6000-year world...please read...I have no intent on jibbering
Michael
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@6000/6000text.html
These are text lists to 6000-year Bible chronologies.
The scoffers who scoff at the world being 6000 years old
never present the real issue that it is only humans it refers to.
They carry their warring dispute by arguing galaxies and planets.
Further both sides (atheist & religious) refuse to care that these
6000 yrs were thought to have been reached in 284 AD, in 500 AD,
in 622 AD, in 630 AD, in 800 AD, in 1763 AD, in 1874 AD, in 1975 AD,
in 1996 or 1997 AD, not just the year 2000.
Africanus 5500 BC Adam to 500 AD Armageddon
(600-year calendar from Flood Feb 3237 BC to Chinese Feb 2637 BC)
(292-yr Osiris and 936-yr Marduk til 2009 BC Marduk Street)
(Shemetic Chaldea dies in 1900 BC as 3600 AM starting 300-year Babylon)
2009 BC & 1900 BC are the only correct dates
but is 360 AM & 470 AM from true Flood
Eusebius 5200 BC Adam to 800 AD Armageddon (Charlemagne)
(949-yr Marduk til 2009 BC Marduk Street)
(Akkadian Chaldea dies in 1600 BC as 3600 AM ending 300-year Babylon
with exaltation of egyptian Jannes over Shemites)
2009 BC & 1600 BC are the only correct dates
but is 360 AM & 770 AM from true Flood....the end of Babylon is
presumed to be Ammizaduga's death which is actually 1626 BC
as 744 AM from Flood....2400 AM from Adam predicting 3600 left.
Also how Britian regarded 1763 AD as 6000 yrs.
And Ussher etc.
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/direct
John Bicketts
On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:27:25 -0500, Michael <Bible...@aol.com>
wrote:
>http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@6000/6000text.html
>
>These are text lists to 6000-year Bible chronologies.
>The scoffers who scoff at the world being 6000 years old
>never present the real issue that it is only humans it refers to.
>They carry their warring dispute by arguing galaxies and planets.
Actually, bud, that ain't necesarry. The fossil record shows modern
Cro-Magnon humans going back way farther than 6000 years, while Homo
Erectus aand the like goes back 2 MILLION years. Wouldn't the 4
billion year history of life on Earth contradict the Creation 7 days,
as well.
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
Michael
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@6000/6000text.html
> >These are text lists to 6000-year Bible chronologies.
> >The scoffers who scoff at the world being 6000 years old
> >never present the real issue that it is only humans it refers to.
> >They carry their warring dispute by arguing galaxies and planets.
John Bicketts wrote:
> Actually, bud, that ain't necesarry. The fossil record shows modern
> Cro-Magnon humans going back way farther than 6000 years, while Homo
> Erectus aand the like goes back 2 MILLION years. Wouldn't the 4
> billion year history of life on Earth contradict the Creation 7 days,
> as well.
Without arguing as to whether your Cro-Magnon is human or not.
Please do understand that previous issues presented by me
reveal that C-14 has a 12x jump on Jan 6 of 2369 BC.
This instantly adds 20,000 years to anything before that date.
C-14 cannot measure beyond 70,000 which is unreliable and
thus the is jump brings the unreliable down to 50,000. And the
"reliable 50,000" is thus only a reliable 30,000 years. Genesis
says that the plates of land rose on the 3rd day so that life
came to be upon these plates (35,000-28,000 BC). There is
therefore no contradiction between C-14 and reality of the Bible.
The organic carbon life upon land in 35,000 BC would date falsely
as 55,000 BC by today's scholars.
As for dating by potassium-argon etc....it is a known fact that
elements wash into fossils. If I die from swallowing a rock,
I cannot see where my stomach can be opened to date the
rock and say I'm 4 billion years old....the rock is, not me.
Please help me see....yet are you so sure of yourself.....
truth is not proven by the guy whose most assured or has the
greatest ego about the matter.
Then there is the issue of whether your fossil is man or animal.
Animals created from 35,000 BC onward are 31,000 years older
than man who was created in 4025 BC....and unless you have
Abel's body (or the man that Lamech killed) this man Adam nor
his descendents died until 3096 BC. Dating by C-14 anyone dying
in 3096 BC will falsely date as 23,096 BC.
What Genesis does say is that land was submerged in one ocean
prior to 35,000 BC....and that light did not shine in our atmosphere
(our heaven) or upon the ocean until 46,000 BC.
Single-celled life prior to 46,000 BC would have to have formed
in darkness triggering photosynthesis by electron reaction of
hydrogen gas.
As for the SCALE.....of evolution...the appearance of life occurs
in the same timeline order as already charted in many books
accept that it occurred much faster (creation...not evolution)
and the larger scale of evoultion can be scaled down.....it then
fits the 7 days referring to the specific types of animals Moses
says was created. Evolution of animals is not to be denied by
religion....the gaps between animals need not be argued...the issue
is that of whether we all had one Father Adam who failed us.
Evolution of man is the issue. And it is the C-14 which verifies
actual humans in contrast to
some ancient skeleton dated millions of years thru nonC-14 methods,
no proof the skeleton *IS* actually human,
and a gap of a million or millions of years between these animals
and the arrival of humans. Finding even three skeletons one million
years ago doesnt prove that humans existed between 1 million
years ago and 4000 BC (your 24,000 BC).
The bottom line is...animals will always die to teach man how never to die.
You wish to lengthen current human longevity thru your own science and not the
science created by God which existed from the start which causes our death
due to our deliberate ignorance (not due to some special time for
some special scientist to discover in genetics). GUILTY is what MAN is.
A causer of death to all others and himself. He does NOT wish to see
what he must obey to stay eternally alive as human flesh.
Blind minds and eyes you all are whether atheist or religious...you all will die
that God may teach you how you do not listen....
and then the 1000-year judgement day will bring you all back to life
to shame you and still require you learn to avoid death from all
the same causes which kill us now.
The real chronology of our past proves this is so for our immediate future
this year.
Jim Meritt
In article <33aeced4...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com says...
>>These are text lists to 6000-year Bible chronologies.
>>The scoffers who scoff at the world being 6000 years old
>>never present the real issue that it is only humans it refers to.
>>They carry their warring dispute by arguing galaxies and planets.
>
>Actually, bud, that ain't necesarry. The fossil record shows modern
>Cro-Magnon humans going back way farther than 6000 years,
Don't need fossils. Got tree-ring series that go back 11 thousand years.
Who needs galaxies, planets or rocks when you can use living things in hand?
Shows there, gives seasonal history of the time back to it (no flood
mentioned. Imagine that!) and shows habitable entire time.
Q.E.D.
--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The fact simply
are and belong to none.
Buck
Just where is this tree?
Jim Meritt <mer...@wangfed.com> wrote in article
<5ords2$g...@elf.wang.com>...
Lloyd Zusman
On 25 Jun 1997 15:35:30 GMT, Jim Meritt <mer...@wangfed.com> wrote:
> In article <33aeced4...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com says...
> >On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:27:25 -0500, Michael <Bible...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>These are text lists to 6000-year Bible chronologies.
> >>The scoffers who scoff at the world being 6000 years old
> >>never present the real issue that it is only humans it refers to.
> >>They carry their warring dispute by arguing galaxies and planets.
> >
> >Actually, bud, that ain't necesarry. The fossil record shows modern
> >Cro-Magnon humans going back way farther than 6000 years,
>
> Don't need fossils. Got tree-ring series that go back 11 thousand years.
> Who needs galaxies, planets or rocks when you can use living things in hand?
> Shows there, gives seasonal history of the time back to it (no flood
> mentioned. Imagine that!) and shows habitable entire time.
>
> Q.E.D.
There also are ice-core samples from Antarctica which record
approximately 50,000 years of seasonal variations.
The original poster who says that the "warring dispute" about the age
of the earth is solely carried on by "arguing galaxies and planets"
must be very poorly informed about all the evidence that exists.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Randy Ross
The facts simply are these:
1) In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.
2) The six days referred to in Genesis were 24 hour solar days "Night.
And the evening and the morning were the first day.", "And the evening and
the morning were the second day." and so on.
3) Most evolutionist based there theories on dates obtained through Radio
Carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating has been proven to only be accruate for
about six to seven thousand years (hint - there was no carbon around more
than about seven thousand years ago)
4) Right now, the entire world population could live in the state of
Texas, and have a house, and about an acre of land. The human population
has been increasing exponentially, if humans have been around for about a
million years, the population would be far too great for the Earth to
support the human race. (this dosen't even count all the other critters)
5) The Earth is in a state of decay. Best estimates say our resources
will only last a little while longer - were running out of fossil fuels,
the ozone hole, etc.
6) I don't even want to get into the laws of angular momentum, and other
aspects of Physics.
Dosen't this all add up to a master plan? (hint: the answer is yes, it
all adds up to God's plan, He has it all timed just right)
A note from God's Holy Word, 2 Pet 3:13-14 Nevertheless we, according to
his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth
righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be
diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
Randy
Jim Meritt <mer...@wangfed.com> wrote in article
<5ords2$g...@elf.wang.com>...
> In article <33aeced4...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com says...
> >On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:27:25 -0500, Michael <Bible...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>These are text lists to 6000-year Bible chronologies.
> >>The scoffers who scoff at the world being 6000 years old
> >>never present the real issue that it is only humans it refers to.
> >>They carry their warring dispute by arguing galaxies and planets.
> >
> >Actually, bud, that ain't necesarry. The fossil record shows modern
> >Cro-Magnon humans going back way farther than 6000 years,
>
> Don't need fossils. Got tree-ring series that go back 11 thousand years.
> Who needs galaxies, planets or rocks when you can use living things in
hand?
> Shows there, gives seasonal history of the time back to it (no flood
> mentioned. Imagine that!) and shows habitable entire time.
>
> Q.E.D.
>
Lloyd Zusman
On 26 Jun 1997 01:37:26 GMT, Randy Ross <imas...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The facts simply are these:
> 1) In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.
> 2) The six days referred to in Genesis were 24 hour solar days "Night.
> And the evening and the morning were the first day.", "And the evening and
> the morning were the second day." and so on.
> 3) Most evolutionist based there theories on dates obtained through Radio
> Carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating has been proven to only be accruate for
> about six to seven thousand years (hint - there was no carbon around more
> than about seven thousand years ago)
I'm a Christian, and I strongly disagree with most of what you have
stated in this post:
First of all, you have been misled: most evolutionary theories are
*NOT* based on dates obtained through carbon-14 dating. Whoever told
you this is either misinformed or is bearing false witness. It has
been known for decades that carbon dating is only good for around
10,000 to 30,000 years, and no scientist who is properly trained in
carbon dating would even think of using this method to estimate dates
earlier than that many years in the past.
This is not some esoteric secret about carbon dating. This is a
well-known fact that is openly and continuously taught in colleges and
even high schools, and this is why scientists routinely use other
methods of dating items older than 10,000 - 30,000 years.
Therefore, you are completely off base in trying to criticize carbon
dating on this basis.
Here is one method of dating that is used by scientists that has
nothing to do with carbon-14:
Many varieties of trees grow in such a way that every year, another
ring appears in the cross section of the trunk. Scientists have
found trees that have in excess of 11,000 rings. This means that
these trees lived for at least 11,000 years. This is well beyond
6,000 years.
And here is another method of dating that is used by scientists, and
it, too, has nothing to do with carbon-14:
Every year in parts of Antarctica, there are cycles of snowfall and
partial surface heating, although the snow never melts. This causes a
visible layer to appear in the packed snow for every year this snow
has been in existence. Scientists have drilled down a few thousand
feet into the packed snow in certain parts of Antarctica, and the
cores that were retrieved have around 50,000 visible layers ... and
there is more packed snow underneath these layers. This means
that this snow was in existence for at least 50,000 years ... much
longer than 6,000 years.
These are but two out of many different dating techniques used
by scientists.
> 4) Right now, the entire world population could live in the state of
> Texas, and have a house, and about an acre of land. The human population
> has been increasing exponentially, if humans have been around for about a
> million years, the population would be far too great for the Earth to
> support the human race. (this dosen't even count all the other critters)
Let's do the math right here and now:
Currently, the world has some 5.6 billion people, and the world's
population is doubling every 59 years. This is exponential growth,
in case you didn't realize that.
If the world's population started with two people, and if this
population regularly doubles, then the population needs to have
doubled more than 32 times for us to have the population we have today
(do the math yourself if you don't believe me). Let's be conservative
and call this value 33.
Given a doubling every 59 years, you can multiply and get this:
59 x 33 = 1947
Therefore, using your reasoning, there must have only been two people
alive 1947 years ago in 50 A.D. In other words, Jesus would have been
quite alone when He walked the face of the earth.
Obviously, this argument doesn't even support your 6,000-year age
of the earth.
How do we handle this discrepancy? Well, the way to deal with it is
to realize that only in recent centuries did the earth's population
start increasing so dramatically. There is clear evidence of this
in written history.
This means that long periods of time have gone by without much, if
any, population growth. Famines, plagues, lack of medicinal know-how,
etc., have kept human population relatively steady for extended
periods in the past.
This allows for humankind to have been around a lot longer than 1947
years. It allows for 6,000 years and also for 2-4 million years (the
age of the oldest human fossils ... and these were *NOT* dated with
carbon-14!).
So, you cannot use this argument to prove anything.
> 5) The Earth is in a state of decay. Best estimates say our resources
> will only last a little while longer - were running out of fossil fuels,
> the ozone hole, etc.
Up until recent generations, the ecosystem on the earth was in
equilibrium. Resources could be replenished fast enough to make up
for their use by humans and other life. Again, this allows for 6,000
as well as 2-4 million years of human existence.
> 6) I don't even want to get into the laws of angular momentum, and other
> aspects of Physics.
Why not? Are you afraid you'll be shown to be wrong in these areas,
as well?
There are plenty of well-educated physicists who read these articles who
would be happy to comment on your statements about angular momentum ...
and other aspects of physics.
Come on. Put your money where your mouth is: tell us about angular
momentum. And while you're at it, show us the equations that you use
to support your conclusions.
> Dosen't this all add up to a master plan? (hint: the answer is yes, it
> all adds up to God's plan, He has it all timed just right)
Well, I'm a Christian and I believe in God, but none of your
statements so far point to a master plan ... at least not a master
plan created by anyone intelligent. Each statement you have made has
glaring flaws and contains holes that God could drive a truck through.
Your arguments make God look like an inconsistent fool.
I believe that God did not create the universe to mislead us when we
apply honest, rigrorous, scientific study to it. God is not a
deceiver. Therefore, I believe that the findings of science over the
past centuries (most of which were made by believers in God, by the
way) must be leading us to the truth about God's creations.
> A note from God's Holy Word, 2 Pet 3:13-14 Nevertheless we, according to
> his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth
> righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be
> diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
There is nothing unrighteous about an earth that has been around for
4.6 billion years.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Ron
I find it a bit ironic that so many people who would refuse to talk to
witnesses at the door will spend so much time in a witness News Group.
Doesn't matter to me because at least they see God's name everytime they
log in. <smile> In any case, I just wanted to say that many who post here
do not reflect the views and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If you want a discussion on what the witnesses believe, ask a witness or
check out the official web site at www.watchtower.org.....
PS: just so that I stay on topic with this thread....The creation is not
seven literal 24 hour days but rather seven periods of time. Want to know
why? Ask one of Jehovah's witnesses. :)
Douglas Weller
On 26 Jun 1997 01:37:26 GMT, in sci.archaeology, Randy Ross wrote:
>The facts simply are these:
Bad start.
> 1) In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.
What do you mean by fact? Something objectively verified? Obviously not.
Somethhing having real, demonstrable existence? Nope. I think you're
confusing belief with fact.
> 2) The six days referred to in Genesis were 24 hour solar days "Night.
>And the evening and the morning were the first day.", "And the evening and
>the morning were the second day." and so on.
Maybe. But a lot of people who believe Genesis would disagree with you.
> 3) Most evolutionist based there theories on dates obtained through Radio
>Carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating has been proven to only be accruate for
>about six to seven thousand years (hint - there was no carbon around more
>than about seven thousand years ago)
Hint -- every sentence in this paragraph demonstrates you ignorance. Show
me a quote from 1 evolutionist that indicated he/she bases his/her theories
around Carbon14. Carbon14 is good for about 50 000 years, by the way, but
it really is irrelevant to arguments about evolution. And finally, does
your argument about 7000 years depend upon the belief the world was created
less than 7000 years ago? Because if it does, ok, it's just silly. If you
think the earth existed 7000 years ago but carbon didn't, you're crazy.
> 4) Right now, the entire world population could live in the state of
>Texas, and have a house, and about an acre of land. The human population
>has been increasing exponentially,
You don't know any history either, do you?
[SNIP]
> 5) The Earth is in a state of decay. Best estimates say our resources
>will only last a little while longer - were running out of fossil fuels,
>the ozone hole, etc.
If true, what does it prove? Just that we need to do something about it,
that's all. Nothing to do with evolution or Genesis.
> 6) I don't even want to get into the laws of angular momentum, and other
>aspects of Physics.
I think everyone is pleased by this.
Hm, perhaps this is a troll. Could anyone really be so ignorant?
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email do...@ramtops.demon.co.uk for details
Jim Meritt
In article <01bc8186$9dc0f2c0$6e9b...@n4pgw.poseidon.net>, noj...@my.domain
says...
>Just where is this tree?
>Jim Meritt <mer...@wangfed.com> wrote in article
<5ords2$g...@elf.wang.com>...
>> Don't need fossils. Got tree-ring series that go back 11 thousand years.
Come on - attempt literacy. I said "tree-ring series". You understand the
word "series", right? Not "a tree".
Samples from egypt and ireland, to name two locations.
Jim Meritt
In article <01bc81d1$e2bcc020$593e6020@rross>, imas...@bellsouth.net says...
>
>The facts simply are these:
Radio
>Carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating has been proven to only be accruate for
>about six to seven thousand years
Bad news. Nobody (well, except you) buys "argument by decree", so your #1
doesn't cut it.
#3 is totally irrelevant (along with false). "Endurance of planet" and
"endurance of life on planet" are not equal.
>(hint - there was no carbon around more
>than about seven thousand years ago)
And here you assume the conclusion of your argument as a proof of your
argument.
Which brings up the question - are you incredablt illogical and incapable of
rational thought or a liar?
Mickey James Bigelow
We have no doubt that the world is older than 6000 years. Jehovah's
Witnesses don't believe that the world and the universe apeared in seven
days. (We take these to be figurative days thus having a varible amount of
time. Like "In my Grandfather's day." He didn't live for just on day, but
for years. In the Bible it pointed out the use of a figurtive day when
Ezekial said that a day for Jehovah is like a thousand years.")
If you believe in Evolution then do you believe that a person can win the
million dollar lottery a thousand times in a row with a break. (If there is
a break then the number resets to zero.) If he had 10 billion years. (This
is the new estimate for the age of the universe.) And when we are talking
evolution, we are talking greater odds then when six varibles, with on
average twenty possibilities for each varible, fall in different
permutation a thousand times.
Mickey James Bigelow
Michael
Buck wrote:
> Just where is this tree?
( 11,000 years old) good point.
And gee are they all Arizona pines...the only tree in
all the world...which lives everywhere...and has left its
rings everywhere too. Oh look...an Inca temple...quick, let's
look for some Arizona pine samples here in Peru.
There must be some rings so we can know if this temple is
2500 years old...( translation 500 BC, for those unable to
understand my incoherency)
> > >>These are text lists to 6000-year Bible chronologies.
> > >>The scoffers who scoff at the world being 6000 years old
> > >>never present the real issue that it is only humans it refers to.
> > >>They carry their warring dispute by arguing galaxies and planets.
> > >Actually, bud, that ain't necesarry. The fossil record shows modern
> > >Cro-Magnon humans going back way farther than 6000 years,
> Jim Meritt
> > Don't need fossils. Got tree-ring series that go back 11 thousand years.
> > Who needs galaxies, planets or rocks when you can use living things in
Michael
Jim Meritt wrote:
> >> Don't need fossils. Got tree-ring series that go back 11 thousand years.
> >Just where is this tree?
> Come on - attempt literacy. I said "tree-ring series". You understand the
> word "series", right? Not "a tree".
> Samples from egypt and ireland, to name two locations.
I'm dumb, and ranting, and blathering, and rambling,
could you please help me to find this tree that grows in both
Egypt and Ireland...has the same ring sizes for the same years...
please show me Ireland's rainfall is equal to Egypt's please.
Show me that trees of these two lands have the same rings...
same rain...same dates....back 11,000 years please.
Look bub, I got a C-14 chart which shows the C-14
for all those Arizona pines back to your 11,000 BC so dont
think you know what I do and dont have.
I'd face your schools in court any day, and willing to die before
I admit your institutions of crap have any legitimacy in the
scientific reality of God's eyes who created it.
Michael
Mickey James Bigelow wrote:
> We have no doubt that the world is older than 6000 years. Jehovah's
> Witnesses don't believe that the world and the universe apeared in seven
> days. (We take these to be figurative days thus having a varible amount of
> for years. In the Bible it pointed out the use of a figurative day when
> Ezekial said that a day for Jehovah is like a thousand years.")
Dear Mickey...the Creationists argue that these days are each
1000 years long. A falsehood which does nothing to defend Jehovah.
Yet these scholars are aware of Creationist belief and presume all
Christians to beleive only that way when they mention Ezekiel's words.
BTW, I thought it was King David's words. Ezekiel said a day for a year,
390-year error represented by 390 days of Ezekiel being bounded.
Strahler has a book against bible Creationists by Prometheus Books.
These words:
>(We take these to be figurative days thus having a varible amount of
> time.
are not those of a Witness for Jehovah. Though the Watchtower has
lamely offered creation explanation by reminding the days are not
24-hours but spans of time...they have permitted readers to deviate from the
Watchtower doctrine and fact of Jehovah that those days are all equal periods
of time...not variable as Mickey claims. The Watchtower does not beleive them
to be variable....this is how yeast or corruption seeps in by those who think
they can explain better than someone like me whom they think is ranting
rather than zealous. You see the world has a problem that if they dont like a
JW they will study with a different JW who will gladly say specific brothers dont
act like brothers...this will get the person the study because they are willing to
agree another JW doesnt act like a JW. So Mickey here wants to make sure
that everyone knows JWs beleive as he does and not like posts you read.
Too bad Mickey doesnt know correctly...and therefore like many JWs has
attacked the real truth already posted.
THE DAYS *ARE* 7000 YEARS AND THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY WILL
NOT AND WILL NEVER CLAIM THEY ARE EVER SHORTER NOR LONGER
NOR VARIABLE. I have no desire to accept secular dating contrary to Jehovah
no matter how many JWs now think the Watchtower let's them. And I would
rather worship Jehovah alone than continue with attacks from those who claim
these replies (such as Variable Creation Days) are from Jehovah.
> If you believe in Evolution then do you believe that a person can win the
> million dollar lottery a thousand times in a row with a break. (If there is
> a break then the number resets to zero.) If he had 10 billion years. (This
> is the new estimate for the age of the universe.) And when we are talking
> evolution, we are talking greater odds then when six variables, with on
> average twenty possibilities for each varible, fall in different
> permutation a thousand times.
> Mickey James Bigelow
Good knowledge of mathematical probabilities here (for random).
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@histry/preFlood/7daycreation.gif
Michael
Randy Ross wrote:
> The facts simply are these:
> And the evening and the morning were the first day.", "And the evening and
> the morning were the second day." and so on.
> about six to seven thousand years (hint - there was no carbon around more
> than about seven thousand years ago)
If I were to judge your #2 by whether #3 is correct or not...you would lose.
The days are not six of 24 hours. Carbon 14 is considered reliable back
to 50,000 years...unreliable (wide-range) if its very small minutes of C-14/
C-13 ratio are attempted to be counted in 70,000 years.
So your 6000-7000 year claim is fraudulent lie merely for religion.
It does not prove that reality (science) is created by God. But the
50,000-70,000 span does. Once 20,000 is removed from the curve caused by
the Flood, proven by the postFlood ice age dating back to 20,000 and also
proven by C-14 in all petroleum dating as 20,000....this span
is reduced to 30,000 with 50,000 as maximum for first vegetation on earth.
WOW...fits the 7000 years of each day...neat man...if you listen so you
understand it.
> 4) Right now, the entire world population could live in the state of
> Texas, and have a house, and about an acre of land. The human population
> has been increasing exponentially, if humans have been around for about a
> million years, the population would be far too great for the Earth to
> support the human race. (this dosen't even count all the other critters)
False...I doubt all could live in Texas. However, humans are only 6000 years
and thus there is room for all to come back. But many will rather die the
second death.
> 5) The Earth is in a state of decay. Best estimates say our resources
> will only last a little while longer - were running out of fossil fuels,
> the ozone hole, etc.
The fossil fuels will restore the carbon lost in the Flood. The ozone is
replaced at a given rate...just stop man and it will close up. Further,
Los Angelos may have a hole...but the north and south poles only have a
whole by the end of a 6-month 24-hour daylight of constant sun destroying
the ozone from the CCPs or PPCs or whatever they are.
> 6) I don't even want to get into the laws of angular momentum, and > other aspects of Physics.
And as others have said to me (but wrong), I will pose the same doubt...
could it be because you will not go into what you dont know !!!!!!
> Dosen't this all add up to a master plan? (hint: the answer is yes, it
> all adds up to God's plan, He has it all timed just right)
I agree it does...but you obviously dont have his plans ????
The Catholics and the evangelists cant both have God's plan
drawn out in contrary ways .
Michael
> >>These are text lists to 6000-year Bible chronologies.
> >>The scoffers who scoff at the world being 6000 years old
> >>never present the real issue that it is only humans it refers to.
> >>They carry their warring dispute by arguing galaxies and planets.
> >Actually, bud, that ain't necesarry. The fossil record shows modern
> >Cro-Magnon humans going back way farther than 6000 years,
Jim Meritt wrote:
> Don't need fossils. Got tree-ring series that go back 11 thousand years.
> Who needs galaxies, planets or rocks when you can use living things in > hand? Shows there, gives seasonal history of the time back to it (no flood
> mentioned. Imagine that!) and shows habitable entire time.
The ice age dated as ending 11,000 yrs ago in 9000 BC is the true
year 2350 BC due to the C-14 surge from Jan 6 of 2369 BC to
2320 BC (ice age now dated as 20,000-10,000 BC).
These trees are all postFlood and so have *NO BREAK* at the
point scholars claim is the 2400 BC bible Flood. Trees dating as 2400 BC
are actually at 2000 BC as the curve rapidly reaches today's levels at
that century.
As for Mr. s feikema's claim that 2 million yr fossils of CroMagnon....
(which are nonHuman animals whose really date after 32,000 BC),
the claim of Mr.Meritt doesnt have any equal weight either.
Not simply because of these trees being post Flood 2370 BC
but also because as he forms his propaganda by attacking my words
his attitude clearly insisting and claiming and accusing publicly that my
advocating the 6000-year world chronology of humans requires
all creation in Adam's year...why else would he think 11,000-yr
old trees defy 6000 years of man !!!!!
To have to continuously refute his lying accusations....he calls this ranting ???
But stupid as he is in each reply,
the 11,000 year old trees are not merely postFlood 2370 BC...
but Mr.Meritt's whole PERSONAL concept
that 11,000 yr trees speak against the bible
is *ALL WRONG* because the bible is very clear that trees have
existed since land rose in the 3rd day after 32,000 BC.
Gee, Mr.Meritt got any trees over 34,000 years to tell me I'm wrong.
And can yoiu subtract the 20,000 false years caused by the
Flood's curve in C-14 formation ?????
Yeh, I know, more incoherency Greek to you.....
translation....find trees more than 54,000 years old.
You cant.....C-14 reaches its limit and the next 20,000 yrs
(back to false 70,000, = true 50,000 )
are mere peat moss and surface plantlife.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@histry/preFlood/7daycreation.gif
Michael
Lloyd Zusman wrote:
> First of all, you have been misled: most evolutionary theories are
> *NOT* based on dates obtained through carbon-14 dating. Whoever told
> you this is either misinformed or is bearing false witness. It has
> been known for decades that carbon dating is only good for around
> 10,000 to 30,000 years, and no scientist who is properly trained in
> carbon dating would even think of using this method to estimate dates
> earlier than that many years in the past.
See my reply to Randy....C-14 back to 50,000 even 70,000 years.
Not much for evolution....but the figures published are more a
defence for Jehovah God than your mere guess to correct his stupid
claim of 6000-7000 years.
> This is not some esoteric secret about carbon dating. This is a
> well-known fact that is openly and continuously taught in colleges and
> even high schools, and this is why scientists routinely use other
> methods of dating items older than 10,000 - 30,000 years.
Get a copy of Libby's book in paperback thru Barnes & Noble.
> Therefore, you are completely off base in trying to criticize carbon
> dating on this basis.
Randy.....AGREED...this possible atheist has more fact than your
relgious faith....better convert to mine...my God Jehovah is truth,
not just mere claims of priests.
> Here is one method of dating that is used by scientists that has
> nothing to do with carbon-14:
> Many varieties of trees grow in such a way that every year, another
> ring appears in the cross section of the trunk. Scientists have
> found trees that have in excess of 11,000 rings. This means that
> these trees lived for at least 11,000 years. This is well beyond
> 6,000 years.
No tree is 11,000 years old. Tree pieces have been placed together
(all Arizona pine where it was dry so they didnt rot, and where the
pine species is hard so they didnt get eaten by desert life, etc.)
There are hundreds of pieces to make that 11,000 year chain of rings.
And it may not be correct. Further, they C-14 each ring to make sure
but in some pieces of wood...the ring of the tree actually absorbed
more C-14 the year before, and less the year later as if the tree grew
backwards. So it is very faulty, and does not reprersent the whole planet
of trees and woods found in burials.
> And here is another method of dating that is used by scientists, and
> it, too, has nothing to do with carbon-14:
> Every year in parts of Antarctica, there are cycles of snowfall and
> partial surface heating, although the snow never melts. This causes a
> visible layer to appear in the packed snow for every year this snow
> has been in existence. Scientists have drilled down a few thousand
> feet into the packed snow in certain parts of Antarctica, and the
> cores that were retrieved have around 50,000 visible layers ... and
> there is more packed snow underneath these layers. This means
> that this snow was in existence for at least 50,000 years ... much
> longer than 6,000 years.
No it doesnt. You cannot guarantee that double layers never occur
for one year. Nor can you guarantee that a flood didnt make those layers
as when building a Hail ball. The hail may 5 layers showing the wind
blew it upward 5 times...but it was still made in one day not 5 years.
> Currently, the world has some 5.6 billion people, and the world's
> population is doubling every 59 years. This is exponential growth,
> in case you didn't realize that.
> If the world's population started with two people, and if this
> population regularly doubles, then the population needs to have
> doubled more than 32 times for us to have the population we have today
> (do the math yourself if you don't believe me). Let's be conservative
> and call this value 33.
> Given a doubling every 59 years, you can multiply and get this:
> 59 x 33 = 1947
> Therefore, using your reasoning, there must have only been two people
> alive 1947 years ago in 50 A.D. In other words, Jesus would have been
> quite alone when He walked the face of the earth.
> Obviously, this argument doesn't even support your 6,000-year age
> of the earth.
First, stick with AGE oif man (more believers and supporters).
Quit saying Earth (less believers).You havent disproved that enough time
has not occurred if you thin the 5.6 billion can be reached in 2000 yrs.
We only need to prove from 8 people off an ark in 2370 BC to
5.6 billion now. This is calculated forward not back as you do implying
only 2 people with Jesus. Ever hear of war, disease, famine killing them off
so that it has taken 4365 years to reach the 5.6 billion !
(OK further down)
> How do we handle this discrepancy? Well, the way to deal with it is
> to realize that only in recent centuries did the earth's population
> start increasing so dramatically. There is clear evidence of this
> in written history.
> This means that long periods of time have gone by without much, if
> any, population growth. Famines, plagues, lack of medicinal know-how,
> etc., have kept human population relatively steady for extended
> periods in the past.
> This allows for humankind to have been around a lot longer than 1947
> years. It allows for 6,000 years and also for 2-4 million years (the
> age of the oldest human fossils ... and these were *NOT* dated with
> carbon-14!).
First...they are not human, they are animal claimed as human.
Second they are not 2-4 million years old...the mineral in them are
because they are not bone they are mineral washed into it.
If I pour a plaster cast (as Wooley did in Ur)...I cannot date the cast to see the
age of the wood harp. The plaster is either newer in process, or of
ancient gypsum which will date as millions of years.
> So, you cannot use this argument to prove anything.
Vice Versa.
> > 6) I don't even want to get into the laws of angular momentum, and
> >other aspects of Physics.
> Why not? Are you afraid you'll be shown to be wrong in these areas,
> as well?
> > Dosen't this all add up to a master plan? (hint: the answer is yes, it
> > all adds up to God's plan, He has it all timed just right)
> I believe that God did not create the universe to mislead us when we
> apply honest, rigrorous, scientific study to it. God is not a
> deceiver. Therefore, I believe that the findings of science over the
> past centuries (most of which were made by believers in God, by the
> way) must be leading us to the truth about God's creations.
I beleive God proves also...it is the meaning of his name.
tiglath
Michael wrote:
>
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@6000/6000text.html
>
> These are text lists to 6000-year Bible chronologies.
> The scoffers who scoff at the world being 6000 years old
> never present the real issue that it is only humans it refers to.
> They carry their warring dispute by arguing galaxies and planets.
When 10,000 people say a horse is a dog, it doesn't make a horse a dog
even if
they say it for 10,000 years.
The only reliable way we have to tell truth from falsehood and overcome
the
illusions mixed in the report of our senses is the scientific method by
which
any theory you spouse is subjected to rigorous scrutiny by your peers.
The test
never ends even if your theory stands bullet proof for centuries, the
first counter example
found that negates your theory does just that in spite of who you are.
No appeals to
authority are allowed nor are pronouncements ex cathedra.
We have now relied on our community of scholars for quite some time and
it is paying off.
We can predict where our space crafts will be years from now and the
trajectory they will follow
with a precision the prophets of the Bible would kill for. The dividens
of the scientific method
outperform any other belief system. Except for the emotionally needy,
most of us think so.
Now if you choose to deny the predominant opinion on human chronology or
any other issue in
which science is at odds with religion that is your prerogative, but you
must offer some ground
for belief in your alternative hypothesis.
The Bible is a great history book, but that it is the word of God, that
is pure uncorroborated
opinion. Men like you or me, wrote it. No man can explain God to
another man because he doesn't
know himself, in spite of any magnificent display of imagination the
former comes up with to
explain the unexplainable to the latter. If Jewish kings and prophets
who authored the Bible
claim divine inspiration, well I guess it is ok to have commercials in a
history book.
tiglath
Michael wrote:
>
> Jim Meritt wrote:
> > >> Don't need fossils. Got tree-ring series that go back 11 thousand years.
>
> I admit your institutions of crap have any legitimacy in the
Oh Oh! I posted a rational point on this before I read this one ^^^ I
should have
stayed out of it. I will. Let this be my parting shot.
Nothing is more galling
than to fight with facts and arguments
Against an adversary
in the belief
That one is dealing with his understanding
When in reality
One is dealing with his will
Which obdurately closes its mind to the truth.
One must understand that reason
Applied against the will is
like seed sown on a bare rock
wcwflair
There are seven sientific ways to judge the age of the earth.
1. of those ways is carbon dating with says the earth is 7-10 billion
years old
The other six(salt content of the ocean,population
projections,setlmentary rock layers etc.says the earth is 6-10 thousand
years old.
why go with the one over the other six?
wsw
Jim Meritt wrote:
>
> In article <33aeced4...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com says...
> >On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:27:25 -0500, Michael <Bible...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>The scoffers who scoff at the world being 6000 years old
> >>never present the real issue that it is only humans it refers to.
> >>They carry their warring dispute by arguing galaxies and planets.
> >
> >Cro-Magnon humans going back way farther than 6000 years,
>
> Shows there, gives seasonal history of the time back to it (no flood
> mentioned. Imagine that!) and shows habitable entire time.
Well there we go again, 6000 years is roughly how long Adam & Eve and
their offspring have been out of the garden. Give or take a few 1000
years.
but how long was Adam in the garden before he was blessed with Eve, then
how long till Eve partook of the fruit that got them both punted.
That could have been millions & millions of years.
wsw
Doug Schiffer
Michael wrote:
[bull shit deleted]
> The real chronology of our past proves this is so for our immediate future
> this year.
Yes, and when nothing (like an asteroid) happens in the last half of
this year, will you then promise to shut up and stop blathering about
what never was and what will never be?
Will you swear an oath to God (or whatever) that if no asteroid hits by
Dec 31, 1997 - that you will never, ever again post another word on
Usenet? That you will yank your web site, and admit that you know
nothing about chronology, and that you have no clues about the future?
Will you make that promise? Publically? Here? Now?
[newsgroups that have anything to do with reality again deleted]
--
*********************************************************************
God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow
mystery.
The deep mystery is the nature of man.
Nanrei Kobori - Buddhist Abbot of the Temple of the Shining Dragon
Modified email address: Delete "XYZ." to respond to me.
Jonathan Hartley
On 26 Jun 1997 01:37:26 GMT, "Randy Ross" <imas...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>The facts simply are these:
The facts according to pseudo-scientists like Duane Gish from the
Institute for Creation Research, no doubt.... Wake up. Realize that
rigorous science only confirms God. The Big Bang Theory is a big step
in the direction of Genesis 1:1....
> 3) Most evolutionist based there theories on dates obtained through Radio
>Carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating has been proven to only be accruate for
>about six to seven thousand years (hint - there was no carbon around more
>than about seven thousand years ago)
> 4) Right now, the entire world population could live in the state of
>Texas, and have a house, and about an acre of land. The human population
>has been increasing exponentially, if humans have been around for about a
>million years, the population would be far too great for the Earth to
>support the human race. (this dosen't even count all the other critters)
> 5) The Earth is in a state of decay. Best estimates say our resources
>will only last a little while longer - were running out of fossil fuels,
>the ozone hole, etc.
> 6) I don't even want to get into the laws of angular momentum, and other
>aspects of Physics.
tiglath
Randy Ross wrote:
>
> The facts simply are these:
Facts ????
Look up the definition of fact. Your deep need for religious
experience, I respect, but it doesn't make your beliefs to become facts.
It is ok to follow a dogmatic line of reasoning which corresponds more
to
a mental fixation than a description of the observable world,
but there is no reason not to speak with propriety.
> 1) In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.
How do you know that? You, a speck of organic matter on a rock near
an unremarkable star in the suburbs of a galaxy among zillions of other
galaxies claims to know the answers to the most important question of
existence?
How arrogant!
> 2) The six days referred to in Genesis were 24 hour solar days "Night.
> And the evening and the morning were the first day.", "And the evening and
> the morning were the second day." and so on.
Simple, simple, simple. Steven Hawkings! why didn't you think of that!
> 3) Most evolutionist based there theories on dates obtained through Radio
> Carbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating has been proven to only be accruate for
> about six to seven thousand years (hint - there was no carbon around more
> than about seven thousand years ago)
Of course you have MS or Phd in Chemistry, and Earth science, or more,
don't you?
> 4) Right now, the entire world population could live in the state of
> Texas, and have a house, and about an acre of land. The human population
> has been increasing exponentially, if humans have been around for about a
> million years, the population would be far too great for the Earth to
> support the human race. (this dosen't even count all the other critters)
Unless you provide evidence which leads to your inescapeable conclusion
these are
just gratuitous assertions which can be just as gratuitously denied.
> 5) The Earth is in a state of decay. Best estimates say our resources
> will only last a little while longer - were running out of fossil fuels,
> the ozone hole, etc.
I see you need little or no evidence to embrace theories and preachings
as long as
they serve to support you beliefs. If history teaches anything is that
a good dose
of skepticism and a high standard of evidence are essential not to fall
pray to dogmatic
preachers and slick politicians. You embrace junk science as easily as
you have embraced
the easy answers you parade to the most important questions of
existence. Wishful thinking.
> 6) I don't even want to get into the laws of angular momentum, and other
> aspects of Physics.
Well, we'll just have to live with it.
> Dosen't this all add up to a master plan? (hint: the answer is yes, it
> all adds up to God's plan, He has it all timed just right)
>
If you can arrive to such a fundamental conclusion with such scant
evidence
I hope you never sit in a jury in charge to dispensing justice.
We long to believe that there is someone at the helm, but the fossil
record shows that
catastrophes have swept over the Earth, times of great dying. The
wiping out of whole
species, genera, families and orders of life, the randomness of
mutation, the infelicities
of molecular machinery of life, all reveal a tentativeness, a hesitancy,
an indecision that
hardly seems consistent with the modus operandi of an omnipotent,
omniscient, "hands-on"
Creator. What a man desires he also imagines to be true, but what do we
really want from
philosophy and religion? Do we want reassuring fables or an
understanding of our actual
circumstances? I understand it is hard to accept that we are not the
heart, the point and
the final cause of the universe, that almost anything is preferable to
grappling with the
unbearable burden of being tiny, as science show us to be in the scale
of things. But what is
the alternative? To adopt a comforting belief system no matter how out
of kilter with the facts
it is?
I know I am facing your will not your understanding and therefore I
can't persuade you
but I hope I troubled you. And so you should be because you have sold
out.
You yearn for an inerrant doctrine, that releases you from the exercise
of judgment, with an
obligation to believe but not to question. You recognize no need to
establish error-correcting
machinery either in our social institutions or in our view of the
Universe.
This is the anguished cry of the infant when the Parent does not come.
But most people
eventually come to grips with reality and with the painful absence of
parents who will
absolutely guarantee that no harm befalls the little ones so long as
they do what they are
told.
> A note from God's Holy Word, 2 Pet 3:13-14 Nevertheless we, according to
> his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth
> righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be
> diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
>
>
More and more people see God as the sum total of the physical laws and
its word is the
fire he breathes into these laws that creates our world. The God of the
Bible, that
white-bearded man sitting on the clouds tallying up the fall of every
sparrow is in dire
need of an update.
tiglath
Michael wrote:
>
>
> Without arguing as to whether your Cro-Magnon is human or not.
> therefore no contradiction between C-14 and reality of the Bible.
> As for dating by potassium-argon etc....it is a known fact that
> elements wash into fossils. If I die from swallowing a rock,
> I cannot see where my stomach can be opened to date the
> rock and say I'm 4 billion years old....the rock is, not me.
> Evolution of man is the issue. And it is the C-14 which verifies
> actual humans in contrast to
> some ancient skeleton dated millions of years thru nonC-14 methods,
> no proof the skeleton *IS* actually human,
In other words: science is fine when it aids in supporting the existence
of your God
but science is bogus when it contradicts your "unassailable" tenets.
Darwin's Evolution has stood magnificently well attacks on all sides for
over
a century. And, sorry mate, but the new science of molecular biology is
corroborating in the micro world what Darwin deducted by studying the
macro
world.
No wonder you always score a bull's eye, you keep moving the target!!
> GUILTY is what MAN is.
> A causer of death to all others and himself. He does NOT wish to see
> what he must obey to stay eternally alive as human flesh.
> Blind minds and eyes you all are whether atheist or religious...you all will die
> that God may teach you how you do not listen....
> and then the 1000-year judgement day will bring you all back to life
> to shame you and still require you learn to avoid death from all
> the same causes which kill us now.
>
>
What happened to "I have no intent on jibbering"?
This is useless. You are posing as an unbiased scientific theologist to
validate your cult,
but you know and I know that if I had ironclad irrefutable evidence to
disproof the foundations of your religion, your scientific varnish
would evaporate
instantly and you would stick your nose in the air and refuse to take in
any of it.
Because......................
Religion has nothing to do with logic and rationality. Deities don't
have to be
rational or conform to the strictures of logic to be of value. For
example,
the Virgen de Guadalupe in Mexico had a cathedral erected soon after a
peasant boy
claimed apparitions by the Virgin Mary who urged him to have the local
clergy
build a cathedral on the spot. Well that cathedral has been a place of
pilgrimage
second only to Lourdes, France. But guess what, recently the portrait
of the Virgin
on the boy's shirt, the sole evidence of the miracle, has turned out to
be a fake, its
paint being that of the period, and none of it has anything miraculous
about it.
Do you thing that the news had any effect on the pilgrims and the
staunch believers, No!!
We have a believe engine which has a survival value whether the beliefs
in it are
rational or not. The comfort firmly held beliefs give, the sense of
belonging, the
specialness it confers, the sense of superiority it makes you feel over
the infidel, they
are all worth the suspension of disbelief necessary to really believe
the extraoprdinary
claims one finds in the Bible and its counterparts in other religions.
The rabbit in the field sees the grass stems around him sway in the
wind, the believer
rabbit sees a fox behind the grass each time the stems move, it flees
every time.
Half the time there is no fox, but the rabbit flees anyway. Now the
analitical rabbit
is skeptical about a fox moving the grass every time and it intends on
fleeing only
when justified, well he finds out the truth more often than the believer
rabbit but
the analitical rabbit does not live long and it leaves fewer offspring.
So blind
faith has a survival value in giving us the comfort and certainty in an
uncertain world.
So I cannot jolt you out of your faith no matter how removed from
reality I can show you
it is, because to you it is inherently of great value.
May you then live in the comfort you derive from your religious opiate
happily ever after.
but please let those of your persuation not knock on my door. My house
in not your pulpit,
and I have a right to choose not to live on wishful thinking.
Douglas Weller
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:34:38 -0500, in sci.archaeology, wcwflair wrote:
>There are seven sientific ways to judge the age of the earth.
>1. of those ways is carbon dating with says the earth is 7-10 billion
>years old
Where are the crazy people coming from? One person says carbon dating only
good for 7000 years, another for 7 billion. NO ONE uses carbon dating to
date the world.
>The other six(salt content of the ocean,population
>projections,setlmentary rock layers etc.says the earth is 6-10 thousand
>years old.
> why go with the one over the other six?
You've never even bothered to read a geology textbook have you? Ignorance is
much better, why bother reading a scientist, if you knew what they really
say you'd be in trouble!
And scientists don't use these do date the world either. These are all
rubbish, and certainly don't suggest 6-10 000 years anyway.
Lloyd Zusman
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:34:38 -0500, wcwflair <wcwf...@twlakes.net> wrote:
> There are seven sientific ways to judge the age of the earth.
> 1. of those ways is carbon dating with says the earth is 7-10 billion
> years old
Excuse me, but I'm a Christian, and I must inform you that you are
very much in error about carbon dating and about this 7-10 billion
year figure. Whoever told you these things is either seriously
misinformed, or is bearing false witness.
First of all, it has been known since its inception that the carbon
dating method can only measure ages up to 30,000 - 50,000 years. This
is no esoteric secret about carbon dating: it's openly and
consistently taught in colleges and even high schools.
Therefore, scientists trained in carbon dating know not to use this
method to measure ages that go beyond 30,000 to 50,000 years. They
routinely use other methods to measure longer time periods than this.
Secondly, carbon dating is never used to measure the age of the earth.
It is only used to measure the ages of fossils. This is because the
method relies on certain facts that only apply to living and breathing
organisms. Scientists are well aware of this fact about carbon
dating, and this is taught openly in colleges and even high schools.
The earth's age is measured using other procedures. Read the
talk.origins FAQ's for descriptions of these other methods of dating.
And thirdly, nowhere has it ever been stated by any scientist who
performs these measurements that the earth is 7-10 billion years old.
Scientists hold that the age of the earth, the moon, and the sun are
all around 4.5-5.0 billion years old.
You are clearly misinformed about this topic. Please read what is
actually written by people who actually perform carbon dating and what
is actually written by people who actually measure the age of the
earth before you try to criticize their findings. By making these
patently incorrect statements about carbon dating and about
scientists' estimates of the age of the earth, you just make yourself
look very foolish.
> The other six(salt content of the ocean,population
> projections,setlmentary rock layers etc.says the earth is 6-10 thousand
> years old.
> why go with the one over the other six?
There are many dating methods besides carbon dating that are routinely
used by scientists. None of them yield 6-10 thousand years for the
age of the earth.
There are trees that have been found with more than 11,000 rings in
their trunks. This means that these trees are more than 11,000 years
old, which would be impossible if the earth was only 6-10 thousand
years old.
There are ice cores that have been drilled into the Antarctic ice
shelf which show evidence of more than 50,000 years of snowfalls in
those areas. This would be impossible if the earth was only 6-10
thousand years old.
Geologists know that sedimentary rock layers are millions and even
billions of years old, not 6-10 thousand years. Study a little bit of
geology to see what scientists actually say about sedimentary rocks.
The same goes for population projections, the oceans' salt content,
etc.
In other words, your "other six" methods also contradict your 6-10
thousand year figures.
You do God no justice by repeating falsehoods in an attempt to
discredit the findings of scientists. You would do yourself and God
much more credit if you would read what is actually written about
carbon dating, the age of the earth, sedimentary rocks, the oceans'
salt content, etc. before trying to publicly contradict these
findings.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Jim Meritt
In article <33B2F6...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER>, eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER
says...
>I'm dumb, and ranting, and blathering, and rambling,
True, but irrelevant. Let me know when you are better. In the mean time,
accept my pity (and amusement). But don't expect any attempts at enlightment
until your teacup is no longer full to overflowing and/or your soil is less
rocky so that something can grow in it.
There is such a thing as "invincible ignorance", and you seem to have
perfected it.
Jim Meritt
In article <33B326...@twlakes.net>, wcwf...@twlakes.net says...
>
>There are seven sientific ways to judge the age of the earth.
>1. of those ways is carbon dating with says the earth is 7-10 billion
>years old
>projections,setlmentary rock layers etc.says the earth is 6-10 thousand
>years old.
Bad news. NONE of the "seven methods" you claim could even theoretically
work.
1.Carbon-14 dating doesn't go back that far, besides which that measures
CARBON, and has nothing at all to do with "age of the earth"
2. salt - you have heard of chemical cycles? Look it up.
3. population projections - never gotten one to work right. Besides which,
at best that would be stay time of PEOPLE, not the earth
4. "setlmentary rock" (going to assume you mean sedimentary) - see
"continental drift, and again you assume that there has been 100% sediment
retention and deposition since day one of the earth.
5,6 & 7 - you claimed but didn't present.
> why go with the one over the other six?
Actually , I don't know anyone who "goes with" any you gave at all.
You know this has been discussed EXTENSIVELY in the newsgroup talk.origins,
right? Why not ask there. Maybe read the FAQ first, though. This is in
there (or at least the one I wrote...)
Jim
r...@thevision.net
How the hell can anyone say exactly how long those seven time periods were? There really isn't that much you can read into it/interprit/etc., is there?
>no matter how many JWs now think the Watchtower let's them. And I would
>rather worship Jehovah alone than continue with attacks from those who claim
>these replies (such as Variable Creation Days) are from Jehovah.
>
Every single Christian thinks that they know the truth about God and all of that God stuff. We all think we're right, but who really knows if there is a God at all and we're all wrong. Let people think the way they want to. The Bible can be interprited so widely that poeple can belive anything and find reasoning in the Bible, and also due to this, you can't really prove anyone wrong.
>> If you believe in Evolution then do you believe that a person can win the
>> million dollar lottery a thousand times in a row with a break. (If there is
>> a break then the number resets to zero.) If he had 10 billion years. (This
>> is the new estimate for the age of the universe.) And when we are talking
>> evolution, we are talking greater odds then when six variables, with on
>> average twenty possibilities for each varible, fall in different
>> permutation a thousand times.
>> Mickey James Bigelow
>
>Good knowledge of mathematical probabilities here (for random).
>
This bugs me. God had to use some method to create man. He might of made him out of clay. God might have just used that analogy to show that man came from the earth and was created by God. Why don't people ever consider the possiblity that the mathmatical chances of evolution were overcome as a miricle from God? I happen to like the Catholic Church's opionon on this: The point of creation was to show that God created everything, the point wasn't to show *how* he did everything, so it could have been evolution that brought about man, or it might have been some other way. Anyways, why would God show us how he did everything? What good would it do?
--
Do you believe in Macintosh? Please check out
<http://www.evangelist.macaddict.com/>
and join the EvangeList mailing
list by sending an email to <evang...@macway.com>.
Mickey James Bigelow
Michael <eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> wrote in article
> The Watchtower does not beleive them
> to be variable....this is how yeast or corruption seeps in by those who
think
> they can explain better than someone like me whom they think is ranting
> rather than zealous. You see the world has a problem that if they dont
like a
> JW they will study with a different JW who will gladly say specific
brothers dont
> act like brothers...this will get the person the study because they are
willing to
> agree another JW doesnt act like a JW. So Mickey here wants to make sure
> that everyone knows JWs beleive as he does and not like posts you read.
> Too bad Mickey doesnt know correctly...and therefore like many JWs has
> attacked the real truth already posted.
>
> THE DAYS *ARE* 7000 YEARS AND THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY WILL
> NOT AND WILL NEVER CLAIM THEY ARE EVER SHORTER NOR LONGER
> NOR VARIABLE.
Obviously you didn't take enough time to look up what it is that Witnesses
believe. In the book- How did life get here by evolution or creation;
Chapter 3 verse 7. It contains:
" It would seem reasonable that the 'days' of Genesis could likewise have
embraced long periods of time-millenniums."
That is longer that a millium per day as you said. By what you say you
prove that you are not a Jehovah's Witness. And when some-one comes and
corrects your thinking who knows better than you, you bash them and say
they are not witnesses you are hidding some-thing.
Mickey James Bigelow
Cyberguy
Jim Meritt wrote:
>
> In article <33aeced4...@News.HTWM.De>, sfei...@mach3ww.com says...
> >On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 11:27:25 -0500, Michael <Bible...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>These are text lists to 6000-year Bible chronologies.
> >>The scoffers who scoff at the world being 6000 years old
> >>never present the real issue that it is only humans it refers to.
> >>They carry their warring dispute by arguing galaxies and planets.
> >
> >Actually, bud, that ain't necesarry. The fossil record shows modern
> >Cro-Magnon humans going back way farther than 6000 years,
>
> Don't need fossils. Got tree-ring series that go back 11 thousand years.
> Who needs galaxies, planets or rocks when you can use living things in hand?
> Shows there, gives seasonal history of the time back to it (no flood
> mentioned. Imagine that!) and shows habitable entire time.
>
>
> --
> James W. Meritt
> The opinions expressed above are my own. The fact simply
> are and belong to none.
WHERE YOU CAME FROM?
YOU WERE SENT HERE TO BE DEAD FOREVER AND GIVEN AMNESIA THROUGH HAVING
THE CRAP KNOCKED OUT OF YOU BETWEEN LIVES WITH ELECTRONICS.
BY ACTUAL OBSERVATION OF THE SPEED AT WHICH SHEETS OF GALAXIES MOVE IN
THE WALLS OF 'BUBBLES' - THE STRUCTURES ARE SO HUGE THEY COULD AT THOSE
SPEEDS ONLY HAVE BEEN FORMED OVER A TIME FRAME WAY WAY WAY LONGER THAN
WHAT 'SCIENCE' FIGURE FIGURES IS THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE BASED ON THE
BIG FART (AH, BANG) THEORY.
YOU HVE BEEN IN THIS UNIVERSE A LONG LONG TIME AND THIS
UNIVERSE IS W A Y OLDER THAN TRILLIONS OF YEARS, AND YOU HAVE BEEN ON A
DOWNWARD SLIDE FOR A LONG LONG TIME. BESIDES, WITH CONCRETE WALLS AND
BUILDINGS DUG UP IN COAL SEAMS HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD, AND A MACHINED
METAL SPHERE (ACTUALLY HUNDREDS OF THEM) IN ROCK 2.8 BILLION YEARS OLD,
VARIOUS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LEAVING JUNK ON THIS PLANET FOR A LONG TIME.
WRONG DATE WILL GIVE YOU AMNESIA AND OCCLUSION. SCREWS UP YOUR TIME
SENSE. PRETTY VISCIOUS OF SOMEONE TO DO THAT TO ANOTHER.
HOW ABOUT THE CARVED LETTERS IN A SOLID BLOCK OF MARBLE DUG OUT OF A
QUARY 70 FEET DOWN? A COIN DUG UP 125 FEET DOWN IN ILLINOIS? THE VERY
VERY DISTINCT SHOE SOLE IN TRIASSIC ROCK (YOU CAN SEE THE THREADING
SEWING THE SOLE ALL THE WAY AROUND AMONG OTHER THINGS). GOLD CHAIN
INSIDE A PIECE OF COAL 200 MILLION YEARS OLD? METAL PIPE FOUND IN CHALK
BETWEEN 60 AND 80 MILLION YEARS OLD. CAVE PAINTING OF A VERY CLEAR
FLYING SAUCER FIGHT AND DESTRUCTION OF A GROUND BASE IN CAUCASUS.
MELTED SAND INTO GREEN GLAS GOING FOR MILES IN VARIOUS DESERTS - UNDER
6 OR 9 MUD HUT CIVILIZATIONS, SUDDENLY NUCLEAR GLASS.
ALL IS NOT AS IT APPEARS ON THIS PLANET. IN THE MID 20TH CENTURY, THEY
DID SOME EXPERIMENTS - PUT DIEING PEOPLE BEDS AND ALL ON SCALES, AND AT
THE MOMENT OF DEATH, WEIGHT DROPED. SOMETHING LEFT!!! YOUR NAZI PSYCHS
TRY AND TELL YOU MAN IS AN ANIMAL AND HAS NO SOUL - JUST A MACHINE TO BE
CONTROLLED OR HE WILL DO EVIL (DOUBTLESS LOOKING INTO THEIR OWN
DISPICABLE HEARTS AS A MODEL) DID YOU KNOW THAT PSYCHOLOGY SHOULD MEAN
PSYCHE = SPIRIT AND LOGOS TO STUDY AND ATREA MEANS TO HEAL SO A PSYCHE
ATREAST SHOULD BE A PRIEST NOT A TORTURE OF RATS. THESE SLIME WERE TO
DEVISE A WAY TO CONTROL CONQUORED POPULATIONS FOR BISMARK AND TO JUSTIFY
GERMANYS WAR AMBITIONS. THE HEAD OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC
ASSOCIATION STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF PSYCHIATRY WAS TO ABOLISH THE
CONCEPT OF RIGHT AND WRONG. SINCE THAT IS THE LEGAL TEST OF SANITY, THAT
MEANS THEIR AIM IS TO MAKE EVERY ONE CRAZY. (LIKE THEM, THEN THEY WILL
BE NORMAL). THE PSYCHS WERE THE ONES WHO STARTED THE HOLOCAUST IN NAZI
G, WORKED OUT AND TESTED EVERYTHING ON MENTAL PATIENTS (USELESS
EATERS).
ALSO HAD PEOPLE "IMAGINE" BRICKS AND SHOVE THEM INTO THEIR BODIES, AND
THEN SHOVE THEM INTO THEIR BODIES. INCREASED THEIR WIGHT 15 POUNDS ON
TOLEDO SCALES, AND THEN DROPED IT AGAIN WHEN THEY THREW THE MENTAL
IMAGES AWAY. BOY HAVE YOU BEEN SUCKERED BY THE CRAPOLA YOU HAVE BEEN
TOLD IN SCHOOL AND BY THE HA GOVERNMENT.
ALL YOUR PHYSICS AND ALL YOUR HISTORY ARE JUST NOT AS ADVERTISED.
YOUR BIBLE THUMPERS ARE JUST PLAIN PSYCHOTIC. WHILE IT IS WORTHY TO
TREAT OTHERS WITH KINDNESS, IT IS UTTER EVIL TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THEY ARE
TOTAL EFFECT AND HAVE NO POWER TO CONTROL THEIR OWN LIVES. THE MORE YOU
CAN FACE ABOUT YOU, AND YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY (AS IN ABILITY TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT AND INFLUENCE) FOR THINGS AROUND YOU, THE MORE ACTUAL
ABILITY YOU HAVE. IF YOU DECIDE YOU ARE A VICTIM, YOU HAVE CHAINED
YOURSELF. DEGRADING OTHERS IS NOT OK, NOR IS PUSHING CRAPO LIES THAT
HURT OTHERS, LIKE 6000 YEAR OLD PLANETS.
John Ings
On 26 Jun 1997 18:25:10 GMT, "Mickey James Bigelow"
<Big...@cni-usa.com> wrote:
>If you believe in Evolution then do you believe that a person can win the
>million dollar lottery a thousand times in a row with a break.
No. The oddsmaking of the Creationist is specious.
> And when we are talking
>evolution, we are talking greater odds then when six varibles, with on
>average twenty possibilities for each varible, fall in different
>permutation a thousand times.
No you are not, because you cannot apply simple permutations to
biochemical reactions. Ever heard of an enzyme? The existance of
enzymes alone makes your oddsmaking mere mathmatical masturbation.
You are playing with numbers to make yourself feel good.
PZ Myers
But crapo lies about 80 million year old human ancestry and psychiatry
as naziism and weighable souls is OK, IF YOU JUST SHOUT IT OUT LOUD ENOUGH!
If you want to call others psychotic, I suggest you get yourself evaluated
first (hmmm, but maybe that's the source of the animosity towards psychiatry --
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had diagnosed you with something you
resent).
--
Paul Z. Myers
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Mommie and Papa Dark
Pay attention now:
> >
> >THE DAYS *ARE* 7000 YEARS AND THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY WILL
> >NOT AND WILL NEVER CLAIM THEY ARE EVER SHORTER NOR LONGER
Secular dating is contrary to Jehovah. What comes from the Watchtower
is from Jehovah. This underlying lie, that the Society is equal to God,
is the biggest apostasy and lie perpetrated by the Brooklyn Bandits. If
it's in the Watchtower, JWs believe it comes straight from God's mouth.
No matter how ridiculous or demonstrably false, if the Society says it,
good JWs swallow it whole and say 'Yummy!'
You can't reason with people so willing to turn off their brains.
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
--
"I am much better in real life than I am in person."
Visit our page at http://www.bright.net/~papadark
MCI
Isn't Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? I heard that it is. Just wondering.
Ron <R...@erols.com> wrote in article
<01bc8222$9e31e420$0114...@ctscan.erols.com>...
> I find it a bit ironic that so many people who would refuse to talk to
> witnesses at the door will spend so much time in a witness News Group.
> Doesn't matter to me because at least they see God's name everytime they
> log in. <smile> In any case, I just wanted to say that many who post here
> do not reflect the views and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
>
> If you want a discussion on what the witnesses believe, ask a witness or
> check out the official web site at www.watchtower.org.....
>
>
> PS: just so that I stay on topic with this thread....The creation is not
> seven literal 24 hour days but rather seven periods of time. Want to know
> why? Ask one of Jehovah's witnesses. :)
>
>
Ron
MCI <000...@mcimail.com> wrote in article
<01bc8379$54caf580$59ec...@HTN01355.bms.mci.com>...
> Isn't Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? I heard that it is. Just wondering.
>
First off, the correct grammar would be "Aren't Jehovah's witnesses a
cult". :)
In any case, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I would happy to answer
your question. First, "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language" (New College Edition), defines the word cult thusly.....
cult - n. A system or community of religious worship and ritual,
especially one focusing upon a single deity or spirit.
Jehovahs Witnesses do worship only one God. We are a community of religious
worshippers.
hmmm... I guess we are a cult. :) Are you?
Douglas Weller
On 28 Jun 1997 05:16:00 GMT, in sci.archaeology, MCI wrote:
>Isn't Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? I heard that it is. Just wondering.
>
>Ron <R...@erols.com> wrote in article
><01bc8222$9e31e420$0114...@ctscan.erols.com>...
>> I find it a bit ironic that so many people who would refuse to talk to
>> witnesses at the door will spend so much time in a witness News Group.
>> Doesn't matter to me because at least they see God's name everytime they
>> log in. <smile> In any case, I just wanted to say that many who post here
>> do not reflect the views and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
>>
Well, it's not Christian, but that doesn't make it a cult, depends on your
definition. And as far as I can see, this thread was started by a witness
who crossposted it to 11 other newsgroups, and I expect that most people
replying aren't 'in a witness News Group.'
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to:sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Requests To: arch-mo...@ucl.ac.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email do...@ramtops.demon.co.uk for details
Matt Silberstein
In sci.archaeology, on thread _Re: 6000-year world...please read...I
have no intent on jibbering_, "MCI" <000...@mcimail.com> wrote:
>Isn't Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? I heard that it is. Just wondering.
AFAIK, the definition of a cult is a smallish religion that is not
*very* and one that you don't belong to. As such, if you are not a JW,
it is a cult.
That said, so what? Cults have the same possible chance at valid ideas
as any other religions. Calling them a cults is argument ad populi (or
whatever the latin would be).
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------
Rossignol's curious, albeit simply titled book, 'The Origins of a
World War', spoke in terms of 'secret treaties', drawn up between the
Ambassadors from Plutonia and Desdinova the foreign minister. These
treaties founded a secret science from the stars. Astronomy. The
career of evil.
Michael
If you reply without reading this...it shows where your heart is
toward the whole world.....please do read.
Douglas Weller wrote:
> Where are the crazy people coming from? One person says carbon dating only
> good for 7000 years, another for 7 billion. NO ONE uses carbon dating to
> date the world.
We agree Weller. (A little humor there. Any day I can talk to you scoffing
me with at least apparent looking facts versus the obvious brainless
replies of others who will say anything.)
> >The other six(salt content of the ocean,population
> >projections,setlmentary rock layers etc.says the earth is 6-10 thousand
> >years old.
> > why go with the one over the other six?
> You've never even bothered to read a geology textbook have you? Ignorance is
> much better, why bother reading a scientist, if you knew what they really
> say you'd be in trouble!
> And scientists don't use these do date the world either. These are all
> rubbish, and certainly don't suggest 6-10 000 years anyway.
C-14 is 70,000 maximum....regarded at that age of being
greatly unreliable being in such small amounts.
C-14 is trusted back 50,000 years. Read Libby (or *ANY* C-14 books).
The water canopy theory causing longevity to drop 12x
in relation to increased atmospheric penetration of cosmic radiation
thus creating 12x C-14 would take a chunk of 20,000 years out
of this C-14 scale. The formula for C-14 decay shows that a 12x
difference in amounts of C-14 match mathematical figures expected
for an object 20,000 years earlier, no matter what pre Flood year
one chooses.
measuring 30,000 would be a real 10,000
measuring 40,000 would be a real 20,000
measuring 50,000 would be a real 30,000
Thus the reliability would drop to 30,000 years
and the unreliable maximum would drop to 50,000 years.
Is there any problems you people have with this....
when facing the fact that others are claiming C-14 measures
only 7000 yrs or as much as 7 billion years ?????
Michael
wsw wrote:
> Well there we go again, 6000 years is roughly how long Adam & Eve and
> their offspring have been out of the garden. Give or take a few 1000
> years.
> but how long was Adam in the garden before he was blessed with Eve, then
> how long till Eve partook of the fruit that got them both punted.
> That could have been millions & millions of years.
Adam was created in 4025 BC
his wife created in 4005 BC
they sinned in 3955 BC
and had there son Seth in 3896 BC (after Abel's death)
Cain, Abel, and Seth were only 3 of 33 sons...
and 23 daughters.
9 sons who married their nieces.
Michael
tiglath wrote:
> When 10,000 people say a horse is a dog, it doesn't make a horse a dog
>even if they say it for 10,000 years.
> The only reliable way we have to tell truth from falsehood and overcome
> the illusions mixed in the report of our senses is the scientific method by
> which
> any theory you spouse is subjected to rigorous scrutiny by your peers.
> The test
> never ends even if your theory stands bullet proof for centuries, the
> first counter example
> found that negates your theory does just that in spite of who you are.
> No appeals to
> authority are allowed nor are pronouncements ex cathedra.
> We have now relied on our community of scholars for quite some time and
> it is paying off.
> We can predict where our space crafts will be years from now and the
> trajectory they will follow
> with a precision the prophets of the Bible would kill for. The dividens
> of the scientific method
> outperform any other belief system.
> or any other issue in
> which science is at odds with religion that is your prerogative, but you
> must offer some ground for belief in your alternative hypothesis.
*** I always offer the grounds and they are ignored. No questions
are ever asked...rather all is disputed and scoffed and denied.
Anton Johnson
Dear Michael,
We can look at c-14 and other methods of dating and they mean
little in determing the age of this planet and items on this planet. In
the N.T. Jesus (God) created wine out of water. It was the very best
wine. Do you know how long it takes for man to create a good wine?
Since God can create something instantly is it not reasonable that God
could have created items in this world as fully grown. We have proof of
this in Gensis in the fact that God created Adam and Eve as adults. Are
we to say that when they were created that they were babies? No! They
were adults. Just some of my thoughts.
Michael wrote:
>
> Randy Ross wrote:
> > The facts simply are these:
> > 2) The six days referred to in Genesis were 24 hour solar days "Night.
> > And the evening and the morning were the first day.", "And the evening and
> > the morning were the second day." and so on.
> > 3) Most evolutionist based there theories on dates obtained through
> > RadioCarbon 14 dating. Carbon 14 dating has been proven to only be accruate for
> > about six to seven thousand years (hint - there was no carbon around more
> > than about seven thousand years ago)
>
> If I were to judge your #2 by whether #3 is correct or not...you would lose.
> The days are not six of 24 hours. Carbon 14 is considered reliable back
> to 50,000 years...unreliable (wide-range) if its very small minutes of C-14/
> C-13 ratio are attempted to be counted in 70,000 years.
> So your 6000-7000 year claim is fraudulent lie merely for religion.
> It does not prove that reality (science) is created by God. But the
> 50,000-70,000 span does. Once 20,000 is removed from the curve caused by
> the Flood, proven by the postFlood ice age dating back to 20,000 and also
> proven by C-14 in all petroleum dating as 20,000....this span
> is reduced to 30,000 with 50,000 as maximum for first vegetation on earth.
> WOW...fits the 7000 years of each day...neat man...if you listen so you
> understand it.
>
> > 4) Right now, the entire world population could live in the state of
> > Texas, and have a house, and about an acre of land. The human population
> > has been increasing exponentially, if humans have been around for about a
> > million years, the population would be far too great for the Earth to
> > support the human race. (this dosen't even count all the other critters)
>
> False...I doubt all could live in Texas. However, humans are only 6000 years
> and thus there is room for all to come back. But many will rather die the
> second death.
>
> > 5) The Earth is in a state of decay. Best estimates say our resources
> > will only last a little while longer - were running out of fossil fuels,
> > the ozone hole, etc.
>
> The fossil fuels will restore the carbon lost in the Flood. The ozone is
> replaced at a given rate...just stop man and it will close up. Further,
> Los Angelos may have a hole...but the north and south poles only have a
> whole by the end of a 6-month 24-hour daylight of constant sun destroying
> the ozone from the CCPs or PPCs or whatever they are.
>
> > 6) I don't even want to get into the laws of angular momentum, and > other aspects of Physics.
>
> And as others have said to me (but wrong), I will pose the same doubt...
> could it be because you will not go into what you dont know !!!!!!
>
> > Dosen't this all add up to a master plan? (hint: the answer is yes, it
> > all adds up to God's plan, He has it all timed just right)
>
> I agree it does...but you obviously dont have his plans ????
> The Catholics and the evangelists cant both have God's plan
> drawn out in contrary ways .
--
Reply mailto:joh...@freeyellow.com
Have a great day, Anton Johnson
"The World's Most Valuable Web Address"
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/johnson
Top 1000 Web Sites =>>http://www.faststep.com
lunati...@rocketmail.com
In article <01bc8379$54caf580$59ec...@HTN01355.bms.mci.com>,
"MCI" <000...@mcimail.com> wrote:
>
> Isn't Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? I heard that it is. Just wondering.
> > If you want a discussion on what the witnesses believe, ask a witness or
> > check out the official web site at www.watchtower.org.....
What do JW's believe? Anything they are told. Originally known as
Russellites because the Cult was founded by Charles Taze Russell. He
pursued literal bible interpretation and came up with the construct of a
religion that denied death, until he died in 1914. OPPS!
Before he died he proved thru biblical reference that the 2nd coming was
going to happen in 1874. OPPS! Of course in 1875 he realized he had
goofed and proceeded and after significant additional biblical research,
concluded that it was actually going to be in 1914, buying almost 40 more
years of sucker collection time. Guess what? Well, before he died he
explained that in fact Jesus did come back back decided not to let anyone
know yet! Yes his followers actually swallow this garbage! His succesor
was Joesph Franklin Rutherford. In a 1966 pamphlet, the latest date was
1975. And now that they are 0 for 3 what is the idiot line? "Well it's
only a matter of time now!" Ya, isn't always just a matter of time?
On an OFFICIAL level, "woman is merely a lowly creature whom god created
for man's helper."
And just how many of their children do they kill by not allowing simple
medical treatment like blood transfusions? And what does their health
beliefs do for them? They have 3 times the admittance to psychiatric
hospitals than the general population. But the research is possibly
indicating, not that JW belief CAUSES the mental disfunction as much as
it might just be more libel to attract those that already have these
mental problems.
Isn't religion grand?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Todd
MCI wrote:
> Isn't Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? I heard that it is. Just
> wondering.
>
Yes, it is a cult. A cult can easily be discovered this one trait: That
they recognise Jesus Christ as the Son of God BUT, do not recognise that
he IS God the Son.
PZ Myers
Wow. I had no idea anyone was still fighting over that old Athanasian/Arian
bit of pedantry. As far as I'm concerned, there is just the tiniest iota
of difference between the two -- they're both cults!
Michael
wcwflair wrote:
> There are seven sientific ways to judge the age of the earth.
> 1. of those ways is carbon dating with says the earth is 7-10 billion
> years old
> projections,setlmentary rock layers etc.says the earth is 6-10 thousand
> years old.
> why go with the one over the other six?
C-14 has a maximum of 70,000 which is considered very unstable.
Only 50,000 years is trusted of C-14.
Not to mention that with dendrochronology the C-14 is
regarded as in a state of drift. .....
720 years for 2030 BC dated as 2770 BC by dendrochronology...
(actually by Egyptologist claims for Egypt's 365-day calendar).
Sesostris has C-14 dates as 1650 BC instead
of Turin Papyrus 1850 BC
(Genesis variance is 48 years= 1800 BC).
Michael
karl wrote:
> It's quite clear that Moses wrote of a literal six day creation. No day
> age theory is implied. All references to a day in this text is applied to
> a 24 hour day and not a figurative period.
You are wrong Karl because God himself has created
everything which scientists test to determine age.
Scientists come up with billions and millions and 100,000s
of years pending the topic.
Their false interpretation of God's created matter
and energy and elements isnt off so great as to permit
religious persons to go the other extreme to insist and demand
only 24 hour periods.
Even the prophets prove this in agreement with secular records.
Ezekiel said a day for a year and so did Moses.
This is exactly what it takes to bring the religious records
of the preFlood kings into the reality of the Genesis record.
Alulim does not reign 28,800 years...
( which is 29x longer than any 900-year man lived)
but rather these 28,800 days are a mere 80 years...
followed by the next 9 kings ruling from heaven before the Flood.
Further evidence is these 28,800 are called 8 sars...
obviously 8 sars of 3600 days not 8 sars of 3600 years.
So for all you religious people saying no formula exists...
this is false. *ALL* language has a formula of how it evolved.
The words are redefined causing future confusion of language
and errors in doctrine interpretation. But it is no miracle to
take these words and trace them back and realize their
true deteriation into our modern languages.
We may have coined new knowledge (such as electronics)
but the old knowledge has been twisted...much lost...
but not unretrievable. We *DO NOT* need nor require
a massive resurrection of dead to dig up the truth, the facts.
This is what I do before those dead come back.
That way you will be judged by Jehovah as inexcusable
of the death quickly coming....the knowledge was there
and you refused it. It takes a heart of humility to accept
what no one else believes. Contrary to what most think,
I do accept correction.....cram truth down my throat not
BS and I retract what I cram myself.
Michael
Bible...@aol.comSPAMKILLER wrote:
> >Too bad Mickey doesnt know correctly...and therefore like many JWs has
> >attacked the real truth already posted.
> >NOT AND WILL NEVER CLAIM THEY ARE EVER SHORTER NOR
> >LONGER NOR VARIABLE. I have no desire to accept secular dating contrary to Jehovah
r...@thevision.net wrote:
> How the hell can anyone say exactly how long those seven time periods were? There really isn't that much you can read into it/interprit/etc., is there?
God's command seen by Moses is that the Earth become filled by procreation
until human procreation stops. All would be educated perfectly, knowing what
fruitage on earth must not be eaten, taken, performed to avoid death and thus
live as humans forever. That span of time has always been predicted by
religion as 6000 years to destroy the bad and with 1000 years that Christ can
complete it correctly. Thus the biblical quote that no one will disrupt or ruin
God's rest by entering into it means that the 7th day will end as it was
intended. This means the 7th day is 7000 years long and so the creative eras
before Adam are also 7000 years. Nothing in science has yet to address this
span or contradict it. Religion is claiming each day as 24 hours or as 1000
years. And science is considering itself as having found the facts of organic life
as millions.
> >no matter how many JWs now think the Watchtower let's them. And I would
> >rather worship Jehovah alone than continue with attacks from those who > >claim these replies (such as Variable Creation Days) are from Jehovah.
> Every single Christian thinks that they know the truth about God and all of that God stuff. We all think we're right, but who really knows if there is a God a
> This bugs me. God had to use some method to create man. He might of made him out of clay. God might have just used that analogy to show that man came from t
Michael
tiglath wrote:
> In other words: science is fine when it aids in supporting the existence
> of your God
> but science is bogus when it contradicts your "unassailable" tenets.
False...we are not talking science. We are talking whose choices of
interpretation of that science. You would have to be a child to not
know that the claims for geologic history are not the same as they were
30 years ago. There was no talk of asteroid back then. When I was
a child the schools taught only one ice age...now they claim repeating
cycled ones. They claimed dinosaurs died from gradual weather change
headed toward the ice age.....nobody claimed that these ice ages were
started by an asteroid. Clearly science has to explain the change from a
tropical planet to one of a barren cold winter. But the 19th century stand
against evolution taught it from Genesis....a tropical planet until the Flood
caused an ice age. The churches are guilty, they should have never
permitted you to claim the Flood was back in 10,000 BC.
> Darwin's Evolution has stood magnificently well attacks on all sides for
> over a century. And, sorry mate, but the new science of molecular biology is
> corroborating in the micro world what Darwin deducted by studying the
> macro world.
BS...and lies. Darwin is no longer accepted by modern Evolution.
His ideas have all been dropped because he started with things God has
proven scientifically as false. Not one of Darwin's original theories can be
honored by the modern structure Evolution now publishes.
Michael
Another JW attacking with Satan's spirit against WT knowledge.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@histry/preFlood/7daycreation.gif
You attack like Saul of Tarsus killing Christians.
How can the truth be learned when you yourself dont know it,
and you think christian peace amongst JWs by accepting lies is more
important than defending Jehovah with truth !!!!! ????
Mickey James Bigelow wrote:
> By what you say you
> prove that you are not a Jehovah's Witness. And when some-one comes
> & corrects your thinking who knows better than you, you bash them and say
> they are not witnesses you are hiding some-thing.
> Mickey James Bigelow
Is this the worldy behavior that the Watchtower fails to purge from
those baptised as Jehovah's? When a man such as you is punished for a
public claim to the whole planet, because he is ignorant of true Watchtower
doctrine, he retaliates by saying YOU ARE HIDING SOMETHING ?
This is why victims are created at Kingdom Halls...and some of these
victims Satan has entered as he did Judas wanting to retaliate.
You are not correct of me as Jesus was correct of Judas.
You are Saul of Tarsus...may you spend the rest of your ministry
trying to gain more new brothers than the old ones you slaughter.
Say there Mickey, how many victims have you pushed out and
now when they bash back, you claim it proves you had the
correct knowledge !!!! YOU KNOW BETTER THAN ME....
you better read on.....everybody else will and will see you're
dead wrong in both knowledge and in unchristian responce,
your behavior.
Regarding your......
> Obviously you didn't take enough time to look up what it is that Witnesses
> believe. In the book- How did life get here by evolution or creation;
> Chapter 3 verse 7. It contains:
> " It would seem reasonable that the 'days' of Genesis could likewise
> have embraced long periods of time-millenniums."
> That is longer that a millenium per day as you said.
This sentence from that book refers to 7000 years per day.
They embrace milleniums...not just one millenium per day.
I never said one per day and you better look at the public chart
still posted and linked everytime I reinvite others to see it.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@histry/preFlood/7daycreation.gif
It is in full harmony with Jehovah and your Watchtower; but who out
there will discipline your accusation where you now claim I said...
but never have...never did..and never will say a millenium per day.
My stating these days were 7000 years is not a millenium per day...
they are 7000 per day which as the book says.........
each EMBRACED LONG PERIODS OF MILLENIUMS.
Or doesnt 7000 fit that quote !
Unlike *YOU* who lied and claimed the Watchtower said they could be
variable. This WT quote does not say they are variable or could be.
and no organization will support you for the hole you dug and MUST
apologise for. It is Jehovah and the Watchtower you owe apology to
not me, because you undermined what I presented of Jehovah out
of shear jealousy that you preferred to be a teacher rather than let me
do any teaching. Your zeal was corrupt and caused damage.
Now undo it.
You presume like Saul and like Satan, so sure of yourself as
Peter that you do not stand against Jesus.
Doug Schiffer
Michael wrote:
>
> If you reply without reading this...it shows where your heart is
> toward the whole world.....please do read.
>
> Douglas Weller wrote:
> > Where are the crazy people coming from? One person says carbon dating only
> > good for 7000 years, another for 7 billion. NO ONE uses carbon dating to
> > date the world.
>
> We agree Weller. (A little humor there. Any day I can talk to you scoffing
> me with at least apparent looking facts versus the obvious brainless
> replies of others who will say anything.)
>
> > >projections,setlmentary rock layers etc.says the earth is 6-10 thousand
> > >years old.
> > > why go with the one over the other six?
> > much better, why bother reading a scientist, if you knew what they really
> > say you'd be in trouble!
> > And scientists don't use these do date the world either. These are all
> > rubbish, and certainly don't suggest 6-10 000 years anyway.
>
> C-14 is 70,000 maximum....regarded at that age of being
> greatly unreliable being in such small amounts.
> C-14 is trusted back 50,000 years. Read Libby (or *ANY* C-14 books).
This is essentially correct.
> The water canopy theory causing longevity to drop 12x
> in relation to increased atmospheric penetration of cosmic radiation
> thus creating 12x C-14 would take a chunk of 20,000 years out
> of this C-14 scale.
How was the "12x" figure arrived at?
There is no known way for a "water canopy" to be suspended above the
earth. It would collapse within hours of its formation.
> The formula for C-14 decay shows that a 12x
> difference in amounts of C-14 match mathematical figures expected
> for an object 20,000 years earlier, no matter what pre Flood year
> one chooses.
> measuring 30,000 would be a real 10,000
> measuring 40,000 would be a real 20,000
> measuring 50,000 would be a real 30,000
>
> Thus the reliability would drop to 30,000 years
> and the unreliable maximum would drop to 50,000 years.
>
> Is there any problems you people have with this....
Yes, it is at odds with everything else known about science.
> when facing the fact that others are claiming C-14 measures
> only 7000 yrs or as much as 7 billion years ?????
I know of no scientist who claims C-14 can reach back 7 billion years.
Other isotopes *can* reach back 7 billion years, however. Uranium has
long lived isotopes, for example.
--
*********************************************************************
God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow
mystery.
The deep mystery is the nature of man.
Nanrei Kobori - Buddhist Abbot of the Temple of the Shining Dragon
Modified email address: Delete "XYZ." to respond to me.
Matt Silberstein
In sci.archaeology, on thread _Re: 6000-year world...please read...I
wrote:
>In sci.archaeology, on thread _Re: 6000-year world...please read...I
>have no intent on jibbering_, "MCI" <000...@mcimail.com> wrote:
>
>>Isn't Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? I heard that it is. Just wondering.
>
>AFAIK, the definition of a cult is a smallish religion that is not
>*very* and one that you don't belong to. As such, if you are not a JW,
>it is a cult.
>
Wow, was that bad. I meant to say "not *very* old". Sorry for the
confusion.
Douglas Weller
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 22:49:11 -0400, in sci.archaeology, PZ Myers wrote:
>In article <33B5CAE4...@imperium.net>, Todd <trob...@imperium.net> wrote:
>
>> MCI wrote:
>>
>> > Isn't Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? I heard that it is. Just
>> > wondering.
>> >
>> Yes, it is a cult. A cult can easily be discovered this one trait: That
>> they recognise Jesus Christ as the Son of God BUT, do not recognise that
>> he IS God the Son.
>
>Wow. I had no idea anyone was still fighting over that old Athanasian/Arian
>bit of pedantry. As far as I'm concerned, there is just the tiniest iota
>of difference between the two -- they're both cults!
>
Aw, you beat me to it. Yep, to an outsider they are indistinguishable.
Doug
Ron
Douglas Weller wrote:
> Well, it's not Christian, but that doesn't make it a cult, depends on
your
> definition. And as far as I can see, this thread was started by a witness
> who crossposted it to 11 other newsgroups, and I expect that most people
> replying aren't 'in a witness News Group.'
Actually I am definitely a Christian. Why would you say Jehovah's Witnesses
are not?
As for the crossposting, my apologies to all. I wasn't replying to someone
elses post and didn't notice my reader had picked up all those other
groups. After this post I will be more careful in monitoring that. Again,
my apologies to any who were offended or put out.
John Ings
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:35:51 -0500, Michael
<eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> wrote:
>C-14 is 70,000 maximum....regarded at that age of being
> greatly unreliable being in such small amounts.
>C-14 is trusted back 50,000 years. Read Libby (or *ANY* C-14 books).
Who the hell is Libby? If you're going to cite a reference do it
properly! Title, author, publisher, date of publication . . .
>The water canopy theory causing longevity to drop 12x
>in relation to increased atmospheric penetration of cosmic radiation
Is completely impossible and irrelevant anyway because the effect
would be immediately noticeable. There would be a block of dates for
which no artifacts could be found. There is no such anomaly.
>Is there any problems you people have with this....
>when facing the fact that others are claiming C-14 measures
>only 7000 yrs or as much as 7 billion years ?????
Radiometrication uses other elements besides C14. Radioactive elements
with much longer half lives. The age of the earth is 4.5 billion
years, not 7 to 10. Our world is absolutely beyond all shadow of a
doubt older than 6000 years unless an omnipotent God has been
deliberately scattering billions of false clues all over the universe
with the specific intent of tricking us.
William
Yes but those who believe Genisis 1 say that Adam & Eve were
both created on the the sixth day. Where do you get all these other
dates from? or are we adjusting things to make a non 24 hour day?
Whatever next?
William
William
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:00:09 -0500, Michael
<eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> wrote:
>I expect trees 11,000 years before Adam (4025 BC)....all christians should.
>Each day before Adam was 7000 more years
If each day was 7000 years then the earth was spinning around with no
sun for 21000 years. How could God talk about seperating the waters
etc.
Sun created on day 3 means it was not even 'out there somewhere'
No sun, then no water (only solid ice at least). No good talking
about vapour canopies etc. No sun; no water; no plants no life.
Whatever next?
William
William
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:15:14 -0500, Michael
<eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> wrote:
>karl wrote:
>> It's quite clear that Moses wrote of a literal six day creation. No day
>> age theory is implied. All references to a day in this text is applied to
>> a 24 hour day and not a figurative period.
>
>You are wrong Karl because God himself has created
>everything which scientists test to determine age.
>Scientists come up with billions and millions and 100,000s
>of years pending the topic.
>Their false interpretation of God's created matter
>and energy and elements isnt off so great as to permit
>religious persons to go the other extreme to insist and demand
>only 24 hour periods.
>
>Even the prophets prove this in agreement with secular records.
>Ezekiel said a day for a year and so did Moses.
I've just posted reply to similar.
What are we talking about. If genesis days are hundreds or thousands
of years then the earth was spinning around with no sun for hundreds
or thousands of years (times 3). How could God talk about separating
the waters etc.
Difficult enough for 24 hours but thousands of years . . . .
Sun created on day 3 means it was not even 'out there somewhere'
No sun? then no water (only solid ice at least). No good talking
about vapour canopies etc. No sun; no water; no plants no creatures
no life in days 1 and 2.
Those pushing the greater- than- 24-hours theory come up with a
sensible answer please.
William
William
William
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 14:00:09 -0500, Michael
<eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> wrote:
>I expect trees 11,000 years before Adam (4025 BC)....all christians should.
>Each day before Adam was 7000 more years
If each day was 7000 years then the earth was spinning around with no
sun for 21000 years. How could we talk about seperating the waters
etc on day2
Sun created on day 3 means it was not even 'out there somewhere' for
14000 years of day 1 and day 2
Difficult enough for 24 hour day
7000 years for each day?
No sun, then no water (only solid ice at least). No good talking
about vapour canopies etc. No sun; no water; no plants no life.
Whatever next?
William
Michael
> >Isn't Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? I heard that it is. Just wondering.
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> AFAIK, the definition of a cult is a smallish religion that is not
> *very* and one that you don't belong to. As such, if you are not a JW,
> it is a cult.
> That said, so what? Cults have the same possible chance at valid ideas
> as any other religions. Calling them a cults is argument ad populi (or
> whatever the latin would be).
There are two cults as far as I am concerned.
The archeological definition regarding ancient gods
and the common modern civilian definition which
is split in bias definition.
Modern cults are actually those religions which literally
and physically require that you sacrifice everything.
All your property is the churches, your clothes, your money,
everything. Your freedom is taken or you must volunterily
relinquish it. It is not merely your personal feeling or
opinion that this is being done to you. Liars will claim
the United States government controls you like a puppet
by satellites waves.
This false claim doesnt make the U.S. a cult.
So JWs are not a cult anymore than major denominations.
In fact, specific figures of money are not even asked for
as they are in major churches.
Now the bias definition of this is the idea that any church
that doesnt let you force yourself in as a member and then
start forcing a change in every belief must be a cult in control
of minds. Sorry...but true cults in control of minds do so by
starving you since they have control of your food, and by
consuming 12 hours a day of your life *AT* the confinement
of their church to weaken your sense of reasoning.
Jesus tested himself and spent his fasting ALONE...not
with those who could then manipulate him while weak.
The ancient definition of cult matches modern science.
It is the division of favoritism of one god (force of science)
over another. Such examples are the debate of who is
greater Zeus or Osiris. Zeus means Theos or God or gods
(a pantheon or group force). He is the god of storm, rain,
thunder, lightning, in brevity he is *ALL* weather as is Thor.
A collision by the moon can do far more damage than
weather cycles can. But the moon is not colliding. The moon
causes great tides which can also threaten life, but they are
more predictable than weather. Weather directly daily
effects life survival of man and thus is a greater god. It can
even cover over the moon so that you cant see it
or do anything about it. Cults are divided and keep dividing
because they disagree and see a need to purge or separate
themselves. Thus a Zeus cult will observe the weather
(some observe the planet Jupiter as Zeus)
instead of the moon. They separate themselves from those
who observe the moon as a priority...or Mars...or Saturn.
They also divided themselves as to which moon...full or new.
Which Saturn 30-year winter rising (Saturnalia), annual rising,
or redefine Saturn as the sun (at winter). Cults come from
redefining words and phrases. They will take the expression
to sacrifice your heart and make it real....the Aztecs did this.
They will insist Jesus was dead 3 whole days when he was
a Jew that gave significance to the dates Nisan 14 and 16....
three dates but not 72 hours. So cults do not look at truth,
they debate verbal or written statements......
science fields do this because their members have become cults.
I enjoy scientific discussions with men who do not behave as
part of a scientific cult. I am not out to claim all science or
schools are cults....I am making it clear that cults come in schools
not just religions. They come in governments too, and
in commercial power. So somebody take a good look...
we're more cultish than willing to admit, and attacking only
the ones we dont belong to.
Michael
lunati...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> What do JW's believe? Anything they are told. Originally known as
> Russellites because the Cult was founded by Charles Taze Russell. He
> pursued literal bible interpretation and came up with the construct of a
> religion that denied death, until he died in 1914. OPPS!
He died Oct 31 of 1916...but what would you know since you cant
keep anything straight. First you said the Russelites were a Communist Party
and now they are a Cult. For your info, the name Russelites were formed
by those after his 1916 death (and not your ignorant 1914 claim).
And anyone who said Russelites before 1916 were the enemy of JWs....
the same way blacks never choose the name Niggers but their enemies
did.
> Before he died he proved thru biblical reference that the 2nd coming was
> going to happen in 1874. OPPS! Of course in 1875 he realized he had
> goofed and proceeded and after significant additional biblical research,
MORE lies. Russell was about 26 [?]
when his calling came in 1876 two years
after the Adventist prediction of 1874 as 6000 years.
He was a church listener not any kind of leader in 1874.
A boy working for his father's store. His very first prediction *WAS*
or *IS* that of 1914 which he predicted 120 years ago in Oct 1876.
[ no allusion to Noah of course ]
As the disillusion liar of an anti-JW cult yourself, it is clear you speak
like a white supremis with a mouth full of Satanic crap.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@6000/ruselprof.gif
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@6000/6000ruthford.gif
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@6000/6000wt.gif
> concluded that it was actually going to be in 1914, buying almost 40 more
> years of sucker collection time.
So he never BOUGHT nor extended 40 years of sucker time.
I take it you were in the crowd who enjoyed the power to execute Jesus.
>Guess what? Well, before he died he
> explained that in fact Jesus did come back back decided not to let anyone
> know yet! Yes his followers actually swallow this garbage!
Russell from the start in 1876 was cinvinced the Adventists were right
that Jesus *WAS* present
and that they merely expected Jesus physically or literally seen.
Never did Russell claim this to excuse any 1914 failure of Armageddon.
The invisible presence was clear to him from the start of his first
published article (the Oct 1876 prediction of 1914). He beleived the 1000
years were being ruled since 1874 (two years before he ever stepped
forward in a commission). The concept of not being seen existed from
the start and was not an attempt to avoid humble pie. I myself am accused
of saying things I never did. Many claim that I expected 144,000 or 8000
real Jews in real Jerusalem, though I repetively made clear that New
Jerusalem is in New York across the river Euphrates from the anti-Christ
Babylon's beast who becomes a new world government for 7 years.
(as predicted by me Passover March 1990).
>His succesor
> was Joesph Franklin Rutherford. In a 1966 pamphlet, the latest date was
> 1975. And now that they are 0 for 3 what is the idiot line? "Well it's
> only a matter of time now!" Ya, isn't always just a matter of time?
The year 1975 was known since 1953 and published since 1956.
The 1966 book you guys favor is no small pamphlet.. And I find it amazing
you think that from 1916 that Rutherford made it alive to 1966.
> On an OFFICIAL level, "woman is merely a lowly creature whom god created
> for man's helper."
So you claim...must be single huh?
Ron
Michael <eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> wrote in article
<33B67E...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER>...
> There are two cults as far as I am concerned.
> Modern cults are actually those religions which literally
> and physically require that you sacrifice everything.
I suggest you look up the word cult in a few dictionaries. You may just be
surprised. :)
While some cults may require this of their members it certainly is not one
of the qualifying characteristics in identifying a cult. A cult is nothing
more than a religious group who primarily focus their worship on one God.
Michael
God is real...so to get God...get real.
Anton Johnson wrote:
> We can look at c-14 and other methods of dating and they mean
> little in determing the age of this planet and items on this planet. In
> the N.T. Jesus (God) created wine out of water. It was the very best
> wine. Do you know how long it takes for man to create a good wine?
> Since God can create something instantly is it not reasonable that God
> could have created items in this world as fully grown. We have proof of
> this in Gensis in the fact that God created Adam and Eve as adults. Are
> we to say that when they were created that they were babies? No! They
> were adults. Just some of my thoughts.
Your thinking is understandable but deeply flawed in having no relevance.
A man created as a full grown adult would have adult hormones. But this
does not mean that he would be created with the marks and signs of
someone who has been growing for 20 years. So too God has created things
which have a process of decay but doesnt create it in the stage already
occurred. The process starts WHEN he starts. It is you defining good wine
as a wine very aged in process....perhaps it was good (the best) without
your definition of what best is. Perhaps it had little alcohol or much....
you cannot put an AGE factor on that miracle.
He doesnt skip the dinosaurs totally, why create them alive,
we'll just make them an important element factor (dead bones) of geologic
structure for some great purpose the rock structure needs. That is what such
reasoning becomes like. Do you think God never created live dinosaurs, but
rather just felt the need for fossilized bones in our rock layers ??????
God is real...so to get God...get real.
William
>Anton Johnson wrote:
> We can look at c-14 and other methods of dating and they mean
> little in determing the age of this planet and items on this planet. In
> the N.T. Jesus (God) created wine out of water. It was the very best
> wine. Do you know how long it takes for man to create a good wine?
> Since God can create something instantly is it not reasonable that God
> could have created items in this world as fully grown. We have proof of
> this in Gensis in the fact that God created Adam and Eve as adults. Are
> we to say that when they were created that they were babies? No! They
> were adults. Just some of my thoughts.
So . . . . the big question: did Adam have a navel?
Be careful, a lot depends on the answer to this.
William
Michael
> Michael <eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
> >You are wrong Karl because God himself has created
> >everything which scientists test to determine age.
> >Scientists come up with billions and millions and 100,000s
> >of years pending the topic.
> >Their false interpretation of God's created matter
> >and energy and elements isnt off so great as to permit
> >religious persons to go the other extreme to insist and demand
> >only 24 hour periods.
William wrote:
> What are we talking about. If genesis days are hundreds or thousands
> of years then the earth was spinning around with no sun for hundreds
> or thousands of years (times 3). How could God talk about separating
> the waters etc.
like ancient cults (preference to a single god, blind to others)
reasoning maticulously on one point, blind to another
> Difficult enough for 24 hours but thousands of years . . . .
What's difficult enough !
For 24 hours it is not difficult for all vegetation to be created without sun,
and the sun to come the next day.
But of course it is difficult to claim all plants and sun came only 6000 years
ago in two 24 hour days (3 and 4). It didnt. Truth is between the religious
short version and the popular scientist long version.
> Sun created on day 3 means it was not even 'out there somewhere'
> No sun? then no water (only solid ice at least). No good talking
> about vapour canopies etc. No sun; no water; no plants no creatures
> no life in days 1 and 2.
You people are the ones who cause truth to be stifled. You stay
hung up on the false Genesis instead of the true Genesis. Many of
you stay hung up because you thrive proving Genesis a lie by
anything you yourselves can fabricate as accusation. Others do it,
to get the people who are religious.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/@histry/preFlood/7daycreation.gif
> Those pushing the greater- than- 24-hours theory come up with a
> sensible answer please.
> William
Look at this chart....( and please clear your mind of attack...
it is not a chart advocating a flat earth )
The earth is in orbit around the sun in 46,000 BC when day 1 starts.
They are included in the heavens and earth in the beginning.
The ocean surface is dark 24 hours even though the earth spins
and even though the sun shines. Day 1 the light reaches the ocean so life can
start on a cellular level if it hasnt already started synthetic photosynthesis
in the dark with an electron supply of hydrogen gas.
The atmosphere is made in Day 2, it exists but it is water-logged and
clears by raining condensation and evaporation until a heaven is created
between the ocean below it and the water canopy above it.
32,000 BC the plates rise.....and life on these plates date as 52,000 BC
(54,000 BP)
because the removal of the water canopy causes a 20,000-year sharp
curve in C-14 starting on Jan 6 of 2369 BC (40th day of water canopy
collapse).
Problem 1 = So the SUN was MADE (not created) to be seen on day 4.
Depite those who wish to demand it was created by God day 4 and
say they believe God, and despite those who say this to attack Genesis,
Genesis clearly indicates that the sun was of heaven before day 1.
Problem 2 = So those who then think this sun could not be seen until
day 4 and thus think day 3 was dark again is wrong. Day 1 is not a mere
step toward removing darkness which takes til day 4. Day 1 DOES
remove darkness. Having days and daylight, does not mean that
you can see the sun.
We experience all the time (and ignore this) that days exist which
we cannot see the sun or even where it is at. Without seeing the sun
we still see a big difference between the overcast day and the overcast night.
So if we still experience this effect NOW, why is it that humans
reject and ignore and choose not to recognize these days where we see
no sun. Now your job is to not just understand this as a reasonable person,
but to share this in posting and in conversations so that you stifle the
current lies about day 1 and day 3 and 4. If not, you are no lover of truth.
Everything true should be advocated to the degree of snuffing out the lie.
Michael
> Michael eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
> >C-14 is 70,000 maximum....regarded at that age of being
> > greatly unreliable being in such small amounts.
> >C-14 is trusted back 50,000 years. Read Libby (or *ANY* C-14 books).
John Ings wrote:
> Who the hell is Libby? If you're going to cite a reference do it
> properly! Title, author, publisher, date of publication . . .
Libby the founder of C-14 knowledge in dating is the most common set of
books in university libraries. Nobody searches a university library for C-14
books without seeing Libby's books. The USENET amazes me at its
ignorance. It is like all the Egyptologists who said who is Parker....
the founder of the Oriental Institute of Chicago who did the lunar astronomic
dating of the 12th dynasty of Egypt and of Babylon. It is to such great shame
that these posting-scholars only see their own views in glory.
The structure to world chronology crumbles as each one acts as
if they are a sole Catholic priest of local authority to move mountains.
No wonder you figuratively rape the altar boys of USENET.
> Is completely impossible and irrelevant anyway because the effect
> would be immediately noticeable. There would be a block of dates for
> which no artifacts could be found. There is no such anomaly.
How false. The making of C-14 is instant upon the date Jan 6 of 2369 BC.
But you fail to reason on it. I was far mnore humbler than you and took a
second thought. It takes time for the C-14 which is made to settle and spread.
Thus there is no skip at all...
the artifacts which date from 20,000-10,000 are 2369-2320 BC and
those dating 10,000-5,000 are 2320-2270 BC and
those dating 5000-2400 BC are 2270-2240 BC and
those dating 2400-2030 BC are 2240-2030 BC.
> >Is there any problems you people have with this....
> >when facing the fact that others are claiming C-14 measures
> >only 7000 yrs or as much as 7 billion years ?????
> Radiometrication uses other elements besides C14. Radioactive elements
> with much longer half lives. The age of the earth is 4.5 billion
> years, not 7 to 10. Our world is absolutely beyond all shadow of a
> doubt older than 6000 years unless an omnipotent God has been
> deliberately scattering billions of false clues all over the universe
> with the specific intent of tricking us.
Again a stopped up head, blind eyes, deaf ears.....
nothing i said indicates a planet 6000 years...only humans are 6000 years.
Nobody said the trees are only 6000 years...only humans are 6000 years.
Plants are 34,000 years old, since day 3 started in 32,000 BC.
As for your other methods...they do not measure life.
Only C-14 does....and any other thing you claim measures life you
do so only by association. You date a rock and then claim the life
is equal to the rock. Sorry, dont pull that crap.
Bad enough you get paid to lecture schools to say it.
And those that dont are recruiting.
Everybody recruits....no such thing as not recruiting...
so go to Ellen DeGenerate and get your toaster.
Even Jesus said we are all slaves....happiness is finding who or what
to be a slave to. (Sorry...I'm a slave to truth, not lies which place me
under the power of the men who fabricate them.)
Michael
Matt Silberstein wrote:
> I have a question about the water canopy. What would that do to air
> pressure and temperature?
Good question.
A topic covered by the book Biblical Flood & The Ice Epoch
(Patten)
It answers a vital dispute I have with JWs.
If the angels can materialize before the Flood...
and do wrong things as humans
then why not now ?
Humans can do many things by recipe but can
no longer do them when the recipe is lost or a factor changes.
Try baking a cake with the same recipe in high altitude.
So atmospheric change does change both humans and angels
who come down to be as such.
Further, the question rises...if these angels can make wooden
Egyptian staffs turn into snakes...why not now ?
Clearly, the staffs were not miracles but rather the Egyptian priests
used knowledge of Jehovah (the scientific method of what proves real),
to decieve and gain power (charming the cobra asp to pick it up)
going out to the people and throwing it upon those who dare defy them.
But Moses found Jehovah in Sinai too. He found the nonpoisonous
Hog-nose (some call a king snake) which also stiffens,
does eat cobra asps, and can be picked up again afterward.
Unlike the cobra asps who were too dangerous to pick back up
after throwing them at civilians.
Despite many claiming that exercising true knowledge of Jehovah
is not an inspiration by Jehovah....this is quite debateable.
The apocrapha book of Daniel and the Dragon reveals that
Daniel placed powder on the floor to expose Babylon's priests
as having taken the food, not any dragon.
Also we have the example of Josephus who says that prior to
the attack on Rome's Christians, a temple was plundered by law
because a man paid the priests to hide overnite in the temple.
He claimed he was Adonis so that he could have sex with
a married woman he was after.
Pompeii is an example that Sodom is not the only city punished
by regarding their worship as keeping them safe from the need of flight,
as well as ridding the world of those without sexual moral
(causing others grief in their crimes of lust).
Michael
> Michael eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
> >Adam was created in 4025 BC
> >his wife created in 4005 BC
> >they sinned in 3955 BC
> >and had there son Seth in 3896 BC (after Abel's death)
> >Cain, Abel, and Seth were only 3 of 33 sons...
> >and 23 daughters.
> >9 sons who married their nieces.
William wrote:
> Yes but those who believe Genisis 1 say that Adam & Eve were
> both created on the the sixth day. Where do you get all these other
> dates from? or are we adjusting things to make a non 24 hour day?
Nothing adjusted....
the 7th day is where God rested by making sex.
The sex would continue creating so he could rest until the
earth was filled to the right balance of man and animals.
Animals will always die. They are our warning of how to stay
young and avoid the causes of death. Human population is
done when God chooses, not when humans say we have
too many to care for. That day of rest is over with when Jesus
restores everything by the end of 1000 years (total 7000 for
God's rest). Satan is not permitted to have disrupted that rest of God.
God intends for the 7th day to end GOOD as it would have
without Satan's big mouth claim to Eve.
Her name was Ish (woman) until she sinned. She became
Eve the defiant mother of this planet's defiants when she sinned.
All are sinners; we are all from Eve the mother of all (human) sinners.
That sin was in 3955 BC when Adam was 70 since 4025 BC
and Eve was 50 since 4005 BC.
So mankind himself (the bonded couple) was only 50 years old
when they sinned in 3955 BC. It is a half-day or half-week to
455 BC, the date Daniel was given in 538 BC
for the 70 weeks prophecy.
It counts 3500 years from 3955 BC to 455 BC to 3046 AD
when Jehovah's disrupted 50 years (4005-3955 BC)
is replaced by Satan's attempt on ALL humans
(not just two)
from 2996-3046 AD.
Of course this would mean we live in the year of Armageddon.
Wait and see...but recognize the rapid signs or die.
DiRGe513
In article <33B555...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER>, Michael
<eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> writes:
>
>Adam was created in 4025 BC
>his wife created in 4005 BC
>they sinned in 3955 BC
>and had there son Seth in 3896 BC (after Abel's death)
>Cain, Abel, and Seth were only 3 of 33 sons...
>and 23 daughters.
>9 sons who married their nieces.
No, no, no! Adam was created on Oct 17th, 4011 BC,
Lilith was created with him at 08:35:27 GMT
Lilith was expelled and Eve created to replace her in 4013 on Easter
morning
They were expelled the morning of the next day at noon, precicely, local
time.
The children of Adam and Eve married the children of
Lillith, and thereby avoided any incest.
... are you making this stuff up or something?
* English IS the Lingua Franca
* No, I'm sorry gentlemen, but Communism was just a Red Herring!
*
* All things Natural are under your sway;
* The power's in your word: be aware what you say!
Love, Light & Laughter
Di.R.Ge.
Duncan Craig
The difference between a cult and and culture is ure (your).
The Tao that can be known is not the real Tao. Tao Te Ching
The sun that can be seen is not the real sun. Popul Vuh
Douglas MacGowan
I'm not sure what everyone is so upset about. I think that Michael's
postings are very funny and meant to be taken as humor.
Tryptan Felle
Michael wrote:
>
> > Michael eli...@execpc.com> wrote:
> > >Adam was created in 4025 BC
> > >his wife created in 4005 BC
> > >they sinned in 3955 BC
> > >and had there son Seth in 3896 BC (after Abel's death)
> > >Cain, Abel, and Seth were only 3 of 33 sons...
> > >and 23 daughters.
> > >9 sons who married their nieces.
>
> > Yes but those who believe Genisis 1 say that Adam & Eve were
> > both created on the the sixth day. Where do you get all these other
> > dates from? or are we adjusting things to make a non 24 hour day?
>
> Nothing adjusted....
> the 7th day is where God rested by making sex.
...whatever...
> Her name was Ish (woman) until she sinned. She became
Sorry, Bub. "Ish" means 'man' in Hebrew. "Ishah" means woman/wife. Are all your
calculations based on such accurate information?
[snip meaningless and undecipherable numerology]
> Of course this would mean we live in the year of Armageddon.
> Wait and see...but recognize the rapid signs or die.
I'm still waiting for that asteroid you kept talking about. Where is it? It's late.
-- Tryptan Felle
===============================================
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend,
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
-Groucho Marx
===============================================
1001001
Billy
tvaughn wrote:
>
> Lloyd Zusman <asf...@asfast.com> wrote in article
> <slrn5r3qel...@ljz.asfast.net>...
> > Many varieties of trees grow in such a way that every year, another
> > ring appears in the cross section of the trunk. Scientists have
> > found trees that have in excess of 11,000 rings. This means that
> > these trees lived for at least 11,000 years. This is well beyond
> > 6,000 years.
>
> Lloyd,
> Trees sometimes produce more than one ring in a year. Weather and climate
> anomalies can produce this.
> tva...@mymail.net
Ok, to answer this question. Or, at least add to what is said above.
Not only do trees ocassionally produce more than one ring a year, but
there where a planet full of trees all created full-grown at one time.
These may seem to be 10,000 years old when you may need to subtract many
years(mabey even a few thousand) for the fact that they where created
full grown.
Just my 2 cents.
Billy
Billy
Billy
Doug Schiffer
Ron wrote:
>
> Michael <eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> wrote in article
> <33B67E...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER>...
>
> > There are two cults as far as I am concerned.
> > Modern cults are actually those religions which literally
> > and physically require that you sacrifice everything.
>
> I suggest you look up the word cult in a few dictionaries. You may just be
> surprised. :)
> While some cults may require this of their members it certainly is not one
> of the qualifying characteristics in identifying a cult. A cult is nothing
> more than a religious group who primarily focus their worship on one God.
By my definition, a cult is a religion that is too small to have
political power.
tvaughn
John Ings
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 13:08:39 -0500, Michael
<eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> I have a question about the water canopy. What would that do to air
>> pressure and temperature?
>
>Good question.
>A topic covered by the book Biblical Flood & The Ice Epoch
>(Patten)
AHAH! That's where all this sheepdip is coming from!
Rehashed Velikovsky courtesy D.W. Patten!
A man whose education consists of an MA in geography!
Wow! Talk about expertise!
John Ings
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 12:57:21 -0500, Michael
<eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> wrote:
>John Ings wrote:
>> Who the hell is Libby? If you're going to cite a reference do it
>> properly! Title, author, publisher, date of publication . . .
>
>Libby the founder of C-14 knowledge in dating is the most common set of
>books in university libraries. Nobody searches a university library for C-14
>books without seeing Libby's books.
So have you ever done so? Quote me which passage from which book
that supports your cockeyed view of dendrochronology and its
relationship to C14 dating.
>> Is completely impossible and irrelevant anyway because the effect
>> would be immediately noticeable. There would be a block of dates for
>> which no artifacts could be found. There is no such anomaly.
>
>How false. The making of C-14 is instant upon the date Jan 6 of 2369 BC.
>But you fail to reason on it. I was far mnore humbler than you and took a
>second thought. It takes time for the C-14 which is made to settle and spread.
>Thus there is no skip at all...
>the artifacts which date from 20,000-10,000 are 2369-2320 BC and
>those dating 10,000-5,000 are 2320-2270 BC and
>those dating 5000-2400 BC are 2270-2240 BC and
>those dating 2400-2030 BC are 2240-2030 BC.
Well now, let's see where that little theory leads us.
In Iraq there is a tell that contains the remains of four cities,
which the Bible refers to as Ur of the Chaldees. Each is built atop
the ruins of its predecessor as is common in the middle east. C14
dates from these cities indicate that they were built over a period of
2000 years from 6000 BCE to 4000 BCE. Each city has its own
distinctive building style, different pottery and artifacts, and it is
obvious from the wear and tear found on various items like stone
steps that each was occupied for a considerable length of time.
Yet according to your chronology, these four cities existed in the
span of a mere 30 to 40 years!
As one sparrow said to the other sparrow,
"don't eat that Elmer, that's horseshit!"
>> Radiometrication uses other elements besides C14. Radioactive elements
>> with much longer half lives. The age of the earth is 4.5 billion
>> years, not 7 to 10. Our world is absolutely beyond all shadow of a
>> doubt older than 6000 years unless an omnipotent God has been
>> deliberately scattering billions of false clues all over the universe
>> with the specific intent of tricking us.
>
>Again a stopped up head, blind eyes, deaf ears.....
>nothing i said indicates a planet 6000 years...only humans are 6000 years.
There are human remains well over ten times that old.
>Nobody said the trees are only 6000 years...only humans are 6000 years.
>Plants are 34,000 years old, since day 3 started in 32,000 BC.
Plants have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
>As for your other methods...they do not measure life.
>Only C-14 does....and any other thing you claim measures life you
>do so only by association. You date a rock and then claim the life
>is equal to the rock. Sorry, dont pull that crap.
If you find remains of the life (like a coal seam) a mile underground
and underneath a rock strata whose age is 350 million years, I think
it reasonable to believe the plant was around before the rock was.
The Hermit
On 26 Jun 1997 11:32:53 GMT, "Ron" <R...@erols.com> wrote:
>I find it a bit ironic that so many people who would refuse to talk to
>witnesses at the door will spend so much time in a witness News Group.
>Doesn't matter to me because at least they see God's name everytime they
>log in. <smile> In any case, I just wanted to say that many who post here
>do not reflect the views and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
>
>If you want a discussion on what the witnesses believe, ask a witness or
>check out the official web site at www.watchtower.org.....
>
>
>PS: just so that I stay on topic with this thread....The creation is not
>seven literal 24 hour days but rather seven periods of time. Want to know
>why? Ask one of Jehovah's witnesses. :)
>
What did you say? I must have been in my cave too long. Where does
it say that this is a JW's NG? There is one, but no one posts there.
Regards
The Hermit
.......Adept of the Two Worlds.....
The Hermit
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 18:16:41 -0700, Anton Johnson
<joh...@freeyellow.com> wrote:
>Dear Michael,
> We can look at c-14 and other methods of dating and they mean
>little in determing the age of this planet and items on this planet. In
>the N.T. Jesus (God) created wine out of water. It was the very best
>wine. Do you know how long it takes for man to create a good wine?
>Since God can create something instantly is it not reasonable that God
>could have created items in this world as fully grown. We have proof of
>this in Gensis in the fact that God created Adam and Eve as adults. Are
>we to say that when they were created that they were babies? No! They
>were adults. Just some of my thoughts.
>
You have me slightly confused here. Where does it say that Adam and
Eve were created? I always assumed they were formed.
The Hermit
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997 13:18:32 -0500, Michael
<eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> wrote:
>wsw wrote:
>> Well there we go again, 6000 years is roughly how long Adam & Eve and
>> their offspring have been out of the garden. Give or take a few 1000
>> years.
>> but how long was Adam in the garden before he was blessed with Eve, then
>> how long till Eve partook of the fruit that got them both punted.
>> That could have been millions & millions of years.
>
>Adam was created in 4025 BC
>his wife created in 4005 BC
The word is 'formed' not 'created'.
>they sinned in 3955 BC
>and had there son Seth in 3896 BC (after Abel's death)
>Cain, Abel, and Seth were only 3 of 33 sons...
>and 23 daughters.
>9 sons who married their nieces.
Lloyd Zusman
> Not only do trees ocassionally produce more than one ring a year, but
> there where a planet full of trees all created full-grown at one time.
> These may seem to be 10,000 years old when you may need to subtract many
> years(mabey even a few thousand) for the fact that they where created
> full grown.
So ... are you asserting that God created the world to deceive us?
Creating trees that look 11,000 thousand years old on a
no-more-than-6,000-year-old planet would truly be an act of deception,
especially given the fact that all other scientific measurements that
are taken (i.e., not just tree-ring counting) also point to the earth
being far older than 6,000 years. Why would God create things so that
each and every measurement we take would give us an innacurate age for
the earth, for mankind, for the universe, etc.?
It's my belief that God is *not* a deceiver, and that He did not
create the world to mislead us when we engage in honest, rigorous,
scientific inquiry.
And back to the tree rings: occasional extra tree rings are just
that: occasional. These infrequent, extra tree rings would not
cause an extra 5,000 rings to be added to a tree over a 6,000
year period.
--
Lloyd Zusman
l...@asfast.com
Douglas Weller
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:48:45 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Billy wrote:
[SNIP]
>there where a planet full of trees all created full-grown at one time.
>These may seem to be 10,000 years old when you may need to subtract many
>years(mabey even a few thousand) for the fact that they where created
>full grown.
Which happened, by the way, last Thursday. I must be right, you can't
prove me wrong.
Doug
Ron
The Hermit <wal...@giant.bnc.com.au> wrote in article
<33b91816...@news.netconnect.com.au>...
> What did you say? I must have been in my cave too long. Where does
> it say that this is a JW's NG? There is one, but no one posts there.
Being a newbie to the newsgroup arena I wasn't aware that posts could be
simulcast in many newsgroups at one time. Nor was I aware that responding
to these posts would simulcast the response to all those groups as
well..... I know now. <sheepish grin>
In any case. I will be careful to look at where I am responding to in the
future.
My apologies to any offended.
Don Addison & Darla McClure
On 29 Jun 1997 16:49:16 GMT, "Ron" <R...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>Michael <eli...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER> wrote in article
><33B67E...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER>...
>
>> There are two cults as far as I am concerned.
>> Modern cults are actually those religions which literally
>> and physically require that you sacrifice everything.
>
>
>I suggest you look up the word cult in a few dictionaries. You may just be
>surprised. :)
>While some cults may require this of their members it certainly is not one
>of the qualifying characteristics in identifying a cult. A cult is nothing
>more than a religious group who primarily focus their worship on one God.
>
I would also add that a cult will convince its' followers that their
religion is the ONLY way to enlightenment. Not mentioning any of
course......
**************************************************************
Reply to Myrrdrin & Eris at myrr...@cyberjunkie.com
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3056
One man's theology is another's belly laugh - Robert Heinlein
**************************************************************
Doug Schiffer
Billy wrote:
>
> tvaughn wrote:
> >
> > Lloyd Zusman <asf...@asfast.com> wrote in article
> > <slrn5r3qel...@ljz.asfast.net>...
> > > Many varieties of trees grow in such a way that every year, another
> > > ring appears in the cross section of the trunk. Scientists have
> > > found trees that have in excess of 11,000 rings. This means that
> > > these trees lived for at least 11,000 years. This is well beyond
> > > 6,000 years.
> >
> > Lloyd,
> > Trees sometimes produce more than one ring in a year. Weather and climate
> > anomalies can produce this.
> > tva...@mymail.net
>
> Ok, to answer this question. Or, at least add to what is said above.
> Not only do trees ocassionally produce more than one ring a year, but
> These may seem to be 10,000 years old when you may need to subtract many
> years(mabey even a few thousand) for the fact that they where created
> full grown.
Yep, and the church of Last Tuesday says they were all created last
Tuesday.
Anybody who says they remember anything farther back than that is a tool
of the Evil One!
BATMAN
BATMAN
that's all. Follow what Jesus teaches in the new testament-don't
look to the left or the right keep your eyes on Jesus.
EliJehovah
> >the artifacts which date from 20,000-10,000 are 2369-2320 BC and
> >those dating 10,000-5,000 are 2320-2270 BC and
> >those dating 5000-2400 BC are 2270-2240 BC and
> >those dating 2400-2030 BC are 2240-2030 BC.
John Ings wrote:
> Well now, let's see where that little theory leads us.
> In Iraq there is a tell that contains the remains of four cities,
> which the Bible refers to as Ur of the Chaldees. Each is built atop
> the ruins of its predecessor as is common in the middle east. C14
> dates from these cities indicate that they were built over a period of
> 2000 years from 6000 BCE to 4000 BCE. Each city has its own
> distinctive building style, different pottery and artifacts, and it is
> obvious from the wear and tear found on various items like stone
> steps that each was occupied for a considerable length of time.
> Yet according to your chronology, these four cities existed in the
> span of a mere 30 to 40 years!
Genesis says that that Arpakshad's son (the whole land of Chaldea
which is called his SON) Cainan was born or built in his 130th year
which is 2239 BC. The sothic 180-degree shift of the moon is then
confirmed in that it is 725 years (25 yrs = 309 moons) from Ur til
the Exodus plagues of 1514 BC. Genesis indicates who built Ur too.
It is Peleg who thus must be Mesannipadda. Scholars have proof
that Mesannipadda and Gilgamesh were contemporary. And Gilgemesh
feared that man was dying and so went to see Noah. Genesis says
Peleg died at 239 when Noah was still alive at 940. So far everything
fits according to C-14. So you are telling me that your 6000 BC Ur is my
2239 BC Ur......I can see the curve, why cant you. (Peleg died in 2030 BC
the C-14 dates of the Royal Tombs....accepted straight from the university
as they are....actual date of suicide is May 2-6 of 2029 BC...see Osiris,
see moon, see venus, see Koiak 25 as X-mass date)
The Hindu said Chaldea died in 1900 BC....Arpakshad's son Shelah
died at 433 being born in 2333 BC.
The Hindu mistakenly take venus lunar dates of Ammizaduga (1625 BC)
as this 1900 BC so that they confuse the end of Shemetic Chaldea with
the dying of Akkadian Chaldea. Akkad conquered Shem's sons.
> >Again a stopped up head, blind eyes, deaf ears.....
> >nothing i said indicates a planet 6000 years...only humans are 6000 years.
> There are human remains well over ten times that old.
You cannot prove 60,000 year old remains as human.
And any dating within 20,000 yrs are really this side of a 4365-yr old
global Flood.
> >Nobody said the trees are only 6000 years...only humans are 6000 years.
> >Plants are 34,000 years old, since day 3 started in 32,000 BC.
> Plants have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Say so, but that's your cult not mine.
> >As for your other methods...they do not measure life.
> >Only C-14 does....and any other thing you claim measures life you
> >do so only by association. You date a rock and then claim the life
> >is equal to the rock. Sorry, dont pull that crap.
> If you find remains of the life (like a coal seam) a mile underground
> and underneath a rock strata whose age is 350 million years, I think
> it reasonable to believe the plant was around before the rock was.
THINK........the rock could be 350 million years old before it was
laid down. Further, the coal dates as 20,000 yrs by C-14 scientists
though its under your 350 million year rock. Or are only your appointed
choices for authority accepted. Again it is like which man will you follow.
Hitler, the Pope, Darwin.....I'll follow my God. He speaks louder than you.
Gerry Sargent
Ron wrote:
>
> MCI <000...@mcimail.com> wrote in article
> <01bc8379$54caf580$59ec...@HTN01355.bms.mci.com>...
> > Isn't Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? I heard that it is. Just wondering.
> >
>
> First off, the correct grammar would be "Aren't Jehovah's witnesses a
> cult". :)
>
> In any case, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I would happy to answer
> your question. First, "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
> Language" (New College Edition), defines the word cult thusly.....
>
> cult - n. A system or community of religious worship and ritual,
> especially one focusing upon a single deity or spirit.
>
> Jehovahs Witnesses do worship only one God. We are a community of religious
> worshippers.
> hmmm... I guess we are a cult. :) Are you?
Grammar?
Firstly - not 'first off'. What is 'off' first of?
Secondly - whatever does the word 'thusly' mean?
Thirdly - is there an 'n' missing somewhere - or perhaps a Freudian
substitution?
John Ings
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:23:20 -0500, EliJehovah <eli...@execpc.com>
wrote:
>> >the artifacts which date from 20,000-10,000 are 2369-2320 BC and
>> >those dating 10,000-5,000 are 2320-2270 BC and
>> >those dating 5000-2400 BC are 2270-2240 BC and
>> >those dating 2400-2030 BC are 2240-2030 BC.
>
>John Ings wrote:
>> Well now, let's see where that little theory leads us.
>> In Iraq there is a tell that contains the remains of four cities,
>> which the Bible refers to as Ur of the Chaldees. Each is built atop
>> the ruins of its predecessor as is common in the middle east. C14
>> dates from these cities indicate that they were built over a period of
>> 2000 years from 6000 BCE to 4000 BCE. Each city has its own
>> distinctive building style, different pottery and artifacts, and it is
>> obvious from the wear and tear found on various items like stone
>> steps that each was occupied for a considerable length of time.
>> Yet according to your chronology, these four cities existed in the
>> span of a mere 30 to 40 years!
>
>Genesis says that that Arpakshad's son (the whole land of Chaldea
>which is called his SON) Cainan was born or built in his 130th year
>which is 2239 BC. [ . . . ] So far everything fits according to C-14.
>So you are telling me that your 6000 BC Ur is my
>2239 BC Ur
Now what about the other three cities????
According to your skewed C-14 interpretation, they were all built
atop each other and lived in for centuries by four different cultures
within 40 years. Explain how this was done please . . .
>> >Again a stopped up head, blind eyes, deaf ears.....
>> >nothing i said indicates a planet 6000 years...only humans are 6000 years.
>
>> There are human remains well over ten times that old.
>
>You cannot prove 60,000 year old remains as human.
Easily.
>And any dating within 20,000 yrs are really this side of a 4365-yr old
>global Flood.
No global flood has occured. That is easily refutable for lots of
reasons.
1. No evidence of it in Antarctic and Greenland Ice cores
2. No evidence of it in salt deposits worldwide.
3. Mud brick ruins in mesopotamia over 9000 years old.
4. Coral reefs worldwide that would have died as a result of any major
change in sea level.
5. Plant life worldwide that would have been killed off by prolonged
immersion, especially if the flood waters were salt.
6. Salt water life forms worldwide that would have been killed off if
the floodwaters were not sufficiently saline.
7.No place for the floodwaters to come from, and no place for them to
go to.
8. The survival of indigenous life forms that live in only one
location and are utterly dependent on the plant life that flourishes
there. e.g. Koala bears which live exclusively on eucalyptus.
>> >Nobody said the trees are only 6000 years...only humans are 6000 years.
>> >Plants are 34,000 years old, since day 3 started in 32,000 BC.
>
>> Plants have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
>
>Say so, but that's your cult not mine.
That's the result of all sorts of scientific evidence.
>> >As for your other methods...they do not measure life.
>> >Only C-14 does....and any other thing you claim measures life you
>> >do so only by association. You date a rock and then claim the life
>> >is equal to the rock. Sorry, dont pull that crap.
>
>> If you find remains of the life (like a coal seam) a mile underground
>> and underneath a rock strata whose age is 350 million years, I think
>> it reasonable to believe the plant was around before the rock was.
>
>THINK........the rock could be 350 million years old before it was
>laid down.
Lets see now.
Rock formation that measures 200 million years old.
Coal seam.
Rock formation that measures 250 million years old
Another coal seam.
Rock formation that measures 300 million years old
Another coal seam
Rock formation that measures 350 million years old
Another coal seam
So each of these sucessive these rock formations each just happened to
be of younger materials than the ones laid down before it? EVERY time
we come apon such a formation this is the case, but it's just
coincidence? And the coal seams just happen to contain fossils of
plants that are of increasingly complex forms in each sucessively
higher layer? The plants didn't evolve, they just chanced to get
sorted out with the simpler, more primitive kinds lower down?
>Further, the coal dates as 20,000 yrs by C-14 scientists
No way. Show me a scientist that has made any such measurement.
>though its under your 350 million year rock. Or are only your appointed
>choices for authority accepted.
Qualified scientists are accepted.
NOT your friend Patten with the MA in geography.
>.I'll follow my God. He speaks louder than you.
Hearing voices huh? You and Joan of Arc.
Nantko Schanssema
Doug Schiffer <dsch...@XYZ.servtech.com> wrote:
>Ron wrote:
>By my definition, a cult is a religion that is too small to have
>political power.
Does that mean a church is a cult with an army?
Regards,
Nantko
Governments, like diapers, should be changed often, and for the same reason.
(For replies, remove underscore from email address.)
lunati...@rocketmail.com
In article <33B691...@execpc.comSPAMKILLER>,
Bible...@aol.comSPAMKILLER wrote:
>
> lunati...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> > What do JW's believe? Anything they are told. Originally known as
> > Russellites because the Cult was founded by Charles Taze Russell. He
> > pursued literal bible interpretation and came up with the construct of a
> > religion that denied death, until he died in 1914. OPPS!
>
> He died Oct 31 of 1916...
My error, A typo tied to his dating of the worlds end.
> but what would you know since you cant keep anything straight. First you
> said the Russelites were a Communist Party
OK, I made a typo and explained it. Let's see where you get that I EVER
said that the Russelites were a Communist Party? Please show exact quote
attributable to me.
> and now they are a Cult. For your info, the name Russelites were formed
> by those after his 1916 death (and not your ignorant 1914 claim).
I checked a number of other sources to confirm my position. And since it
is easy to quote from the net, the following is from
http://easyweb.firmware.com.au/mandate/jws.htm ***************** In 1870
he attended meetings conducted by JONAS WENDELL, a Second-Adventist, in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was at these meetings that Russell learnt
some of the views and teachings still adhered to in part by the
Seventh-day Adventists. He attended this group until 1875, and in 1876,
he met N.H. BARBOUR of Rochester, N.Y. In this group the leader was
teaching that the second coming of Christ was to be spiritual, and not
visible as the Adventists taught.
Along with Barbour, C.T. RUSSELL, adopting this belief, eventually left
the Adventists. In 1877, BARBOUR and RUSSELL published a book entitled
"Three Worlds and Plan of Redemption". 'This book set forth their belief
that Christ's second presence began invisibly in the fall (Autumn) of
1874 ....... in 1879 Russell began the publication of "Zion's Watchtower
& Herald of Christ's Presence", now known as "Watchtower". December 13th,
1884, was the official beginning of the Jehovah's Witness movement.
********************
This is confirmed in a number of other texts.
> And anyone who said Russelites before 1916 were the enemy of JWs....
No doubt, and obviously still are, or at least treated as such!
> > Before he died he proved thru biblical reference that the 2nd coming was
> > going to happen in 1874. OPPS! Of course in 1875 he realized he had
> > goofed and proceeded and after significant additional biblical research,
>
> MORE lies. Russell was about 26 [?]
> when his calling came in 1876 two years
> after the Adventist prediction of 1874 as 6000 years.
> He was a church listener not any kind of leader in 1874.
> A boy working for his father's store. His very first prediction *WAS*
> or *IS* that of 1914 which he predicted 120 years ago in Oct 1876.
Read the above. He STATES in writting that the mythical Jesus returned
INVISIBLY in 1874. I guess as the EASTER BUNNY does?
> As the disillusion liar of an anti-JW cult yourself,
I am a proud ATHEIST, to call that a cult is to call wellness a disease.
> it is clear you speak like a white supremis with a mouth full of Satanic crap.
??? again I call your accuraccy into question. Where have I EVER said
anything that could even remotely be called racist in the least?
> > concluded that it was actually going to be in 1914, buying almost 40 more
> > years of sucker collection time.
>
> So he never BOUGHT nor extended 40 years of sucker time.
> I take it you were in the crowd who enjoyed the power to execute Jesus.
What Jesus? There never was a biblical Jesus the Christ. The myth was
invented by Paul.
> >Guess what? Well, before he died he
> > explained that in fact Jesus did come back back decided not to let anyone
> > know yet! Yes his followers actually swallow this garbage!
>
> Russell from the start in 1876 was cinvinced the Adventists were right
> that Jesus *WAS* present
> and that they merely expected Jesus physically or literally seen.
> Never did Russell claim this to excuse any 1914 failure of Armageddon.
So you LIED when you said he wasn't in contention before his death in
1916? Here you STATE "Russell from the start in 1876". Ya, he never did
give a credible excuse for his utter failure. Only those ignorant to
follow him in the first place expected such nonsense to come true. And
they would swallow anything he said to excuse it.
> The invisible presence was clear to him
Now that is truly a laughable statement "invisible" is "clear" to him?
THat really cracks me up!!!! And what was the evidence, that not only
could you not SEE him, but could not detect his existence in ANY fashion?
What a HOOT you people are!
> I myself am accused
> of saying things I never did. Many claim that I expected 144,000 or 8000
> real Jews in real Jerusalem,
I have no idea how you are or what other garbage you have claimed.
> >His succesor
> > was Joesph Franklin Rutherford. In a 1966 pamphlet, the latest date was
> > 1975. And now that they are 0 for 3 what is the idiot line? "Well it's
> > only a matter of time now!" Ya, isn't always just a matter of time?
>
> The year 1975 was known since 1953 and published since 1956.
> The 1966 book you guys favor is no small pamphlet.. And I find it amazing
> you think that from 1916 that Rutherford made it alive to 1966.
It is obvious you have a significant lack of the ability to reason or
think logically. If you read what I actually wrote (and I still expect
you to support your claims of my calling JW's a Communistic operation and
my using racist statements.) you will see 2 distinct statements. 1) JFR
followed him 2) a 1966 pamphlet stating 1975
I never said JFR was/ is alive or made the 1966 pamphlet. Should you ever
learn to correctly evaluate info, you would stop believing such nonsense
as JW.
> > On an OFFICIAL level, "woman is merely a lowly creature whom god created
> > for man's helper."
>
> So you claim...must be single huh?
This statement is from official JW garbage. NOT ME!
> > And just how many of their children do they kill by not allowing simple
> > medical treatment like blood transfusions? And what does their health
> > beliefs do for them? They have 3 times the admittance to psychiatric
> > hospitals than the general population. But the research is possibly
> > indicating, not that JW belief CAUSES the mental disfunction as much as
> > it might just be more libel to attract those that already have these
> > mental problems.
What no answer to these TRUTHS?
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Doug Schiffer
Tryptan Felle wrote:
>
> Michael wrote:
> > Of course this would mean we live in the year of Armageddon.
> > Wait and see...but recognize the rapid signs or die.
>
> I'm still waiting for that asteroid you kept talking about. Where is it? It's > late.
>
> -- Tryptan Felle
>
> ===============================================
> "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend,
> Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
> -Groucho Marx
> ===============================================
> 1001001
That's the only song I know that mentions an ASCII code point value
- in binary no less.
Paul Duca
> > > greatly unreliable being in such small amounts.
> > >C-14 is trusted back 50,000 years. Read Libby (or *ANY* C-14 books).
>
> John Ings wrote:
> > Who the hell is Libby? If you're going to cite a reference do it
> > properly! Title, author, publisher, date of publication . . .
>
> Libby the founder of C-14 knowledge in dating is the most common set of
> books in university libraries. Nobody searches a university library for C-14
> ignorance. It is like all the Egyptologists who said who is Parker....
> the founder of the Oriental Institute of Chicago who did the lunar astronomic
> dating of the 12th dynasty of Egypt and of Babylon. It is to such great shame
> that these posting-scholars only see their own views in glory.
> The structure to world chronology crumbles as each one acts as
> if they are a sole Catholic priest of local authority to move mountains.
> No wonder you figuratively rape the altar boys of USENET.
>
> > Is completely impossible and irrelevant anyway because the effect
> > would be immediately noticeable. There would be a block of dates for
> > which no artifacts could be found. There is no such anomaly.
>
> How false. The making of C-14 is instant upon the date Jan 6 of 2369 BC.
> But you fail to reason on it. I was far mnore humbler than you and took a
> second thought. It takes time for the C-14 which is made to settle and spread.
> Thus there is no skip at all...
> those dating 10,000-5,000 are 2320-2270 BC and
> those dating 5000-2400 BC are 2270-2240 BC and
> those dating 2400-2030 BC are 2240-2030 BC.
>
> > >when facing the fact that others are claiming C-14 measures
> > >only 7000 yrs or as much as 7 billion years ?????
>
> > Radiometrication uses other elements besides C14. Radioactive elements
> > with much longer half lives. The age of the earth is 4.5 billion
> > years, not 7 to 10. Our world is absolutely beyond all shadow of a
> > doubt older than 6000 years unless an omnipotent God has been
> > deliberately scattering billions of false clues all over the universe
> > with the specific intent of tricking us.
>
> nothing i said indicates a planet 6000 years...only humans are 6000 years.
> Plants are 34,000 years old, since day 3 started in 32,000 BC.
> Only C-14 does....and any other thing you claim measures life you
> do so only by association. You date a rock and then claim the life
> is equal to the rock. Sorry, dont pull that crap.
> And those that dont are recruiting.
> Everybody recruits....no such thing as not recruiting...
> so go to Ellen DeGenerate and get your toaster.
> Even Jesus said we are all slaves....happiness is finding who or what
> to be a slave to. (Sorry...I'm a slave to truth, not lies which place me
> under the power of the men who fabricate them.)
And we all KNOW the slaves of Jesus are fabulously weathly, attractive,
glamourous people with exciting lives full of fun and adventure....
Paul Duca
Apparently Michael(Bibl...@aol.com)is a Jehovah's Witness...
*******************************************
I'm seen some of their pamphlets describing their heaven...men building
the log cabins that make up the entire housing stock, women gawking over
mutant oversized vegetables, children playing with lions and tigers and
bears(oh my).
Also, you spend a few too many Christmases not getting any presents,
that can make you a little squirrly. Xmas gives me enough
trouble--without the presents, I wouldn't even bother.