Messages

quote:Originally posted by Mustardseed

Hi GR
Man you do write some big posts[]. I dont know why, but I always feel like......oh ohhhh GR is answering . excrement another bunch of home work to do. I always have do all this crummy internet stuf when I have to answer you. anyway here goes[]

First of all I took the test and surprise I am neither!!! I do not want to be boxed in and some questions I had no answer for so that probably makes me a ....freak[] I am OK with that. Cute test anyway.

 Ha ha ha!  Same result as mine, so there are officially two 'freaks' now. [8D]

quote:Originally posted by Mustardseed

My problem with your answer , well problem is saying a lot not really problem but rather ......question, is this.

What are you talking about!!!!

OK so I said "Christians" my mistake. Try to get to the core of my post. I will ask again.: How come you and Beth ask for PROOF of the Historical Jesus and makes this proof or rather the lack of it your reason to disbelieve in him, while on the other hand seem to accept various wierd and wonderful belief systems including OBEs Astral worlds, spiritual entities, reincarnation and on and on ALL BY FAITH , no proof needed no questions. For goodness sake we have people claiming to channel the Pleiadeans , converse with reptileans and making ki balls moving cars with the power of thought!!!!!And I am the only one held accountable and grilled for proof. []If you cannot see the funny side of this you suffer from a very serious case of "ITAKEMYSELFTOOSERIOUSLY" it is a very contageious virus. You remind me of a line from a old movie "Heaven can wait"...our hero is asked in a meeting with the press.."is it true that your atomic plant if it fails could destroy parts of California"...at this point his spin doctor pipes up and says

"I think you will have to define destroy".

Have a laugh at yourself. Look at the threads in this forum and stop being so .........so......whatever[]. Give me a break at least and lets just talk about stuf. Lets explore each others universe lets compare notes lets be friends and for Gods sake ..... accept the fact that we all might be wrong. We are on earth if there is a God he is in heaven. He might have made the whole blasted thing , by creation or evolution whatever!!!!But I tell you if "He is", he is a whole lot smarter that we are and .....I think he is laughing his butt off.

Regards Mustardseed

Hey, there I'll agree with you, he is laughing, wherever he is. I'm just a little too used to the religious debates down here in the southern part of Texas.  Folks take it damn serious, and you had better come to a debate packing.  So... with that said, I probably do have a little seriousness interjected within these posts.  But my viewpoint comes from someone who wants to know the truth and thinks we have come too far to let anything or anyone slide us back to the realms of ignorance.  The truth will set us free, free to be whoever it is we were meant to be, what that is, I don't know yet.  So that is why I ask the questions.

I don't know where I was being offensive or sitting 'on-high' in my previous statements (at least those on page 3), point them out then if that's what you believe.  

But you need not fear me being "offended" to the point of not talking to you.  I just treat verbal or written debates like Randori.  I get serious, I get physical, and when the dust settles, if you've whooped my butt with facts and truth.  I will hand it to you.  If not, the beer's on you, so-to-speak.  

I don't see you-yourself as being particularly offensive at all. But I reread what I wrote, and other than challenging, I fail to see the offense.  I just stated what I believed, backed it up with links, quotes, or both.  I threw in my own personal conjecture and opinion and left it at that.  I would like to get to know you and where you stand on neutral ground, so why don't we p.m. each other... sounds about as good as any other way of learning about each other.

Ha ha ha... I almost regret saying this (as I am a bibliophile and my wife already thinks I have too many books...) I am going to get the books mentioned here.  Thanks for contributing to my delinquency folks!  Ha ha ha!

[Does anyone here seriously have contact with any Rep's? If you have had contact and feel comfortable talking about it openly, what would be some of the lessons you've learned/gleaned from your contact with Reptilians? Whether that contact was through dreams, O.B.E., A.P., or otherwise... If you haven't, or you wouldn't, or... if you had but have had BAD experiances with this specific group, why would you not do so again, if at all?Thanks for your input!]

quote:Originally posted by GhostRider


Does anyone here seriously have contact with any Rep's?  
If you have had contact and feel comfortable talking about it openly, what would be some of the lessons you've learned/gleaned from your contact with Reptilians?  Whether that contact was through dreams, O.B.E., A.P., or otherwise...

If you haven't, or you wouldn't, or... if you had but have had BAD experiances with this specific group, why would you not do so again, if at all?

Thanks for your input!

Okay... now is there anyone who has had Reptilian contact, either in a real, physical sense, in an O.B.E. or Astral Projection or in your lucid dreams?

[Mustardseed, with all due respect, are you sure you speak for ALL Christians? Your quote of]

First, let's acertain whether or not you think like a Catholic or a Protestant... then we'll be sure to know how to speak a common tongue?
....... take this test and tell me the results...
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/catholic-protestant_test.html

Mustardseed, with all due respect, are you sure you speak for ALL Christians?  
Your quote of...,"Just becourse there is very little archaelogic early evidence does not mean it did not happen. I certainly admit that we are hard pressed to find His first shoes, baby teeth kept in a jar, or his bitemark on a fozzilised fish however as I said this is in keeping with how we as Christians understand the nature and God and could be part of the plan. "they that come to God must BELIEVE that he is, and that He is a rewarder of those who dilligently seek Him" . I could qoute u a string of verses here but wont. If you are interested look up "believe" and "faith" in a concordance, and while you are at it look up "proved", "evidence" , "hard fact" too"

Hmmm... but since the MAJORITY of christians are Catholic and the MAJORITY of non-catholic Christians are of the eastern ORTHODOX persuasion a.k.a... protestants... that is a fairly ERRONEOUS assumption, wouldn't you say?

 I base this on the very fact that most Christians, and that's especially including the ones who are sent to "Christian" schools are taught of Darwin's theory of evolution, AND they are taught that mostly the bible is a metaphor, a story of tales and morality fables that you can base your life on.  Nowhere in the whole of Catholicism do they teach that CREATIONISM IS RIGHT.  And since I have good friends who teach in either a orthodox school or christian schools (either side of the border), nowhere do they teach that Creationist doctrine espoused by so many fear-mongering fundamentalists down here in the states.  Simply put, they don't want to give their students a dissadvantage by sending out the next generation of "flat-earther's".  It's a harsh world, arm your kids with knowledge, academic tools, FACTS...don't load garbage on him or her.  Leave that to MTV and Reality-T.V. shows...

Just in case you were confused...

Catholicism... (estimated total of 1 billion followers)

http://www.vocation.com/content-f5z.htm

"There are 1,005,254,000 (just over a billion)) Catholics in the world now. 49.32% of them are in America, 28.18% in Europe, 11.23% in Africa, 10.47% in Asia, and .8% in Oceania."


I know what you're thinking, a lot of Americans aren't Catholic.  But if they're not Catholic, they're one of dozens of other christian-based faiths that MAY-OR-MAY-NOT agree with each other.  Some preach that EVERYONE in the country are deserving of God's love, some preach tolerance to other faiths, MOST of them don't though...(going by the ministers I know and I know dozens literally, T.V. Ministries out there, and all the literature I come across)
So I guess what I'm saying is that for a tiny minority of American christians...almost all of them protestant, and more often than not, members of "un-orthodox" churches who believe in talking directly to God, faith healing, speaking in tongues, testing your faith with snakes, rolling in the isles, and MILKING their flock DRY of money, the world must seem like one big scary place that needs to be "brought over to Jesus" otherwise, we're all (those who do not think as they do) going to hell.  I would disagree... but in the future, don't include statements that would lump all of Christendom into the same backward lot.  We DON"T all think alike, and the majority of us DO see reason and science as a GREAT addition to ENLIGHTENED thought.  It's just not as easy to tow this road as thinking like that can cause one to work up a sweat from time to time, especially if they're unaccustomed to it.  

So it does strike me as funny that one lone christian can speak for many (or all) the rest of the christians out there.  We don't all think alike.  And I'll back that up with fact, links and quotes if you want.  Some of us are indeed, interested in the truth.


http://www.net-burst.net/hot/facts.htm

Figures from Encyclopedia Britannica,
probably the most respected of all encyclopedias

A non-religious encyclopedia can be expected to mix together everyone who claims to belong to a certain religion, regards of whether their commitment is strong enough to change their lives. So it is hardly surprising that the following figures are larger than others I quote. Nevertheless, they are very interesting. The real world is surprisingly different to what most of us think.


* 33.0% of people in the world are Christian
* 19.3% are Muslim

* 15.3% are atheists or non-religious

* 13.4% are Hindu

* 6.4% follow traditional Chinese religions
* 6.0% are Buddhist
* 3.8% follow tribal or indigenous religions

* 1.7% belong to religions created since 1800

* 0.4 % are Sikhs

* 0.2% are Jews

[except for the first point]

Mustardseed, it would appear we don't completely disagree on everything afterall.  For we both believe in God, so maybe there is hope afterall... but as to your comments previously... thank you for being thorough and direct, but I dissagree with you on many points (except for the first point) and here they are...


Mustardseed Wrote...

"Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt."

~This is especially necessary (to argue it's validity) since unlike OTHER historical documents the ardent supporters of the Christian Bible, in the U.S.A. and in some other countries would like to see so many LAWS and Regulations passed in accordance with it.  LAWS, POLICY and REGULATIONS that will affect the MAJORITY of Americans who do (while they may believe in a GOD of some form, be it Christian or otherwise...) do not follow the text of the Christian Bible to the letter.  And if ANYONE wishes to make the case for Bible-influenced LAWS, POLICY and REGULATIONS that AFFECT ME and many others... then you had BETTER prove that the Bible is at least 65% accurate.   I would and many others would NOT wish to have a document with less than that for accuracy and credibility defining the course and means of how we can live our lives.

In fact, it is impossible to prove the Bible is even that accurate.  And I'll give you the sites that would support me.  And these aren't even Bible-hating sites, they are THE final scholarly authority on the bible.  They make any other scholar seem amateurish in comparison... argue if you wish, but even most fundamentalist-bible scholars look to them as an authority on the subject. And if that's the case, that what I just said is in fact correct (and it is...) then maybe just MAYBE... folks better lay off the bible-as-a-historically-viable-document.  It is a historical document.  Written throughout different time periods, and by the hands of many authors.  But accurate, it was not.

It was a document used to support and validate a religious movement that has brought SO much more pain, suffering, and bloodshed as well as hate than it has brought peace and love.  Jesus, whoever he is, and wherever he is now, would be thoroughly disgusted with the Christian movement, the Jewish movement, and the Islamic movement. Those three faiths have come a long way since that, but at least they mostly admit that science is right.  So why are the fundamentalist protestants saying that...?  All three faiths being close cousins of the same  root faith... here's those links, but first a quote from that Catholic site...


http://www.epiphanychurch.org/question/question59.htm


"The Church does not agree with those who say that the evolution model denies that God is the creator or that it denies the spiritual reality of the human soul."

And this quote...

"Doesn't the theory of evolution go against the biblical account of creation?
This question can be answered only if we understand clearly what the Bible actually says about creation. A careful reading of the account in the Book of Genesis indicates clearly that the so-called "six day" account of the creation is a poetic description of the origin of the world, which makes two points very clear: first, that everything in the universe was created by God and that, therefore, contrary to what some other religions teach, nothing in creation is to be worshipped as though it were a god or a part of God. The story of the creation in the Book of Genesis in the Bible is not, and was never meant to be, a scientific document giving the scientific details of how the universe came into being and how it has developed since its origins.
The view prevailing among most theologians today is that there is no conflict between the evolution model of the origin and development of life "

http://www.2think.org/pope.shtml

- A VERY good Jewish site supporting the Bible and Darwin's Theory of Evolution as compatible.
http://www.hanefesh.com/edu/Evolution.htm

- on life elsewhere in the universe...say... Mars?
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk960816/usmars.htm

- a Islamic site where they go into NOT that Darwin was wrong, they talk about things he missed, and that he wasn't the FIRST to theorize it, and that the Quran teaches it as well as the BIG BANG...

"In contrast, the Quran describes the formation of the universe as a big bang, beginning with the creation of the heavens and the earths. The plurality of these terms is stressed in order to indicate that there are numerous galaxies. Next, the formation of water, the development of the land, and the creation of plants and animals took place (7:54, 41:9-12, 21:30, 44:7, 78:37). This account coincides with current scientific data. For example, according to the Quran, humans were created in the fourth period on earth, and geologists have concluded that humans appeared in the quaternary, or fourth, era. Furthermore, the Quran indicates that water was the first thing created on earth, and this is also supported by the scientific conclusion that water is the basis of life. Plus, the Quran advocates evolutionary change (15:19-21), unlike the Christian scriptures. Not all religions conflict with science, as has been shown of Islam. Many of the ideas present in the Quran have been adopted by evolutionists. Today, many Christian scholars have reluctantly compromised traditional theories and are willing to accept the scientific data concerning evolution; however, they maintain that the biblical accounts are symbolic and inspired by God."

http://www.icgt.org/MonitorPastArticles/IslamicEvolution.htm

Go ahead, debate me on Darwin's Theory of Evolution, debate me on the Big Bang, debate me on carbon dating... but I too have some religious heavy-weights in MY corner backing up the theory I support.  We (religious authorities and myself) may not agree exactly on everything, but they wouldn't agree with fundamentalist thinking.  Good to see Reason and Science haven't left their true home, the churches.

Mustardseed wrote....

"The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare, developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about. If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.

The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same"

~ Here then is some verified FACT that should allay your fears and points... .

"The last problem to solve is the amount of C-14 in comparison to the amount of C-12 in the atmosphere. C-12 levels need to be verified as constant over the last 50,000 years or so. Going back to our analogy, this would be like seeing a new dead person with the 20 dollars in his pocket. However, how would we know that in ancient times, the taxman didn't collect every 50 years instead of the 500 years that he does now? In the case of C-14 dating, we somehow have to determine that the amount of C-12 in the atmosphere 50,000 years ago is fundamentally the same as it is today's atmosphere. At this point, our analogy starts to lose its exact correlation here but radiometric dating should be more understandable now. This is exactly one of the loudest arguments that Young-Earth scientists use against C-14 dating today. They claim that the amount of C-12 in the atmosphere decreased dramatically when the flood of Noah took place.
How much C-14 was there at the time of Noah's flood?
The first point to be dealt with is the "carbon level increase" assuming a global flood. To answer this argument scientifically we need to compare carbon ratios of today to those dating before the flood took place. If we are able to determine that the C-12/C-14 ratio is close to the same as it is today, we will have falsified (proved wrong) Brown's flood/carbon hypothesis. It turns out we do have a way to compare the carbon levels of today to pre-flood times through tree rings.
Tree Rings and C-14
The study of climatic changes through tree rings (Dendrochronlogy) started in the 1920s. In simple terms, dendrochronolgists can determine past seasonal climates by looking at the rings of trees. In certain species of trees, a ring will appear wider if the weather has been wet. During a dry season, a ring will be much narrower. A ring is established by the change from spring to winter. During the spring, a tree adds new, large cells to the outer layer. As winter approaches, the cells are smaller in contrast; thus establishing each year that has passed.
The science of dendochronology does not have an "agenda" to either prove evolution or disprove Young Earth creationism. They are simply studying the recent history of climatic changes. The neutral position of this science is good for both sides of our examined arguments. An interesting side point is that they are able to date volcanic explosions by examining its effects in affected rings.
There are no known living trees over 5,000 years old, so how could anyone know about building a tree chronology back to pre-flood times? The answer lies in building a chronology from dead trees onto the live trees. The method for building tree chronology is very simple and extremely sound as well. The key is to find a standing dead tree that had an overlapping life with a living one. By using this method, rings can be compared or visually overlaid (think of two viewgraphs) to add the number of standing dead trees rings to the number of rings of live trees. Another verification is to find the ring damage in both sets of trees resulting from the volcanic activity along with matching rings. Once these dates have been established, more tree ring chronology can be added by comparing fallen dead tree rings to the standing dead tree rings (See Figure on tree rings.)
This allows us to build a chronology of trees past 9,000 years, past the time of Noah's flood. This allows us to see if there is a dramatic difference in C-12 by examining trees that existed before Noah. Scientists can check how many C-14 per C-12 atoms there were in the atmosphere during every century all the way back through the tree ring chronology by checking the carbon-14 dating wood from these very old trees. Using this method in the Bristlecomb Pine trees, carbon-14 dating has been checked back to over 9000 years ago"

(the link were you will find this info and SO much more...) http://www.nightskypix.com/radiometric.htm

They, the scientists that use carbon dating have double checked and triple and... (so-on) checked the validity and accuracy of carbon dating against carbon-based objects that BOTH camps (the fundamentalist Christian groups and the ardently Scientific groups) knew the age of.  In other words, it was used on objects both camps knew the precise age of and was found to be dead-on accurate.  A test that should allay any doubts to it's precision and validity.


Mustardseed wrote...

"Moreover, it is established fact that the earth's magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength2, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation, all but negating the production of Carbon 14 and thereby minimizing the ambient amount available for absorption by living things. Yet these two facts are virtually unknown in modern society, and it seems never associated with radiometric dating, apparently since it would put such method (and indeed its findings) in doubt as to its reliability."

~Not so, (I refer you to the above quote} besides,  most communication buffs, and amateur rock hounds, scientists, professional or otherwise have known this.  Anyone who does any amount of spelunking in the Canadian Shield, a place that I used to call home for nearly three decades and is famous for rendering modern compasses obsolete due to the strong magnetic interference of the area, an effect that is only ENHANCED or DIMINISHED by the ambient magnetic field of the earth.  

Mustardseed, not everyone is a geographically or earth-science ignorant as that statement of yours would suggest.  Maybe in the circles you run in it is a problem, but in mine... you either know where you're going or you and you're hunting client could be in DEEP excrement.  In short, REALLY, REALLY LOST.  And as the hunting guide, or outdoors-adventure guide (that would be you...) you'd be out a few thousand dollars, maybe with a lawsuit pending, with your reputation going down the crapper fast, and maybe, just maybe in some REAL physical danger.   And they're not the only ones who would need to know that.  But still, enough folks know that the Earth's magnetic field has been in decline for long enough now, that it makes for a strange statement to assume that the scientific community wouldn't know that.  In fact, right now we're traveling through a region of space that is INCREASING the magnetic field disturbance right through our entire Solar System.  A situation that has been causing the increasing frequency of Solar Storms which affect a LOT of areas.  So, no, that's a wrong statement to make about the scientists.  Maybe about general lay-people, but not scientists as a whole.  And especially not those responsible for carbon dating.

Mustardseed wrote...

"Here are the two great motivations that underlie the motivation for following after evolution and its requisite dating: for absent God, there is no accountability; absent God creating, then evolution and man would be the height of achievement, the top of the scale. Note that the serpent is trying to convince Eve that she will not be held accountable, that the results God had warned of would not be applicable to her; man has sought to be free from accountability ever since. Note also that man's (Eve's) status would change, that he would be as high up the scale as any other created thing, perhaps beyond. Evolution provides both of these things at once, and apparently man's desire for them is greater than he has for the truth. Just as the progenitor of mankind, Eve, was misled by the serpent, society today is being misled regarding the sufficiency and truth of what science really purports; the great irony is that it is apparently for the same reason."

William B. Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th.
18 March 2002


~Great points by a Doctor of Theology (religious studies) no less... but the science he claims is not being held accountable pales in comparison to the crime of an absent God who is not being held accountable for the actions of his flock.  I can, even if some don't believe it, I can with facts and logic prove my points, and if I'm wrong, I'll ask for the proof of it, I'll then check it out and if it is correct... I'll change my point of view.  But this isn't the case for fundamentalist Christianity... doesn't it bug you that the light of reason steers so far away from the dogma of the existence of creationism?  

Case in point..." Note that the serpent is trying to convince Eve that she will not be held accountable, that the results God had warned of would not be applicable to her; man has sought to be free from accountability ever since."  
 Sounds to me like a guilt-inducing device cleverly woven into the statement to gently guide people away from thinking for themselves and ALWAYS trusting what God, and by association his faiths stewards... the CHURCH has to say.

I do believe God exists Mustardseed, but I also believe in reason, logic and compassion.  I believe that God gave us a brain to think, dream and be curious.  And to deny what is fact is to ultimately deny what God himself created...

No one had a chance to debate that theory of Creationism, it was rammed down our throats centuries back by a barbaric church who'd persecute anyone who questioned it.  And maybe it's because of that LONG history of violent oppression that the seeds for an Anti-Religious movement sprung up.  And that could explain the knee-jerk "love-it-or-hate-it" attitude/reaction that has greeted the theory of evolution and the creationist theory.

Some day perhaps, a better theory will come about to surpass the theory of evolution, or at least augment it and bring it into better clarity.  But it certainly won't be a creationist viewpoint.  Not by any stretch of the imagination. Reason, logic, truth, justice, and the democratic process will win out over dogmatic fundamentalism and isolationist thinking any day of the week.


Lastly, chew on this... to: Mustardseed and your followers... if you doubt this, do your homework.  You're information has been proven in error for the most part and unsubstantiated by and SIGNIFICANT or established scientific or religous body.  And I will continue to debate this with you using all the tools in fact, reason, logic and science that there are at my disposal to do so.  If you would just have your belief without trying so vehemently to MAKE THE WHOLE WORLD BELIVE in you I think you'd find that the "live and let live" philosophy would reward your movement.  But as long as you INSIST that it's doctrine truth and as long as movements such as yours continue to chip away at the public knowledge, I and/or folks like myself will be there to debate you and bring the public discourse and knowledge back to a reasoned, logical, and compassionate place.  Instead of the dogmatic, embattled, illogical and highly divisive message I hear from so many a fundamentalist.

""Dealing with another "Faulty" reason for discarding Carbon Dating
When I started reading Young Earth literature, I found the arguments against carbon dating very strong. I remember reading a book that told of a Yale study about carbon dating. They quote the study as coming up with three significantly different ages when dating a single sample. It turns out this is true, but very incomplete. Any good report on science will have been based on an beginning to end understanding of a given study. I thought as I read, 'How can anyone rely on this method? It is obvious that Carbon dating is inaccurate!' It becomes obvious that the authors were either very dishonest or simply found only enough facts to use to rebut the studies findings. This would be like someone quoting half a Bible verse to suit the needs of their argument when taking the whole verse clearly disproves their position. When I read Stoner's book a couple of years later I was appalled at the bad research that was put into this study by my Christian brothers. Quoting Stoner again:
'This acid wash was apparently misunderstood in one young-earth argument which claimed that, "Yale University dated an antler three different times and got three different ages - 5,340 years, 9,310 years, and 10,320 years." We might picture in our minds a very confused scientist until we check the original source where we find that the three dates were:
o   the antler when it was contaminated with recently formed limestone - 9,310 years,
o   the antler after the limestone had been washed out - 10,320 years,
o   and the limestone itself which had been washed out into the acid - 5,340 years.
And so, when we look more closely, this turns out to be a perfectly reasonable set of measurements.'
Limestone contains a great deal of Carbon-14 and needs the acid wash to get the accurate results. It is very easy to come across this kind of 'take what only half the facts and ignore the rest of a study' tactics by creationists too many times."


"Potassium-Argon Radiometric Dating
For dates older than about half a million years, the potassium-argon dating method is an effective way to date volcanic materials. Why is this important? Because if we can find fossils that are very close in distance to the material left behind by volcanic eruptions, dates of these fossils can be closely estimated to be close to the age as the surrounding volcanic material. In other words, if we find a animal fossil 4 inches below the hardened lava, we can assume that the timing of both the animal's death and the volcanic eruption is close. The date of the volcanic material is ascertained through the potassium-argon dating method. Quoting again from Donald Stoner:
'By measuring the amount of potassium-40 in the sample and the amount of argon which is released when the sample is re-heated in a laboratory, it can be determined how long ago a particular volcanic eruption occurred. As of 1996, a new potassium-argon technique, single-crystal laser-fusion dating, gives a margin of error less than one percent. Errors as small as +/-10,000 years are claimed in dating three-million-year-old volcanic ash... The K-Ar method is useful for determining the ages of the various strata in a segment of the geologic column. When a volcano erupts, ash is spread over a large area of ground. Later, it may become buried. Thus, volcanic ash can often be found between layers of earth. If a pure sample of that ash can be analyzed, then a real date can be assigned to that level of the column. A scientist will know that any fossil found "below" that level is older than the ash. That fossil must have been buried before the volcano erupted or the ash would not have fallen on layers above it. Likewise the scientist knows that fossils which he finds in layers "above" the ash are more recent. Occasionally a scientist will be lucky enough to find a fossil sandwiched closely between two datable layers and can know the age of his find quite accurately.'
As you may have figured out from this quote, dating of older fossils can be determined by the accuracy of this method. Therefore, the fossils of dinosaurs and such are shown to have lived more than 500,000 years ago.
Other Radiometric Dating Techniques
There are over 40 radiometric dating in use today. Can all these techniques be wrong? If so, what is the basis for discrediting each of them. For a Christian perspective of of the most sound techniques, see Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens of the Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences California Institute of Technology."

http://www.nightskypix.com/radiometric.htm

[Ain't that sweet...? But]

 Ain't that sweet...?  But [!][^][][B)][:I][)][8D][xx(][:X][}:)][8][V][?][][:O][][][|)][][] is not an answer...so please, does anyone have anything to say???

ha ha ha!  No problem, I'm real busy too lately with school and work myself, so whenever you can get at that answer, no problem, the thread will still be here.

Okay, exothen, if there are good reasons to believe so, why?  Facts, or heavily supported supposition.  No feeling, emotional, or "just-because-the-bible-says-so-reasons".  If that were the case, any book claiming ANYTHING could be cited as reason enough.  So bare with me, I will need you to back that up somehow.  I await your answer.

Thanks for your response though.

~GhostRider

Thank you Mustardseed, since you've given me quite a bit of information and I'm busy lately, allow me untill sometime within the next few days to properly respond.  You have some interesting counters that require some deeper research by myself and these I will debate further, given some time to check them out as best I can.  Thanks for the info Mustardseed.

~Kevin

[Beth, good luck and just to let you know, thanks to you and Gandalf, you've opened up lots of avenues for me to explore historically. And to a amateur history buff like myself, that's the sweetest gift you can give. So thankyou Beth and good luck on your new book. Be sure to save an autographed copy for me when you're done! Best Wishes & Blessings~ Kevin]

Beth, good luck and just to let you know, thanks to you and Gandalf, you've opened up lots of avenues for me to explore historically.  And to a amateur history buff like myself, that's the sweetest gift you can give.  So thankyou Beth and good luck on your new book.  Be sure to save an autographed copy for me when you're done!

Best Wishes & Blessings~ Kevin

[Hmmm... how was GOD created??? Let's see, take one Mr. God and one Miss(or Ms.) God Add some fine Italian (or Greek) cuisine (hearty food for some hearty loving ahead, eh?) A couple bottles of fine Port. Some smooth, sexy Cole Porter playing in the background And "VOILA"!!! .............you have one freshly made GOD!~GhostRider (You're FIRST source for indisputable facts!)LOL!]

Hmmm... how was GOD created???  

Let's see, take one Mr. God and one Miss(or Ms.) God

Add some fine Italian (or Greek) cuisine (hearty food for some
hearty loving ahead, eh?)

A couple bottles of fine Port.

Some smooth, sexy Cole Porter playing in the background

And "VOILA"!!!  .............you have one freshly made GOD!

~GhostRider (You're FIRST source for indisputable facts!)

LOL!

Not at all... not at all.  You just cleared up more truth and facts about the catholic church for me in that short treatise, than all my research on the church has done in the past ten years.  Thank you very much.  Were did you get this information from?  Any online sources?

Thank you!  Both of you, Beth and Gandalf, I look forward to your posts on other topics already and to have two great answers right off the top...that's great!

I still tend to think that Jesus was deified wrongly, that he was a man caught up in something so much bigger than himself, and was thrust upwards and exalted like a God.  I've also noticed we still have that trait, that we feel we need to "exalt" things, as is demonstrated by how we treat our sports stars, our supermodels, celebrities, etc... instead of appreciating them for the mere man/woman or spiritual guide that they are.  Am I right in assuming that's a common trait in mankind?

Beth, Gandalf, what you said of how spiritual guides could come to us in the form of something we already find familiar, is it always so?  Or would there be a time later on when they feel we're ready for something closer to the truth of what "they" really are.  That is, if that's an important aspect of their encounter with us.  

So I sit back and await more great answers from the audience...[^]

 Don't worry... I'm not a government stoolie...honest! ................................................................(inserting special program into Astral Pulse homepage to track use...r's...whoops!  You weren't supposed to hear that, [][])  Ha ha ha!

 Seriously though, if you've had experiance with Reptilian contact, I'm all ears.

Good points Gandalf, I've always wondered if the Roman Empire isn't still alive today in the form of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches?

 Roman Empire= (Western & Eastern Roman Empires)= Roman Catholic Church & Eastern Orthodox Church.........?  I'll do some research on it, but am I far off?

What's even more amazing is that a "nothing-post" (and unless chill said something real offensive to get his title and question erased...) GOT FOUR REPLIES???  LOL!

Now it's five...but I came here out of curiosity at a "..." or nothing title drawing four replies.

That cracks me up!

For some reason this got posted twice...if any moderators are reading this, please delete this, the duplicate post and thread... thank you

GhostRider

[Oh, and anyone responding to this will be taken to a friendly government re-education center for further analysis...~cough~cough~AHEM~....I mean counseling, yeah...that's it.]

Oh, and anyone responding to this will be taken to a friendly government re-education center for further analysis...~cough~cough~AHEM~....I mean counseling, yeah...that's it.

With Love and Kind Regards...
~Your friends at the state department......................................................
................................................................
.P.S......And remember, George loves you!
................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
................................................................
......lol!...[}:)][][]

You asked, "How do people Meditate for one hours or more?"  

My answer... Like this, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......Hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....Huuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................

Pretty much like that...[]

 My apologies for sounding too aggressive, I just quitt smoking two weeks ago and extra sparring classes at Kung Fu ain't cutting it, serious, so sorry if you're the butt end off my angst.  I really just meant to throw some links your way, and as suprising as this would sound... can you throw me some quality links supporting your case my way?  Either p.m. them or put them here or both.  I think after all the links I threw your way you could probably enlighten me with some links of your own.  Deal?

[When in doubt, arm your mind with truth and facts to temper the direction of your hands and heart.]

I won't make up your mind for you nor is it ethical that I do so.  So here is some sites that should help YOU make up your mind.  When in doubt, arm your mind with truth and facts to temper the direction of your hands and heart.  

Here they are...

  http://www.buddhanet.net/

  http://www.islamworld.net/

  http://www.himalayanacademy.com/

  http://www.cwrc-rz.org/

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism

  http://www.jewfaq.org/

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism

  http://www.deoxy.org/shaover.htm

  http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/

  http://www.positiveatheism.org/

  http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/

  http://www.ulc.org/

  Then, after you've perused ALL these sites (no need to memorize them...)  read this book and THEN tell me what you think... "And the Truth Shall Set You Free"  by David Icke

[Cainam_Nazier wrote]

Cainam_Nazier wrote, "That box turned out to be a something totally different. When they were finally able to actually exainmin the thing the box itself dated a little before the correct time and the writing was added onto the box a few hundred years later.
The man who originally purchased the box later admitted to knowing the box's true origins. Information he had gotten from the man who sold it to him."

Mustardseed wrote, "So with one sentence of hearsa and your comments you put aside the hottest debated archaelogic finding this century!!"

I hate to break it to you Mustardseed, but all that Cainam_Nazier is saying is verifiable fact. Saying it ain't so doesn't make it true.  In fact it's EASILY verifiable fact, I'll show you the proof if you want.
Second, this ain't the hottest debated archaelogical finding of this century.  The debate over the true age of the Sphinx , the Medicine Stones of South America, the true origins of the bible as being stolen from Summerian texts and other cultures, ALL those rank as MUCH-MUCH higher. Again, saying it's so doesn't make it so, even if it is to you and your associates.  Again, I'll happily provide the links if you want and you can beat your head against the brick wall of truth all you want then if that'll appease you.  In fact, here's some great sites to get your intellectual curiosity churning...

http://members.tripod.com/~kon_artz/cultures/cultures.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/

And here is a WONDERFUL page and a short and quoted description by the sites founders on radio carbon dating that should make it oh-so-easy for you to understand how it's done.  I say that because often times, people JUST mention radio carbon dating without explaining it further...

http://www.c14dating.com/

The 14C Method
There are three principal isotopes of carbon which occur naturally - C12, C13 (both stable) and C14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every 1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material. The radiocarbon method is based on the rate of decay of the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope 14 (14C), which is formed in the upper atmosphere through the effect of cosmic ray neutrons upon nitrogen 14. The reaction is:


14N + n => 14C + p
(Where n is a neutron and p is a proton).
The 14C formed is rapidly oxidised to 14CO2 and enters the earth's plant and animal lifeways through photosynthesis and the food chain. The rapidity of the dispersal of C14 into the atmosphere has been demonstrated by measurements of radioactive carbon produced from thermonuclear bomb testing. 14C also enters the Earth's oceans in an atmospheric exchange and as dissolved carbonate (the entire 14C inventory is termed the carbon exchange reservoir (Aitken, 1990)). Plants and animals which utilise carbon in biological foodchains take up 14C during their lifetimes. They exist in equilibrium with the C14 concentration of the atmosphere, that is, the numbers of C14 atoms and non-radioactive carbon atoms stays approximately the same over time. As soon as a plant or animal dies, they cease the metabolic function of carbon uptake; there is no replenishment of radioactive carbon, only decay. There is a useful diagrammatic representation of this process given here

Libby, Anderson and Arnold (1949) first discovered that this decay occurs at a constant rate. They found that after 5568 years, half the C14 in the original sample will have decayed and after another 5568 years, half of that remaining material will have decayed, and so on (see figure 1 below). The half-life (t 1/2) is the name given to this value which Libby measured at 5568±30 years. This became known as the Libby half-life. After 10 half-lives, there is a very small amount of radioactive carbon present in a sample. At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached (beyond this time, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating). By measuring the C14 concentration or residual radioactivity of a sample whose age is not known, it is possible to obtain the countrate or number of decay events per gram of Carbon. By comparing this with modern levels of activity (1890 wood corrected for decay to 1950 AD) and using the measured half-life it becomes possible to calculate a date for the death of the sample.

As 14C decays it emits a weak beta particle (b ), or electron, which possesses an average energy of 160keV. The decay can be shown:


14C => 14N + b
Thus, the 14C decays back to 14N. There is a quantitative relationship between the decay of 14C and the production of a beta particle. The decay is constant but spontaneous. That is, the probability of decay for an atom of 14C in a discrete sample is constant, thereby requiring the application of statistical methods for the analysis of counting data.

It follows from this that any material which is composed of carbon may be dated.Herein lies the true advantage of the radiocarbon method, it is able to be uniformly applied throughout the world. Included below is an impressive list of some of the types of carbonaceous samples that have been commonly radiocarbon dated in the years since the inception of the method:


Charcoal, wood, twigs and seeds.
Bone.
Marine, estuarine and riverine shell.
Leather.
Peat
Coprolites.
Lake muds (gyttja) and sediments.
Soil.
Ice cores.
Pollen.
Hair.
Pottery.
Metal casting ores.
Wall paintings and rock art works.
Iron and meteorites.
Avian eggshell.
Corals and foraminifera.
Speleothems.
Tufa.
Blood residues.
Textiles and fabrics.
Paper and parchment.
Fish remains.
Insect remains.
Resins and glues.
Antler and horn.
Water.


The historical perspective on the development of radiocarbon dating is well outlined in Taylor's (1987) book "Radiocarbon Dating: An archaeological perspective". Libby and his team intially tested the radiocarbon method on samples from prehistoric Egypt. They chose samples whose age could be independently determined. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser (or Djoser; 3rd Dynasty, ca. 2700-2600 BC) was obtained and dated. Libby reasoned that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a C14 concentration of about 50% that which was found in living wood (see Libby, 1949 for further details). The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Other analyses were conducted on samples of known age wood (dendrochronologically aged). Again, the fit was within the value predicted at ±10%. The tests suggested that the half-life they had measured was accurate, and, quite reasonably, suggested further that atmospheric radiocarbon concentration had remained constant throughout the recent past. In 1949, Arnold and Libby (1949) published their paper "Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples of known age" in the journal Science. In this paper they presented the first results of the C14 method, including the "Curve of Knowns" in which radiocarbon dates were compared with the known age historical dates (see figure 1). All of the points fitted within statistical range. Within a few years, other laboratories had been built. By the early 1950's there were 8, and by the end of the decade there were more than 20.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: The "Curve of Knowns" after Libby and Arnold (1949). The first acid test of the new method was based upon radiocarbon dating of known age samples primarily from Egypt (the dates are shown in the diagram by the red lines, each with a ±1 standard deviation included). The Egyptian King's name is given next to the date obtained. The theoretical curve was constructed using the half-life of 5568 years. The activity ratio relates to the carbon 14 activity ratio between the ancient samples and the modern activity. Each result was within the statistical range of the true historic date of each sample.
In the 1950s, further measurements on Mediterranean samples, in particular those from Egypt whose age was known through other means, pointed to radiocarbon dates which were younger than expected. The debate regarding this is outlined extensively in Renfrew (1972). Briefly, opinion was divided between those who thought the radiocarbon dates were correct (ie, that radiocarbon years equated more or less to solar or calendar years) and those who felt they were flawed and the historical data was more accurate. In the late 1950's and early 1960's, researchers measuring the radioactivity of known age tree rings found fluctuations in C14 concentration up to a maximum of ±5% over the last 1500 years. In addition to long term fluctuations, smaller 'wiggles' were identified by the Dutch scholar Hessel de Vries (1958). This suggested there were temporal fluctuations in C14 concentration which would neccessitate the calibration of radiocarbon dates to other historically aged material. Radiocarbon dates of sequential dendrochronologically aged trees primarily of US bristlecone pine and German and Irish oak have been measured over the past 10 years to produce a calendrical / radiocarbon calibration curve which now extends back over 10 000 years (more on Calibration). This enables radiocarbon dates to be calibrated to solar or calendar dates.

Later measurements of the Libby half-life indicated the figure was ca. 3% too low and a more accurate half-life was 5730±40 years. This is known as the Cambridge half-life. (To convert a "Libby" age to an age using the Cambridge half-life, one must multiply by 1.03).

The major developments in the radiocarbon method up to the present day involve improvements in measurement techniques and research into the dating of different materials. Briefly, the initial solid carbon method developed by Libby and his collaborators was replaced with the Gas counting method in the 1950's. Liquid scintillation counting, utilising benzene, acetylene, ethanol, methanol etc, was developed at about the same time. Today the vast majority of radiocarbon laboratories utilise these two methods of radiocarbon dating. Of major recent interest is the development of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry method of direct C14 isotope counting. In 1977, the first AMS measurements were conducted by teams at Rochester/Toronto and the General Ionex Corporation and soon after at the Universities of Simon Fraser and McMaster (Gove, 1994). The crucial advantage of the AMS method is that milligram sized samples are required for dating. Of great public interest has been the AMS dating of carbonacous material from prehistoric rock art sites, the Shroud of Turin and the Dead Sea Scrolls in the last few years. The development of high-precision dating (up to ±2.0 per mille or ±16 yr) in a number of gas and liquid scintillation facilities has been of similar importance (laboratories at Belfast (N.Ireland), Seattle (US), Heidelberg (Ger), Pretoria (S.Africa), Groningen (Netherlands), La Jolla (US), Waikato (NZ) and Arizona (US) are generally accepted to have demonstrated radiocarbon measurements at high levels of precision). The calibration research undertaken primarily at the Belfast and Seattle labs required that high levels of precision be obtained which has now resulted in the extensive calibration data now available. The development of small sample capabilities for LSC and Gas labs has likewise been an important development - samples as small as 100 mg are able to be dated to moderate precision on minigas counters (Kromer, 1994) with similar sample sizes needed using minivial technology in Liquid Scintillation Counting. The radiocarbon dating method remains arguably the most dependable and widely applied dating technique for the late Pleistocene and Holocene periods."
(quote taken from the site.... http://www.c14dating.com/int.html )

quote:Originally posted by Mustardseed

So with one sentence of hearsay and your comments you put aside the hottest debated archaelogic finding this century!! They are still debating the authenticity of the box look it up on the net. The problem we are facing here is this. People and places have certainly been certified right, you can find the remains of many of the sites mentioned in the Bible, but Jesus ministry was not physical. He never built a building, drove a car or owned a house. In the eyes of the system he was a criminal. Not much there to dig up. My opinion is that IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. Thats all, I will repeat. It could have happened the way the Bible says it did.

Now the problem here on this forum is that Beth and the moderators especially but others as well do not actually debate this issue in my opinion. Instead they restate over and over the same opinions as TRUTH . Recently you Beth commented to someone asking about the valitity of the Bible

Beth said

If you want to learn about how man did indeed create scripture, and why it does not really conform to modern day Christian Doctrine, see the thread "Use of Allegory and Metaphor in Scripture" in this section. (Please dont get offended Beth! )

This is not debating . Some people here have built their lives beliefs and everything they have on the assumption that the Bible is a lie. They claim Jesus never existed, and they MUST attack the Bible and discredit Christianity, and they do it with a vengance. If they are wrong about Him they are on thin ice. They put up threads for "friendly exploration" of all other major and minor faiths including their favorite Buddhism and Hinduism, even Satanism has its own little blurp. I am not sure what goes on in the moderators forum but I see it in the public forum. We are being herded folks, a little to the left a bit to the right. watch for the stragglers and the strays.

Regards Mustardseed

PS some might say that this last point is not in topic but I believe it is a valid observation and should be considered in the big picture. I say this without agression. Dont you find it "odd" that this thread and subject is being revived by Adrian, he surely must have known the extention of the previous thread. Adrian?
 

I was busy so I I'll wade into the debate right about...NOW!  LOL!  First off Mustardseed, (and don't take this personally) but most non-Christians don't spend most of their time trying to prove that their faith/religion is right at the expense of the other faiths.  They're not swearing up and down at the discrepencies between support for or against their faith like you have with the Satanic comment.  I think they all realize, unlike you that there are MANY paths up the mountain.  Unfortunately it appears that your path must exist at the SOLE exemption of ALL others.  Furthermore, most non-catholic christian faiths can't even agree which version of christianity is right.  I'm ALWAYS coming across sites that tell me if I don't accept THEIR way that I'm going to hell.  EVEN IF I believed in God before and was baptized in another church.  That's what points to the ludacricy of it all more than anythingelse, is the rabid over-zealousness of the fundamentalist and evangelical style christian faiths.  That they'll even turn on and refuse their own is a sure sign of some systemic disorder or disease running rampant in the holy water in most of those respective churches.  It not only turns most folks off, it makes them your arch enemy.  Not at all what Jesus would've done...


I believe in God, just not the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, fire and brimstone God of the Fundamentalist Christians.  I will give credit to most of the Jewish and Catholic schools for including science in their curriculum and being more open with the "truth" of their faiths.  I don't know what faith is the ONE, I doubt like hell any of them are the sole arbitours of the truth, but I know that the approach used by most faithful fundamentalist christians in this state (TEXAS) and elsewhere in this country is offensive, wrong, and ultimately combative and self-destructive in the end.  If you want to win over hearts and minds, try logic, love and co-existance or tolerance... not fire and brimstone.  

Here's some links you might find helpfull... Some are media based, some religous based, some "other".  I hope they help you find the truth you so vehemently wish to push on others.

The Fake Jesus Box

http://www.bottomquark.com/article.php?sid=4012

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0618_030618_jesusbox.html


The Shroud Of Turin

http://www.shroud.com/

http://sindone.torino.chiesacattolica.it/en/welcome.htm

http://www.shroudstory.com/

 That would make quite a stir down here as most folks would argue with you on that.  I checked it up and I am sure you are right Mustardseed.  That would mean then that going to church (as we know it) is somewhat confusing and completely wrong. Because if you are the choosen and you are gathered with others, you are already ARE a church and the building is just a nice little add-on.

[beef any brain]

I'm not qualified to comment as your doctor so take this advice with that in mind.  

Sounds to me like you have a amino acid shortage in your body, among other things, do you lead a overtly stressfull life?  Do you smoke a lot of pot (some is GREEEEAAATTT!  But too much, well that's no different than being an alcoholic in my view)?  
Do you get enough sleep...?  These are some questions you can ask yourself, as well as getting some exercise at times does increase certain hormone levels in your body and promotes memory and especially focus enhancing chemicals (naturally made in your body) to help with memory and focus.

You don't have to do this, but here's another harmless suggestion...

 Make a shake everday, have it in the morning, or the noon, or the night, either after you get up, or in the midday when you're sluggish (both mentally and physically), or after your afternoon workout (not to close to your bedtime though as this might interfere with your sleep if it's taken too soon before bedtime)...  The time you do this is up to you.

Here's the ingrediants (it has everything you need to get some "get up and go" and handle the day with more relaxed focus and energy than you had before without taking a million pills)

     ~ 8-12 ounces of Aloe Vera Juice (if you need more energy) or milk.

     ~ 1 serving of protein powder (vanilla or strawberry are great flavours as they mix well taste-wise with anything practically).  Soy or whey, it doesn't really matter.    

     ~ 1 tablespoon of Brewer's Yeast
     ~ 1 tablespoon of Lecithin
     ~ 1 tablespoon of Barley Greens (or) Spirulina
     ~ 1 tablespoon of Bee Pollen
     ~ 1 serving of Flax Seed Oil
     ~ 1 raw egg
     ~ Cut up 1 or 2 fruits (apples, oranges, etc...)
     ~ 1 serving of Multiple Vitamin Powder
     ~ 500 grams (+) or M.S.M. powder
     ~ 2 tablespoons of Apple Cider Vinegar (with the mother in it)
     ~ Mix in a good tablespoon of Smoothy Mix with this all.
     ~ add some ice from a tray, turn the bloody blender on and you have yourself a health drink that beef any brain up and would kick Thor's *ss to Valhalla!
   
     Now obviously you probably should do some meditation or other worthy spiritual work on yourself as well as some exercise.  But other than that and all the great vitamins/minerals/herbs and amino acids you'd get from the drink above, I don't see how you couldn't get a great deal of improvement from these suggestions.