Re: the sweet rose...of sharon

Posted by asdf on Dec 28, 2001 at 09:05

Re: the sweet rose...of sharon (Shasta)

Ok. Suppose you're right in saying the world is 6000 yrs old

ok...that’s a pretty easy supposition for me to make :-)

There would be hundreds of millions of people who would disagree, even if you were right

you right...billions even

Then you would have to teach the masses that what they have been learning for ages is completely wrong

you right again, although not everything they/we have learned is **completely** wrong...teaching the masses, albeit relatively few, is part of what i do...the masses were reeducated to understand that the world is a sphere and that the earth revolves around the sun among many many many many other wouldn't be the first time that the masses, including the vast majority of the intellectual establishment, were found to be wrong and needed to adjust their view of reality

HOWEVER...(see note below marked *****)

Then you would have to rewrite history books to preserve the knowledge for posterity

not necessarily...the knowledge is already preserved for posterity in the world's best selling book...the book that has very likely been the world's best seller for ~1900yrs and certainly for the last ~550yrs since the invention of the printing press...every year...and he made sure it was written better than i ever could

Then, how would you explain the presence of fossils from 365 million years ago?

radiometric dating is based on many assumptions, several of which are axiomatic in that they are unproven AND UNPROVABLE...the many many conflicting dates and the many dates that are revised sometimes years, even decades, later and the many so-called *anomalous* dates (some published and many more unpublished) all falsify the claims that the methodology and the radiometric *clocks* are accurate, absolute, and independent...they are none of the above

in addition, on the last board, i posted references to two articles that recently appeared in nature documenting that under certain conditions reproduced in the laboratory those clocks can be accelerated more than one BILLION [sic] times (and the silence in response to that post has been deafening :-)

contrary to popular opinion, the ONLY place that radiometric dating is well established is in the minds and imaginations of those who have FAITH in radiometric dating and the evolutionary is very far from well established in the place called reality, regardless of the fact that it is widely accepted and the many claims both in and out of print

therefore, while the fossils are certainly there, their age is a matter in considerable dispute and highly controversial...and they are in reality probably not more than a few thousand years old

Or are you saying that every scientist who has carbon-dated anything is wrong?

you have erred in a very common that many others often make...even many working in the academic a/o scientific communities but outside of the radiometric dating specialty

first, although i do not endorse the concept for obvious reasons, it is commonly accepted among radiometric specialists that 14 i (and others) say that it is off by increasing amounts the further back one goes beyond ~3500ya...dates attributed to things ~3500ya or less, while not absolutely so, are probably reasonably accurate, close enough to be of value

other radiometric methods like K-Ar, U-Pb, St-St, St-Rb etc are the ones that are used to allegedly arrive at the millions and billions of years

therfore, i do not say that all of them are wrong, but i do say that those that have assigned dates that are older than ~10,000yrs (and probably closer to ~6000yrs using 14 If you are right, you have just turned the establishment on its head

***** neither i nor anyone else will ever persuade the masses (or turn the establishment on its collective head), including the vast majority of the intellectual/academic/scientific community, that the universe and the world are young in our time reference...most people will always believe in an old earth and universe...accepting the only available reasonable alternative would necessarily include some other baggage that they would be unwilling to accept

you can consider that a will be tested by time and...of course...the good news is that **one day, we all sho do be gonna knowz d' ansah** (one day, all people that have ever existed up to that time will surely know the answer)

a further prediction is that the following will also be found to be true...sad, truly sad, but still very true

enter by the narrow gate, for broad is the road and wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and MANY are they who shall enter...but narrow the way and narrow the gate that leads to life, and FEW are they who shall enter in ---- matthew 7.13-14

and then there is this one

not everyone who says to me 'lord, lord' will enter into the kingdom of heaven...MANY will say to me in that day, 'but lord, lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name cast out demons and perform many wonderful signs?'...and i will say to them, 'away from me you evildoers; i never knew you ---- matthew 7.21-23

(this is perhaps more of a paraphrase, i am working from memory here, but the essential points and meanings are unchanged)

please don't miss the point that those who DO NOT believe or claim to believe in jesus, who is god, are not even considered in this is directed exclusively toward those that are or claim to be believers and claim to work in his name

btw -- these two pericopes also combine to refute, either directly or as part of a larger synthesis, some blatantly false and subsequently misleading and downright dangerous teachings popularized by christians, so-called christians, or our friends in the new age community and other false religions...ideas like, *everyone will go to heaven* and *once saved, always saved* and *all you have to do is just believe in jesus*...among other false teachings

I personally think that your theory is an unqualified failure. It's so full of holes you could drive the largest dump truck in the States through it and still have clearance on all sides.

you are certainly entitled to opine in any fashion you like...right, wrong, or otherwise

there are some gaps in my theory, though far fewer than you estimate, and they are probably due either to a lack of personal knowledge or yet undiscovered anywhere knowledge

i don't find that any of those gaps conflict with or falsify my theory

please feel free to correct and enlighten me whenever and wherever you feel the need

ps –
ya = years ago
mya = million years ago
ma = mega annum (million years or millions of years)
yrs = years

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]