Mutations, and Laws of Nature will clearly show that life origins and species evolution could not occur in a billion trillion, trillion years!
First, long ages of time cannot PROVE evolution, and, second, long ages of time cannot PRODUCE evolution. Evolutionary processes across basic types of life forms is impossible both in the short run and in the long run.
And here are the major dating methods in existence today -->>
2 - RADIODATING
MAJOR DATING METHODSSeveral types of dating methods are used today. Chief among them are:
1. Uranium-thorium-lead dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and thorium into radium, helium, etc., and finally into lead.
(2) Rubidium-strontium dating, based on the decay of rubidium into strontium.
(3) Potassium-argon dating, based on potassium into argon and calcium.
In this chapter, we shall discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these dating methods. |
and further -->>
| Quote: | | SEVEN INITIAL ASSUMPTIONSAt the very beginning of this analysis, we need to clearly understand that each of these special dating methods can only have accuracy IF (if!) certain assumptions ALWAYS (always!) apply to each specimen that is tested. Here are seven of these fragile assumptions:.......(read the article to see..) |
and further -->>
| Quote: | TWELVE DATING METHODSWe have looked at the basic assumptions relied on by the radiodating experts; now let us examine the primary dating methods. Here are nineteen of them:
(1) Uranium-Lead dating.
(2) Thorium-lead dating.
(3) Lead 210 dating.
(4) Helium dating.
(5) Rubidium-strontium dating.
(6) Potassium-argon dating.
(7) Potassium-calcium dating.
( Rock strata dating, as it relates to radiodating, will be briefly considered, although we will discuss rock strata dating in much more detail in chapters 17 and 19 (Fossils and Strata and Effects of the Flood).
In addition, there are four dating methods used to date ancient plant and animal remains:
(9) Radiocarbon (carbon 14) dating.
(10) Amino acid decomposition dating.
(11) Racemization dating.
Lastly, we will briefly overview several other supposed "dating methods," which, although not expected to provide much accuracy in dating, are still used in an attempt to postulate long ages for earth's history:
(12) Astronomical dating.
(13) Paleomagnetic dating has gained prominence in the past few decades. Because this present chapter is already quite long, we will deal with paleomagnetic dating in chapter 26.
(14) Varve dating.
(15) Tree ring dating.
(16) Buried forest strata dating.
(17) Peat dating.
(1 Thermoluminescence dating.
(19) Stalactite dating. |
and further -->>
1-URANIUM DATINGBecause of similarities !n method and problems with uranium and thorium dating, we will frequently refer to both under the category of uranium dating.
Three main types of dating are included here:
(1) Uranium 238 decays to lead 206, with a half life of 4.5 billion years.
(2) Uranium 235 decays to lead 207, with a half life of 0.7 billion years.
(3) Thorium 232 decays to lead 208, with a half life of 14.1 billion years.
These three are generally found together in mixtures, and each one decays into several daughter products (such as radium), before becoming lead.
And the fallacies of modern dating methods are here clearly pointed out.
Modern science, in essence, is teaching us lies and not giving us the truth.
and further -->>
THEORETICAL HALF LIVES OF TRANSITION ISOTOPES
Here are the half lives of the principal daughter products which are produced during radioactive decay. Evolutionary theory teaches that none of these isotopes can begin a chain, but, of course, that is a theory and nothing more. Each of these substances could begin their own chain, if they existed at the time the earth was first formed. 7hia list only includes radioisotopes with the longest half lives (half lives between 700,000 and 1 billion years).
and further -->>
FIVE RADIOMETRIC DATING INACCURACIESHere are some of the reasons why we cannot rely on radioactive dating of uranium and thorium:
and -->>
| Quote: | | "Thus, we have here astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth's existence." |
and further -->>
| Quote: | | Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years. |
and further -->>
| Quote: |
".......Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth's crust could have been produced in this way, instead of by uranium or thorium decay! This point alone totally invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods!"
In essence, all the dating methods modern science uses give different dates to us, yet science proposes as FACT on TV that all those fossils are millions of years old....lies, lies, lies being spewed out at us....
Doctor Read, in a presentation before a special meeting of the California State Board of Education, discussed his research into lunar rock analysis using the various types of radioactive dating methods. Sample materials brought back by the Apollo rockets were carefully dated by uranium dating, thorium dating, agglutinate dating, and potassium-argon dating. The age spread of certain moon rocks varied from 2 million to 28 billion years! Now scientists are arguing over the results. Some say the moon is 2 million years old, while others say it is 28 billion years old. We have here a weighty scientific problem. (For more on this, see "Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences; Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17.)
Yet there is clear-cut non-radiogenic evidence that the moon is less than 10,000 years old. (See chapter 6, Age of the Earth).
Thus we find that there are problems with ALL radioactive dating methods! |
and further -->>
| Quote: | | JUST ONE CATASTROPHEAs Jeaneman explains so well, just one major catastrophe such as a worldwide Floodwould have ruined the usefulness of our radiodating clocks: |
and more info here -->>
http://www.- * - scam warning - * - false claims - * - pseudo-science - * -/facts/metro14.html
| Quote: | The Dating Game
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Much of the controversy between evolutionists and creationists concerns the age of the earth and its fossils. Evolution, depending as it does on pure chance, requires an immense amount of time to stumble upon anything remotely approaching the complexity we see in even the simplest living things. For over 100 years, geologists have attempted to devise methods for determining the age of the earth that would be consistent with evolutionary dogma. At the time Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published the earth was "scientifically" determined to be 100 million years old. By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years old. In 1947, geologists firmly established that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Finally in 1976, they discovered that the earth is "really" 4.6 billion years old. These dates indicate that for 100 years, the age of the earth doubled every 20 years. If this trend were to continue, the earth would be 700 thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion years old by the year 4000 AD. This "prediction," however, is based on selected data and certain assumptions that might not be true. As we will see, selected data and unprovable assumptions are a problem with all methods for determining the age of the earth, as well as for dating its fossils and rocks. It has all become something of a "dating game" in which only the evolutionarily-correct are allowed to play.
".....Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock. " |
and further -->>
Radiocarbon dating is actually of little use to evolutionists. There are several reasons for this. First, no rocks and very few fossils contain measurable quantities of carbon of any kind. Second, because of the short half-life of C14, the radiocarbon method can only date specimens up to about 40,000 years of age.
and further -->>
| Quote: | | "....One of the most obvious problems is that several samples from the same location often give widely-divergent ages. Apollo moon samples, for example, were dated by both uranium-thorium-lead and potassium-argon methods, giving results which varied from 2 million to 28 billion years." |
and further -->>
| Quote: |
As far as the plausibility of evolution is concerned, it really doesn't make any difference if the earth is 10 billion years old or 10 thousand years old. Indeed, if the whole of evolution were reduced to nothing more than the chance production of a single copy of any one biologically useful protein, there would be insufficient time and material in the known universe to make this even remotely likely. Time by itself simply does not make the hopeless evolutionary scenario of chance and natural selection more reasonable. Imagine if a child were to claim that he alone could build a Boeing 747 airplane from raw material in 10 seconds, and another were to claim he could do it in 10 days. Would we consider the later less foolish then the former, simply because he proposed spending nearly a million times more time at the task? Our Creator tells that "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God."
Originally published in St. Louis MetroVoice, August 1994, Vol. 4, No. 8 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1716
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| No comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
