Why Does Ancient Art Contain Depictions Of Flying Aircraft, Helicopters And Dinosaurs?

Share on Facebook4,440Tweet about this on Twitter0Pin on Pinterest9Share on Google+154Share on StumbleUpon113Print this pageEmail this to someone

Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics That Depict Modern Technology

The history of our planet is far more complex than most people would dare to imagine.  According to the commonly accepted version of history that is taught in high schools and colleges all over the United States, ancient man was a very simple creature with extremely limited knowledge.  Unfortunately for those that promote this flawed version of history, archaeologists keep digging up stuff that directly contradicts it.  The truth is that there is a tremendous amount of evidence of great intellectual achievement in the ancient world.  For example, just consider the Great Pyramid of Giza.  It is a true technological marvel.  It is such a massive structure built with such extraordinary precision that modern technology is only just now starting to catch up with it.  We think that we could possibly build a similar structure today if we wanted to, but modern man has never actually constructed anything like it.  And as you will see below, the Great Pyramid of Giza is far from the only example of advanced technology in the ancient world that we find in Egypt.

Posted below is a photograph of a wall in an ancient Egyptian temple at Abydos.  Look at the hieroglyphics very carefully.

Do you see anything strange?

Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics That Depict Modern Technology

Researcher Lyn Leahz wrote about these incredibly bizarre hieroglyphics the other day.  The following is what she had to say about them…

Decorating an Egyptian temple wall at Abydos are strange hieroglyphics which depict what appears to be modern day aircraft. This finding has caused much controversy among Egyptologists and archaeologists who are not sure what to think. How could people 2-3,000 years ago possibly have known about modern-day aircraft?

When Dr. Ruth Hover and her husband took a trip to the pyramids and temples of Egypt, they were shocked when they discovered, in the temple at Abydos, hieroglyphics depicting modern-day aircraft. She photographed a wall panel in a section where an overlaying panel with Egyptian hieroglyphics crumbled and fell, revealing an older panel beneath it. This older panel, shown above, contains images of what appear to be modern-day technology—a helicopter, a submarine, a glider, and another unknown type of aircraft (some believe resemble the Hindenburg).

So how do those promoting the commonly accepted version of history explain this?

They can’t.

In the video shared below, Lyn Leahz shares even more about these hieroglyphics and discusses additional “out of place artifacts” around the globe…

There is also mounting evidence that mankind had knowledge of dinosaurs in ancient times.

Posted below is a photo of an ancient engraving on a Buddhist temple in Cambodia known as the Ta Prohm Stegosaurus.  According to the commonly accepted version of history, such an engraving should be absolutely impossible because dinosaurs died out millions of years ago and modern scientists only started digging them up a couple hundred years ago.  And yet this engraving is there…

Ta Prohm Stegasaurus

According to archaeologists, this temple in Cambodia is approximately 800 years old

Deep in the jungles of Cambodia are ornate temples and palaces from the Khmer civilization. One such temple, Ta Prohm, abounds with stone statues and reliefs. Almost every square inch of the gray sandstone is covered with ornate, detailed carvings. These depict familiar animals like monkeys, deer, water buffalo, parrots, and lizards. However, one column contains an intricate carving of a stegosaur-like creature. But how could artisans decorating an 800 year old Buddhist temple know what a dinosaur looked like? Western science only began assembling dinosaurs skeletons in the past two centuries.

Very strange stuff.

Another unexpected place where we find “ancient dinosaur art” is on the ancient Ica Stones that were discovered down in Peru.  These stones were originally found by the Spanish in 1535, and Spanish explorers sent some of these stones back to Spain in 1562.

The art on many of these stones is extremely beautiful, but what makes them extremely controversial is the fact that many of them appear to contain clear depictions of dinosaurs.  Here is one example…

Ica Stone

And here is another example.  If you look closely at this one, you can see what very much looks like a Triceratops

Ica Stones Dinosaurs

Once again, those promoting the commonly accepted version of history are at a loss to explain this.  Most commonly, they attempt to explain this phenomenon away as a hoax because locals did start creating fake “Ica stones” in recent years once they discovered that tourists wanted to buy them.

But the Ica stones that are considered to be authentic contain some remarkable details.  In fact, much of the anatomical knowledge about dinosaurs depicted on these stones was only discovered by modern scientists just very recently

Other items of anatomical accuracy that attest to the authenticity of these Ica Stone depictions include the positioning of the tail and legs. Early critics said the Ica Stones were fakes, in part because their tails were sticking out while walking. Paleontologists in the 1960s were confident that dinosaurs dragged their tails. The paleontologists were wrong and the Ica Stones were right.  Scientists now believe dinosaurs held their massive tails off the ground while walking, because there are no drag marks on dinosaur trackways.  The dinosaurs on the Ica Stones are depicted standing upright, rather than with legs splayed out in a lizard-like position. That, according to dinosaur experts, is “dead on” accurate.

Of course the Ica Stones are just one of the incredible examples of ancient dinosaur art that have been discovered all over the world.  For many, many more examples of this phenomenon, just check out the article that you can find right here.

Anyone that attempts to convince you that humans that lived thousands of years ago were bumbling dolts that were lucky to build mud huts and cover their genitals with grass skirts is lying to you.

The truth is that human history is incredibly complex.  There are monolithic structures all over the planet that are still standing after thousands of years that remind all of us that great civilizations with amazing technologies once thrived.

And there is actually evidence that modern humans are actually getting dumber.  A Stanford University biology professor recently published a work in which he expressed his conclusion that humans have been getting dumber for thousands of years.

Also, Dr. John Sanford of Cornell University has conducted groundbreaking research that demonstrates conclusively that the human genome is steadily degenerating and is eventually heading toward extinction.

So perhaps we should not think of ourselves as so superior to ancient humanity.  The reality is that they may have been physically and mentally superior to us in many ways.

Michael Snyder is the author of The Beginning Of The End and Get Prepared Now.  You can get his new DVDs entitled “Economic Collapse, World War III & The Death Of America” and “The Regathering Of The Ten Lost Tribes Of Israel” from the Prophecy Club.

The Beginning Of The End - The New Novel About The Future Of America By Michael T. Snyder
Be Sociable, Share!
  • Tatiana Covington

    They were all Science-Fiction writers!

  • FreeThinker

    “……there is no new thing under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9

  • Colonel Jack O’Neill

    Everybody knows the pyramids were built for the Go’auld to land their spaceships

    • Truth

      No the the great pyramid,..acts as a star gate to planet Nibiru. Home of the Annunaki

  • Tim

    “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” Genesis 2:19

    Adam must have been very intelligent.

    • TommyTabasco

      Really…Talking monkey paradigm genesis of Adam! Ya boy…The thereof living creature name given unto goto! Formed out of the earth by the LORD! Awesome, that explains everything! Really

  • DJohn1

    The only thing about the discoveries that makes sense is either it all came from somewhere else or we have civilization that we do not know about living side by side with us on this planet. One other possibilitiy exists. Time travel by an existing group that somehow ended up in the past. Or possibily all of the above.
    Notice the number of toes on the feet of the dinosaurs. There is something about that number that does not make sense.
    Are there dinosaurs alive today? We have many jungle settings across this planet and a lot of them are unexplored.
    We have a sink hole in Gainesville that goes down hundreds of feet into the ground. The temperature is even. There are plants in that sinkhole found nowhere else on the planet. IT is like someone formed a natural environment where extinction was kept from happening. Florida is basically a giant sand dune. Acid rain melts the limestone and you suddenly have holes in the ground. This occurs all over Florida and mostly swallows houses and cars.
    But what if there are places like that sink hole and creatures from other times are trapped in these places. They continue to live in these little sunken valleys in a natural balance with nature. Occasionally one breaks out. These holes in the ground would be temperature controlled The heat of the Earth itself would keep the temperature at an almost exact constant temperature. If it is deep enough or close enough to volcanic activity the temperature could possibly be anywhere from 53-85 degrees F.
    The platypus is one such creature in a remote place like Australia. It was considered a hoax originally. They were on the verge of shutting the group studying them down as a fraud. Someone managed to bring a live one back. The fraud charges of course were dropped but scientists often lack imagination. Truth is often far wilder than any science fiction we are likely to write.
    I have enjoyed Stargate for that reason. It is full of conjecture. Just how much of that conjecture might turn out to be close to the truth is any one’s guess. A critter out there taking over human beings and then giving their bodies extremely long lifespans?
    We are close to a lot of things that I think are “classified” and engineering that is approaching a lot of discoveries. How many we will actually hear about is any one’s guess.

  • http://batman-news.com Travis Cohee

    I agree that the mainstream history of what we been told for so long is rampant with inconsistencies. The only thing I disagree with this article in saying people have not been able to explain the strange hieroglyph depicting modern day aircraft. That’s not a true statement. People have. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with the explaination given from the other side, but there is at least an explanation that was not mentioned in this article and should have
    .
    There are people who believe these hieroglphs were the result of “recarving” or over-carving. do a search and you can find what I’m talking about. I’m sure the author Michael knows of the researcher Klaus Dona who has uncovered many archeological artifacts that cannot be explained. Michael, if you have never looked into his work, I recommend it.
    Thanks Michael for all the work you do, you are a great writer and I appreciate all that you do.

    • Kim

      Another explanation could be biomimetics or biomimicry. People sketching ideas of modern like machines by observing birds, fish, insects. That is where mankind gets many ideas for inventions- jet-propulsion by observing a squid, hover crafts from bees, armor from tortoises, and so on. But the more detailed the depictions are, the weirder it gets. There are only two explanations: either these are fakes or there is something “other-worldly” going on.

      • JoBrown85

        Name even one flying creature that has a RUDDER. (an upright surface for steering, NOT a tiltable horizontal tail)

        • Emmanuel Mateo-Morales

          Name even one plane that doesn’t have wings. 😉

          • JoBrown85

            ummm, my dad’s wood-working plane?

            But seriously, Kim’s comment regarding inspiration from birds or insects does not hold up under scrutiny because these planes have rudders, whereas birds and insects do not have rudders.

  • bull

    Pseudo-scientific rubbish at it’s best!!!

    “So how do those promoting the commonly accepted version of history explain this?
    They can’t.”

    Wrong.
    There’s actually sound explanation to these “odd” hieroglyphs = the surface was RE-USED so there are two hieroglyphs on top of each other making them seem like ufos, “star wars speeders” helicopters etc.

    There is actually a scientific name for these re-used surfaces, but can’t remember it right now.

    “There is also mounting evidence that mankind had knowledge of dinosaurs in ancient times.”

    i’m sure people found dino-skeletons and fossils in those times also.

    • Malcolm Reynolds
    • MS

      but, ante-deluvian flight would be a great reason for, among other things, the large (ie: meant to be seen from the sky) figures in the Nazca Plateau… So many things point to man having attained great knowledge prior to a universal flood.– but. evolutionary models have us traveling from knuckle-draggers to Einstein in an orderly fashion– whereas, this biblical concept is anathema to them.

    • MS

      ..and batteries from the middle east…
      mans footprints in the same rock as dinosaur footprints… come on, it is obvious.

    • ort

      “Bull” explains your post.

    • nekksys

      The surface was covered over and THEN reused. re-read the article and you’ll see that… Here, let me make it easier to find:

      “She photographed a wall panel in a section where an overlaying panel with Egyptian hieroglyphics crumbled and fell, revealing an older panel beneath it.”
      *Emphasis added

  • Lyn Leahz
    • MichaelfromTheEconomicCollapse

      Yes, I hope that people will check your fine article out. I linked to your article and to your YouTube video in the article above. Hopefully this will give both of them a lot more exposure.

      Michael

      • Lyn Leahz

        I noticed that… thank you so much Michael and many, many blessings to you! I do appreciate all you do for everyone by the wonderful, and outstanding time and quality you put in to all of your writings.

    • With Fortitude

      Good article Lyn

      • Lyn Leahz

        Thanks, With Fortitude. I love Michael’s as well, and he mentions these stones.. I was unaware of the stones. Good stuff!

      • Lyn Leahz

        Thank you!

  • Kim

    Either these are fakes or man actually lived among the dinosaurs. If man did live among the dinosaurs, that would be consistent with biblical chronology of “sixth day” creation. Aside from these finds, I’ve always believed man lived among dinosaurs. Every culture has a legend of a large, fierce, flying reptile that breathes fire. These creatures known as mythical dragons were none other than dinosaurs. They had to be. The coincidence is too strong. I believe dinosaurs served or fulfilled a certain purpose and were not included among the animals taken into refuge onto the ark before the great flood of Noah’s day.

    As for the depictions of modern aircraft, who knows. That is a question among questions. I have my theories, but if I voice them I might sound crazy. And they’re just theories anyway.

    • JoBrown85

      Dinosaurs were taken on the ark too. They were not excluded. Noah wouldn’t have had to take full-size ones, but young adolescents who would attain breeding age by the time the flood ended. They did re-populate after the flood, but men hunted them down to extinction eventually. Read the book “After the flood” by Bill Cooper. He traces the anglo-saxon ancestry all the way back to Noah’s sons, but also lists many incredible accounts he found during his research: including accounts of man’s encounters with dinosaurs (or dragons) both on land, in water, and flying in the air.

      • Ben

        Really? Only those that had a split hoof and could chew the cud were clean. There were 7 of these in the ark and only 2 of the unclean. Hmm..

        • JoBrown85

          You really need to read your bible more clearly. Noah was to take all the animals on board that could not survive the flood otherwise. Of this group, he was to take 7 pairs (male and female) of the “clean” ones and 1 pair (male and female) of the rest. Therefore dinosaurs were on the ark and, depending on whether they were considered “clean” or “unclean” there would be either 1 pair or 7 pairs of each kind. In other words, there was at least 1 pair of each kind of dinosaur on the ark.

          • hp b
          • alice walters

            maybe the giants where the dinosaurs. perhaps they mated with the daughters of men and hence we have reptilian type humans.

          • mycho saniac

            were hyper-dimensional physics involved? logic and empirical observation fly in the face of your bizarre suppositions like enraged pterodactyls poking their beaks and claws through all the gaping holes in this flimsy argument

          • Deannette Pickford

            You quote and believe in the ramblings of men and so your theories and beliefs will always be flawed accept by you and your self based intellect!!Why do you think no one likes your comments,cause most wise people wouldn’t agree let alone argue with a fool!

      • Muhammad Abbass

        What codswallop!

        • JoBrown85

          Wow, the intellectual superiority of your rebuttal has stumped me. Did you get your education at the Codswallop university?

          • Joseph Chastain

            You do realize the exact size of the Ark was given in Genesis right? it was only 157 feet. On Brontosaurus would be 90 feet. Two Brontosauruses would be larger than the entire Ark. Not possible to put two of every kind of dinosaur on them.

        • Mike

          One could say the same about the book you reference. Just saying.

          • Muhammad Abbass

            No, you could not Mike. Allow me to educate you. The Q’ran was written during the life of the Prophet (SAW) and it has not been changed in translation, existing word perfect to this day in its original language. Numerous witnesses to its provenance and the events depicted within it have given us equally pure testimony which exists to this day, along with the secondary testimony of those who knew these people. Every person depicted in the Q’ran has living family to this day, able to be traced, including the Prophet Muhammad. His family are well known and due to the rich and long history of intellectual and civilisational achievement of the Arab people we have a wealth of cross referential material to check the details of so many aspects of the events and people involved that it would make a CHristian scholar green with envy, since very little of any such things exist for it. Indeed the best evidence the Bible has for much of what it has written exists within the pages of the Q’ran. The Q’ran references a great many of the Biblical events because it is the same religion, even though some of you have strayed so far from the teachings of the Prophet Essa (Jesus) PBUH that you’d never know it. I had even rejected the Bible as man made when I first converted to Islam but was forced by the historical references in the Q’ran to accept it’s basic stories as accurate, and I do. However that doesn’t change a great many of the assertions it makes nor does it solve the main problem that the beauty and perfection of God’s message is lost in the garbled man’s translation and alterations., This fault does not belong to the Q’ran, a FACT accepted among religious scholars of all faiths and of most historians.

          • Deannette Pickford

            You believe in a book of lies and foolishness!I’ve studied it before when I was much younger and couldn’t believe that their are idiots who could believe in such far-fetched bs!

      • Jerry

        The only way anyone could fit all those species on a boat is through DNA. no way, no how a person could build a boat big enough to physically put all these species on there. And if they did … how in the world did they round them all up? It’s just not logical in any time. Enki is the one who saved us from the flood.

        • JoBrown85

          Have you done the calculations? Do you know how big the ark was and how much room it had to house the animals? Do you know how many “kinds” of animals Noah had on board the ark? Do you know what their average size was? Do you know how much of the ark’s load space they took up? And did you not read in the bible that God brought the animals to the ark?
          There’s a book called “Noah’s ark: a feasibility study”. I suggest you read it.

          • Phil

            How do you breath under all that sand?

          • JoBrown85

            So you have nothing of intelligence to add to the discussion.

          • Jerry

            I suggest you look up Enki.

          • mycho saniac

            there is no evidence that he can read: he suggests a ‘feasibility study’ for the ark

          • Joseph Chastain

            Genesis 6:15 gives the dimensions of the ark. it says 300 cubits. You can read this yourself in the Bible. This is 520 feet. There is absolutely no way that even two large species of animals could fit since Genesis 7:2 says that seven of all clean animals were to be taken.

          • Jo Brown

            I think it was somewhere else in this discussion thread that I gave plenty of details about the size of the ark, how much floorspace and volume it had, and how many shipping containers’ worth of stuff it could hold, and the approximate number of animals that equated to.
            Your statement above is merely a statement of dis-believe. You have not done the calculations to determine if it was possible, you merely assume it was not possible.

          • mycho saniac

            ha ha ha! (stops, catches breath…) ha ha ha! how did they keep the t -rex’s from eating the crew? or did that just help them to evolve faster? LOL!!

          • Jo Brown

            Did you not know that prior to the flood animals ate vegetation only? It was _after_ the flood that some animals began eating flesh.
            Besides, in the conditions that animals experienced in the ark (being tossed about on the waves, dark inside the ark) most of them would have gone into some state of hibernation.
            Furthermore, since God was bringing the flood, and since God commanded Noah to build that ship, God would do the things necessary to ensure the success of the mission. That could easily include suppressing the appetite for flesh that the T-rex might have had.

            Or are you calling the Almighty Creator a liar?

          • mycho saniac

            ha ha ha!

        • Deannette Pickford

          Through Jehovah all things are possible!It also says that not man but God brought him the animals

      • Joseph Chastain

        The size of the Ark is given in Genesis 6:15 it’s 300 cubits. This is far too small to include even one species of dinosaur. It’s far to small to include seven of every clean animal and two of every unclean in fact (Genesis 7:2). There are more species of ants that cannot mate with each other that could not fit in the ark by themselves. Do you honestly think they would be room in a 500 foot boat for seven giraffes, seven elephants, seven lions, seven panthers, seven cheetahs, seven hippopotamuses, seven white rhinos, seven black rhinos, (they can’t reproduce with each other), seven wholly mammoths, seven saber tooth tigers (if you believe they all lived at the same time they had to be there too) seven of ALL the HUNDREDS of species of dinosaurs, seven cows. seven buffalo, seven sheep, seven dogs, seven wolves, and seven of each kind of bird? just those species alone? And those aren’t one thousand of one percent of all species. Not to mention that you think all species that ever existed existed then. Just one species of dinosaur would fill up the entire boat. Think of seven of all the kinds of animals you’ve ever heard of and realize that you’ve never heard of even one percent of all species that exist just today and one percent of the species that have existed even exist now. There are new species being discovered EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. Oh and the Bible mentions Unicorns as existing (Job 39:9-12) so don’t forget them. Read your Bible right now. Genesis 6:15. 500 feet. That’s it. That’s how big the Bible says the ark was. That’s not enough room for ONE species of Dinosaur. it was a great story to believe when we were kids, but c’mon man grow up. At the very least it’s a metaphor not to be taken literally. I believe there is a god, but Noah’s ark? It’s ludicrous.

        • Jo Brown

          It’s ridiculous to say the ark was too small to include even one species of dinosaur. Do you not realise the ark had 3 decks? Using the figures in my NIV bible, I calculated that the ark’s interior volume is roughly the same as 630 shipping containers (30 x 10 x 8 feet each). Do you seriously think Noah was so stupid as to take the LARGEST specimen of each dinosaur kind? Or, since he was clever enough to build such a huge ship (not boat) that he was also clever enough to take young adolescents of each kind, who would come into sexual maturity soon after the flood had finished? That way he’d not need so much room to store huge beasts, and would not need so much food for them either.
          The ark contained representatives of each kind of creature, not each species, so the number on board was less than you imagine. Those black and white rhinos, for instance, may no longer be able to reproduce TODAY, but they are of the same kind. There are other examples where members of one species mutate in such a way that sexual compatibility with other members of that species is lost, and this causes the mutated members to be re-classed as a new species. They are still of the same kind though. Would a new flood come around, God would not bring to a new ark every species of pigeon, but only the root kind which is likely the rock pigeon because every other pigeon can be selectively bred from it.
          Another thing is that not all species were on the ark. No water-dwelling species were on the ark. No plant species either. (Other than that used for food.) My understanding is that no insect species were on the ark either, other than those who happened to hitch a ride in the same way that insects tend to invade and find living spaces in just about every nook and cranny. The rest of them survived on floating vegetation outside the ark.
          The unicorn you mentioned is actually a mistranslation of the wild bull. This is obvious from the other information in the verses which talk about the animal ploughing your furrows. Perhaps the animal concerned is the type that has the massive horns that appear to be one piece across the skull, rather than the smaller distinct horns on some other bovine species.
          The Titanic was 882 by 92 feet in size and was able to carry 3327 people along with all their food and drink, and shedloads of cargo. Being about 2.4 times bigger (in terms of footprint), how many species of dinosaur do you think the Titanic could have carried?
          I don’t get where you get this strange notion that the ark wasn’t even big enough for one species of dinosaur. Apart from taking young (small) adolescents to reduce space requirements for the larger kinds, the other thing you don’t seem to realise is that the average size across all dinosaur kinds works out to about the size of a sheep. If you look across all kinds of animals (ie: dinosaurs, birds, land mammals, land reptiles, etc), the average size might come down to something as small as a chicken.
          Your incredulity doesn’t mean the ark was impossible or that it didn’t happen. The evidence of the flood is imprinted on the world, in the form of huge deposits of sedimentary rock layers containing the fossilised remains of all that perished in the flood.

      • mycho saniac

        sheer and utter codswallop! at least you get half a point for going to such lengths to be amusing…

        • Jo Brown

          utter codswallop just because you say so, eh? That’s utterly meaningless of course, since you failed to refute me point by point with data and science.

          • mycho saniac

            (a) i’m quoting “codswallop”, so it’s not just my say so, and (b) i posted data, and you amusingly replied with excuses why you refused to examine it: so “utterly meaningless” becomes still more psychological projection – do you do anything else?

    • Emmanuel Mateo-Morales

      “If man did live among the dinosaurs, that would be consistent with biblical chronology of “sixth day” creation.”

      Well, to be fair, if you’re a young earther. 😉

      • Jo Brown

        The evidence is out there: Human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints. Man-made objects in supposedly ancient coal deposits. Many ancient Icca stones depicting man and dinosaur and scenes of life showing man doing things like surgery. Human legends of dragons (aka dinosaurs). Ancient accounts of dragons in biblical as well as secular writings. It’s all there if you’re prepared to look for it.

        • Joseph Chastain

          “Human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints” False. The “footprints” were not nearly as old as the Dinosaurs.

          ” Many ancient Icca stones depicting man and dinosaur and scenes of life showing man doing things like surgery. ” Non existent. There are no such stories.

          Human legends of dragons (aka dinosaurs). No dinosaur skeleton looks like what a dragon has been depicted as. In all cultures dragons are depicted as being fire breathing, which no dinosaur or any other living creature was, and no dinosaur looked anything physically like any dragon drawing. Chinese drawings looked like snakes, no Dinosaur looked like snakes. European Dinosaurs looked like crocodiles and no dinosaur looked like that either.

          No dinosaur skeleton has ever been found near in the same rock layer as a human one, which makes it impossible that they coexisted.

          Also this does not explain other things like mammoths or Saber tooth tigers. This does not explain the many plants and animals besides dinosaurs that existed.

          Why then is there no drawing or tails of Dragons that look like Triceratops despite the fact that they were so common skeletons found?

          Why if they coexisted has there been no talk of lizards with feathers by ancient people, despite the fact that scientists have proven that many dinosaurs in fact had feathers?

          If the world is only five thousand years old why are there written documents that talk about histories older than that? (IE The story of Gilgamesh, The Vedas). No the world is not 5,000 years old, and no person with any knowledge believes that. Even most Christians believe that the world is much older. The Bible even says the sun wasn’t created on the first day, so how was the first day twenty four hours? Even the book of Psalms says to God a day can be a thousand years (which actually means any amount of time) so the six days he created the Earth in could have been billions of years long.

          • Jo Brown

            We’ll have to agree to disagree on dinosaurs and footprints and such. I say the evidence for such things do exist and have been found, you say they don’t exist. Perhaps you didn’t look hard enough.

            I’m not sure what you mean with “this does not explain other things like mammoths or Saber tooth tigers, […and…] the many plants and animals besides dinosaurs that
            existed.” I don’t see a mystery here at all.

            “Why then is there no drawing that look like Triceratops?”
            Actually, there is one, a carving of a triceratops-like creature on a temple wall (in Cambodia if I recall correctly).

            “no talk of lizards with feathers”… As far as I know the ancient accounts don’t much focus on the animals’ hide but rather their actions and interactions with humans. Can we conclude from this that such creatures didn’t have skin either? I’m sure ancient accounts didn’t discuss the animals’ poo or pee either, so can we conclude that they didn’t perform either of these functions?

            “no person with any knowledge believes that the world is younger than 6000 years”
            That’s a fallacious “no true Irishman” argument. There are plenty of Christian scientists with lots of knowledge, who nevertheless don’t subscribe to the old Earth theory but accept that the Earth could in fact be fairly young.
            The bible says the sun was created on the fourth day. There was light prior to that, as light was created on day 1. The sun’s absence is not a barrier to the passage of 24 hours of time. A day is the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees. If there is a directional light source, this will cause there to be an evening and a morning for each rotation.
            The verse in psalms you referred to doesn’t mean that a thousand years IS a day, but that to God (who exists independent of time, or in a timeless realm) a thousand years is LIKE a day: both time periods are inconsequential to him.
            If each day of creation was billions of years long, then the plants created on day 3 wouldn’t have had any light for billions of years until the sun was created on day 4. And they wouldn’t have had insects to pollinate them for several billions of years more until flying insects were created on day 5. So this day-age theory just doesn’t stack up.
            All Jewish scholars agree that the clear intent of the writer of Genesis 1 was that the days depicted are literal 24 hour days as we know them, with an evening and a morning. In fact, the meaning of “day” is defined in Genesis 1 by tying it to an “evening and a morning”! The use of the definitive article “the” and a numeral, eg THE FIRST day… THE SECOND day, underscores even more that the passage is referring to literal 24 hour days, not indetermined periods of time. Little quiz for you… which of these phrases refers to a literal 24 hour day:
            (1) In my father’s day, the school was heated by a coal furnace.
            (2) At night we played with the telescope, and during the day we rested at the campsite.
            (3) We set out from the village and on the fourth day we finally reached base camp.

    • Michael

      Genesis 2:7

      King James Version (KJV)

      7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

      There was a sixth day creation according to The Word of God, not until Jesus created Adam did a man have a living soul. Sixth day creation did not have a soul.

    • ArkJean

      Do voice your theory, in this page nothing sounds crazy. Besides you might be right, so please share.

      • Kim

        I may once this topic comes up again. For now, I’ll stick with the safe theory of biomimetics. Thanks for your support. :-)

        • Anthony9

          Hi Kim, it is nice to see people like yourself actually thinking and sharing their thoughts with the whole world.
          Bible does speak of a 6th day of creation and this theory does not work against a more ancient “Enuma Elish” sumerian tablets script of the beginning of humanity. I would recommend you to read “The Lost Book of Enki” by Zecharia Sitchin, in which ancient sumerian record has been translated into English. There you will learn in detail about how Elohim created humans, by try and fail methods of genetic manipulation until they finally made it ‘right’.
          I truly wish Bible could be the ‘only and the ultimate truth’, but if you expand your horizons and look further into the matter truth becomes a bit more vivid.

    • Muhammad Abbass

      These were not “days” as we know them, not Earth days (since Earth was still being formed obviously) and it isa pity Christianity is such a primitive and largely hijacked religion that having an intelligent discussion about true history with them is pointless. The Q’ran makes the many discrepancies of the much altered Bible go away and definitely allows for extraterrestrials and much older humankind history on Earth.

      • JoBrown85

        The Q’ran, written by a person of questionable morality, A book that instructs its followers to kill non-muslims by beheading. And a look at its followers and the crap they’re doing in the middle east and around the world, it’s pretty obvious that the Q’ran is NOT the word of God. I’ve just read another article about a bunch of muslims gang-raping a 13 year old girl in Brittain. Pardon me if I don’t put much stock in your opinion or in the Q’ran.

        • Padraigin

          The word of God that you refer to is in fact the Annunaki gods, which the bible and all other books of a similar vein describe in great detail; the Elohim is that which you should research, now that you have sounded off on Muhammad’s observation.

          Sitchin 101 for beginners might help with information regarding the ancient artifacts that reveal that the planet has been inhabited by “humans” for hundreds of thousands of years.

          • Deannette Pickford

            What planet are you talking about?Only stupid scientist believe that bs!The earth is less than ten thousand years old!Believe them though……they still believe in evolution too smh!

          • mycho saniac

            Science News

            New Evidence Puts Man In North America 50,000 Years Ago

            Date:November 18, 2004Source:University Of South CarolinaSummary:Radiocarbon tests of carbonized plant remains where artifacts were unearthed last May along the Savannah River in Allendale County by University of South Carolina archaeologist Dr.
            Albert Goodyear indicate that the sediments containing these artifacts
            are at least 50,000 years old, meaning that humans inhabited North
            American long before the last ice age.

          • Deannette Pickford

            What a idiotic moron!Do you really think people are as ignorant as you are and don’t have access to the same internet you use to get your info from?A simple search and you will find way more studies than not about how carbon dating is very inaccurate when done on almost anything past 4000 years and even the man who invented it was very disturbed and upset by this fact!If you want I can also give you the links to several different sites about the inaccuracy of carbon dating…….or just look it up yourself smh!

          • mycho saniac

            do any of these sites include peer-reviewed scientific journal articles? i’m sure that you could find a site claiming that all of our scientists are under remote mind control from a superiour dimension and will only let us learn what we need to know in order to terraform our planet for beings such as the greys with their tiny mouths and nostrils, who claim to be us in the future and don’t need air, food or water, too…but is that really relevant here?

          • Deannette Pickford

            Can’t get anyone to like your comments cause your too one track minded and biased to all truth!Jo Brown has likes cause he wrote some truths you still refute smh!Go back to the university of weirdos where you came from…..

          • mycho saniac

            ‘likes’ are no indication of a statement’s veracity – jo brown already conceded that he has no intention of fact-checking the strategically misrepresenting ‘translation’ he claims, and you yourself have rejected valid scientific evidence on the basis of a delusion inversion of the limits of carbon-dating (while also ignoring other evidence even though your uninformed opinions continue unabated) – your refusal to acknowledge legitimate points is plainly dishonourable, and your desperate carping deserves no further attention

          • Deannette Pickford

            The only evidence you have once again is that your a ignorant fool!Your just like a woman,your always emotional,can’t stop your own mouth,and have no self control!Your the only one that believes in your own garbage jibberish!Go try teaching again…….can’t can you cause your a proven quack!Blah blah blah over and over again is wasting time you should be spending doing something more meaningful!Your a waste of life and a useless speck of dust!A fool hates correction and is wise in their own head lol!You can’t take what anyone says against what you believe and so u are a pathetic excuse of a man and have lots of growing mentally and spiritually! Im done wasting my time with your foolish ignorance………

          • mycho saniac

            STILL won’t address the scientific evidence, huh? let’s all act surprised!

          • mycho saniac

            “teaching again”?! how did you know i used to teach at a college, may i inquire? do you have a file for all the discussants, or just the ones who identify cointelpro disinfo shills? lol – you just couldn’t “control yourself”!

          • Padraigin Eagle

            Picking A Ford

            Deaninthenet, you’re so cute when in a snit, must be the smh bit, and whatever the age, I do enjoy the way you rattle your cage.

          • mycho saniac

            ‘like’!

            Reply

          • Deannette Pickford

            Ignorant ramblings of an imperfect man that believes they know something when in fact it is ALWAYS foolish to put your trust in the sayings and beliefs of another man or men cause all are imperfect!Thanks but I have a higher authority to learn from and not from your opinions based on your own emotional ignorance……

          • Padraigin Eagle

            In Perfect: Only real woman need apply.

            When your hired authority is another menopausal PMT ‘woman’ then that’s what ye begat, a Dumbette Prickford, rambling in the bull-rushes, so please spare us the blushes, Dickford indeed.

          • Deannette Pickford

            Foolish lil boy!I pray that one day u grow up and take the frustration of being single and lonely and master it so that you can live a normal balanced and simple life!I won’t waste your time so you can get to growing up ASAP!Good luck lil boy hopefully you will be a man soon and have a family instead of wasting time on social media sites with your useless nonsense!Go help people with your same problem when you get wise and understand OK!

          • Padraigin Eagle

            Demonic Tickbird, why do I get the impression that you were once a man, but libtard mental illness prevailed and Caitlyn now becomes you, say it ain’t true, Dickfour two.

          • Deannette Pickford

            Lol!The impression on your pants outlines your camel toe!Must be angry that your menstrual cycle started and your favorite dildo is out of batteries!

          • mycho saniac

            wow – the identical spam i received: i guess that’s easier than grasping the issues (p.s. most of us already realize that when disinfo shills trot out these tired tactics, there’s something worthwhile being buried)

          • Deannette Pickford

            For men wrote born along by the holy spirit……means absolutely nothing to a fool lol

          • Padraigin Eagle

            Born Long: But then you had to be there.

            Dickford imbibing the holy spirit, cane or disabled, with eish!

        • Mike

          Name a religion that doesn’t promote its message by the killing of others. Don’t think Christianity applies? Read up on your history.

          • Muhammad Abbass

            Islam does not promote itself by killing, the belief it is otherwise is the purest falsehoods, spread by natural born liars who seek not to inform but to misinform that their master’s nefarious plans can be advanced. There are no verses in the noble Q’ran that advocate killing in the name of Islam. There are references to historical killings and wars and guidance given for these instances but except for a specific class of blasphemous Muslim (the Wahhabis are largely the ones who misuse this to spread hatred whilst ironically it seems to be referring to them) there is no suggestion that violence or killing should be used in the name of God or His religion. Except in self defence. Anyone who says otherwise is lying, using the word of men or mistranslated verses from the Q’ran.

          • Jo Brown

            Read the article Jason linked to below. The koran itself, and history too, both testify that Islam is a religion of violence, not peace.

            Mistranslated verses? All of them I suppose? Gimme a break!

          • Muhammad Abbass

            They are asserting something, by way of selected quotes out of context…that is a world of difference between testifying to something, pea brain.

          • mycho saniac

            no, the “hate site” jason linked only strategically mistranslated ‘some’ of the passages, and left the remainder in pristine condition to enhance the contrasting imagery: what do you think?

          • David Beczuk

            You try and try to paint the religion as something good, but your people decapitate others with the Quran in hand. There is no misinformation here, their acts are all that it’s needed to understand what the Quran is teaching them.

          • Muhammad Abbass

            I don’t have to paint a great and old religion like Islam as anything it is already known. The modern and recent pretence it is violent is just a self fulfilling lie told by the sort of liars who have fed your delusions. those head chopping, raping and pillaging swine in ISIS are not Muslims because they claim to be. All five schools of Islam have rejecte them as Muslims hence their claims are utterly devoid of merit. Their allies and supporters are USA, Wahhabi Oil Regimes and Israel. They’re your pets my boy. They owe their existence as do the Wahhabis and House of Saud behind them, to Washington, London and Tel Aviv and no more true Muslims than you are. The very actions you decry are committed by these idiots against our religion as it is in the Noble Quran for all to see. The idiots also carry out such horrors mainly against moderate and true Muslims like me you dribbling cretin. If they were anything but a weapon being used against Islam by its enemies why is it allied with Islams enemies and mainly killing Muslims? You’d have to be pretty thick to believe as you do at this stage but I shall direct my reply to anyone with a mind of their own to judge.

          • scott

            You are such a LIAR! The Quran absolutely teaches Muslims to spread Islam by fear and violence. There are 79 verses in the Quran in which Allah commands the faithful Muslim to do so.
            As for why Muslims kill, rape, and destroy other Muslims, if you knew anything about the history of early Isalm, you’d know about why the Shi’ites fight the Sunnis, and they both hate the Sufis.
            Stop trying to BS us with your lying denials: We’re not stupid! We have a Quran. And some of us have studied the history is Islam extensively and also the life of your perverted pedophile “prophet” (Hellfire be upon him) and we know what he did during his lifetime.
            On Judgement Day, you, Mohammad, all Muslims, and LuciferAllah will bow to The King of Kings & Lord of Lords and admit He is God Almighty.

          • Joseph Chastain

            If you study the early days of Christianity and the CURRENT days of Christianity you will find people who killed and continue to kill. The Bible in both the old and new testament commands murder many times. There were more terrorists attacks in the United States committed by Christian Terrorists since 9/11 than Islamic one (you can verify this with the FBI if you do not believe me) you could argue these are not true Christians but in the same respect you could argue that the Muslims that committed 9/11 were not true Muslims then. BOTH those religions have a history of violence throughout. Neither is a religion of peace in practice. And Christians commit pedophilia every day. I have personally known people who were molested by pastors of churches (not just by Catholics, but obviously it’s well known that the Catholic church has a pedophile problem). Christianity is not a religion of peace and has killed more people than any other thing in history. As Jesus himself first take the plank from your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

          • scott

            You’re as big a liar as Muhammad is. You know nothing about the Bible or Christianity, nor about history. To insist that a Holy God would command His followers to commit murder in His name is so outrageously false, it beggars belief.
            The murders that took place in the first 100 years of Christianity were committed by pagans against Christians.
            And you think Christians are blowing up places and gunning down non believers whilst shouting, “Jesus is King of Kings & Lord of Lords”! Oh yeah, sure, we see that on the news every night.
            You make that claim that Christians have killed more people than anything in history. It’s time to have you committed to the “Insane & Stupid Asylum.” If you’re referring to the Great Inquisition 1095-1800, that was the Roman Catholic Church, NOT the Christian Church. The two are very different in many ways. In fact, many of the victims of the Great Inquisition were Christians who refused to bow to the Pope and refused to say the Word of God had to submit to the Vatican and there was no salvation outside of Rome. Bloody Mary (Queen 1553-1558) is a shining example of a Christian killer. She put to death thousands of Christians in her 5 year reign.
            As for Islam, the terrorists are following their Quran exactly as it is written. They are NOT radicals, lone wolves, or renegades. They are faithful Muslims who do as the Quran and the Hadith tell them to; and as Mohammad did during the final 23 years of his life.
            The Quran and the Bible are as much alike as cheese and motor oil. Unless you are trained to know what you’re looking at and how to properly interpret each, you draw ridiculous conclusions like they are pretty much alike.
            So: before you go spouting off complete rubbish about what you know nothing of, do some research under reliable teachers and actually read the Holy Bible and the Generous Quran for yourself.

          • mycho saniac

            joseph, yours is the best use of a biblical quotation in context i have seen in a good while!

            9-11 was a false flag attack, jet fuel cannot melt steel girders, and if you search ‘intel agent admits all domestic terror attacks are false flags’ you will see that muslims are being wrongly blamed for 9-11 (and much else, including the boston marathon and san bernardino) – and if you search ”carol rosin – von braun’, you will hear a former nasa director describe a contrived war on “islamic terrorists” discussed in a meeting she walked out of in the 70’s

          • Jo Brown

            Your error is that you believe that because muslims were falsely blamed for 9-11, that therefore all attrocious behaviour by muslims as reported in the media is also false.

            Your conduct here, where you refuse to acknowledge examples of muslim attrocious behaviour and instead waffle on about “strategic mistranslations” certainly suggests you are wilfully blind to reality.

          • mycho saniac

            i have already posted the link and suggested you take it up with the intelligence agent who discloses that ALL domestic terror events are false flag attacks, along with mentioning the documented fact that the mayor of cologne fired her police chief for abetting the so-called ‘muslim’ attackers – what is your problem here: reading comprehension?

          • Jo Brown

            You said “The Bible in both the old and new testament commands murder many times.”
            Show me where in the new testament murder is commanded. Someone else also made the same claim, and I challenged them to provide NT verses. I subsequently debunked all the verses they claimed commanded violence. So in this case I don’t fancy your chances. Perhaps you should just recant and admit that the NT does not command murder.

          • Jo Brown

            It’s been 3 weeks now and I see you have still not provided any evidence that murder is commanded in the new testament.

            Therefore I am entitled to conclude that you made that statement without any evidence whatsoever, and probably that you made it knowing it to be a falsehood.

            You have lost the argument.

          • mycho saniac

            such passion! but your facts are incorrect, and it is obvious from these familiar cliches that you have been accepting strategically misrepresented ‘translations’, do not know how to access the material in the original language, and do not know enough to compare these self-serving falsehoods with the legitimate translations by established biblical scholars

          • mycho saniac

            testing: “1” “2” “3”…technical difficulties are temporary – is this post no longer here? i appear to be having some trouble posting a response…

          • mycho saniac

            there is more than enough evidence that isis is a western invention as well – ” Their allies and supporters are USA, Wahhabi Oil Regimes and Israel.
            They’re your pets my boy. They owe their existence as do the Wahhabis
            and House of Saud behind them, to Washington, London and Tel Aviv and no
            more true Muslims than you are.”

          • Muhammad Abbass

            They are none of them true Muslims specifically due to doing these things.

          • mycho saniac

            by definition – it’s kind of a give-away

          • Jo Brown

            Mike, I was talking about the q’ran, or koran, not the religion of Islam. So you should compare like for like. Book with book, not book with religion. Christianity has its new testament, which tells followers of Christ to be like Christ, loving everyone, harming no one. In contrast the koran tells its followers to strike at the neck of unbelievers (behead them).

            Those who claim to follow certain religions, whether that be Christianity or Islam, won’t always act in accordance with what their book teaches, so in that regard both muslims and christians can be hypocritical. But when comparing their books, there is a big difference between the two. Under which system would you rather live, Christianity or Islam?

          • Doozie

            I’d pick neither. Both religions are full of holes left and right. No doubt both are highly manipulative.

            “At the center of the universe dwells the great spirit. That center is really everywhere, it is within each of us.”
            – Black Elk

            You do not need a book written by man to know this.

          • Jo Brown

            Hmmm, you say you don’t need a book written by man, yet you quoted some man named Black Elk as your counterpoint. By whose authority does he speak?
            Jesus spoke by the authority of his Father, the Creator, and he proved it by the many miracles he did, as well as the many prophecies his life fulfilled.
            I suspect the “holes left and right” you speak about are not due to your own research, for if you had studied the bible dilligently and with an open inquiring mind, you’d have come away with a rather different conclusion – that it is the word of a supremely intelligent being who exists outside of our time domain and can see the beginning from the end, and has foretold in carefully crafted code (that the dilligent can decipher) what is to happen in the future.
            It’s a shame that the god of this world (Satan) has manipulated you into closing your eyes to the truth. If you need help understanding it all, see if you can get hold of the seminars by guys like David Asscherick, Doug Batchelor, and Shawn Boonstra. I’ve found these men have an amazing talent for opening the scriptures and decoding their meaning. You’ll be amazed by what you’ll learn. In my country I’m fortunate to have a tv station called Firstlight that regularly features them.

          • Ser Roderick

            You do make good points. With reference to quoting Black Elk and not needing Scripture to know the truth, it does say in the Bible in the letters of apostle Paul that what can be known of the Almighty God can be seen in His creation from the beginning of the world, so the peoples who do not have access to Scripture or the Christian religion can still know God through their conscience. I’ve always understood this as a reference to peoples such as some Native American tribes whose worldview seems to correspond to Christian values.

          • David Beczuk

            Yet you can not prove any of the miracles he claimed he did. Or at least prove that he existed…

          • mycho saniac

            are you implying that black elk must have written his words in a book?

            Jo Brown Doozie
            “Hmmm, you say you don’t need a book written by man, yet you quoted some man named Black Elk as your counterpoint. By whose authority does he speak?”

            hmmm, you use the word “yet” as though there were some contradiction in doozie’s statement – yet there isn’t any! perhaps you are not so “fortunate to have a tv station” as your source of “authority”

          • Jo Brown

            Unless Doozie was present to personally hear Black Elk make that statement, he would have almost certainly received it in written form. My point was that Doozie accepts Black Elk’s words without question (whether he heard them, or read them) but questions the inspired scriptures that have internal evidence pointing to their supernatural origin (and hence point to their authority).

            It’s pretty weak of you to try to make a point out of this issue of Black Elk’s words, while ignoring everything else I wrote in that post.

          • mycho saniac

            (a) black elk’s society used the oral tradition, and you have no compelling evidence that doozie is not reproducing the exact words spoken by that wise and eloquent leader

            (b) this rather picky and irrelevant objection is a straw man argument which ignores the truth that what black elk (and jesus) said is known to all who have not strayed from the ancient knowledge too far into the un-zen medium of often mistranslated ‘texts’ and “tv”

            (c) it is presumptuous – and obtusely misses the point – to say that doozie accepts these words without question, when he uses them to demonstrate the flaw of religions (of accepting on faith) when contrasted with the direct experience he himself expressly recognizes well enough to be able to black elk’s statement articulate it so recognizably

            (d) lol! – you look pretty silly pretending that i have “ignored everything else” in your post after i wrote somehthing you steadfastly and ironically refuse to acknowledge and address:

            mycho saniac

            Jo Brown

            12 hours ago

            hmmm,
            you use the word “yet” as though there were some contradiction in
            doozie’s statement – yet there isn’t any! perhaps you are not so
            “fortunate to have a tv station” as your source of “authority”

          • Deannette Pickford

            Go back and read your own statements after you mature in 15-20 years or more!

          • mycho saniac

            would you like some assistance with some of the polysyllabic word-thingies? you still flinch from actually quibbling with any particular issue, so (again) you are easily dismissed

          • Joseph Chastain

            Obviously you’ve never read the New Testament…

          • Jo Brown

            I’ve read it heaps of times.

          • Joseph Chastain

            “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” Matthew 10:21

            But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. Luke 10:10-10:12

            And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people Acts 3:23

            31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

            32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:31-1:32

            28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? Hebrews 10:28-29

            And then there’s the whole book of Revelations…

            Yeah real book of peace there…

          • Jo Brown

            **“Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.” Matthew 10:21**
            Jesus was saying what was going to happen in the future. He was not commanding people to do this. So how could this be a bad reflection on Christianity, or are you being wilfully stupid?

            **[i]But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you. Yet be sure of
            this: The kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. Luke 10:10-10:12[/i]**
            Oh shock horror! When Jesus’ disciples were not welcomed in a town, they were told to [b]wipe the dust of the town off their feet[/b] and warn them that rejecting the kingdom of God would entail terrible consequences. Yeah, that’s so much worse than [b]beheading the townsfolk[/b] if they reject the preaching! /s

            **[i]And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people Acts 3:23[/i]**
            Luke is quoting from the OT and you’ve taken the second line of that quote. Again, there is here NO COMMAND to hurt the person who does not heed the prophet. So far, your efforts to prove how violent Christ’s teachings (Christianity) are, have turned out to be nothing but wind.

            **[i]31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:31-1:32[/i]**
            Again, Paul is describing the depravity of humanity. There is no command here to sin or commit violence.

            **[i]28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? Hebrews 10:28-29[/i]**
            The writer of Hebrews is asking hypothetically what punishment befits the greater sin of trampling under foot the Son of God and His blood that scantified him, as compared to ‘merely’ rejected the law of Moses. Once again, there is NO COMMAND to hurt such a person. In fact, a contrast is drawn between what such persons deserve and what they may receive in the end if their return and persevere in the faith. If only you had read past these two verses and on to verse 35 you would know that.

            **[i]And then there’s the whole book of Revelations…
            Yeah real book of peace there…[/i]**
            Yes it is a book of peace. It reveals God’s plan for dealing with the sins of mankind that threaten his peace and joy. Out of love for mankind, God will ultimately act to root out all those that sin and all that causes sin, so that peace, love, and joy may once again gladden the heart of man. God has been waiting patiently, giving everyone an opportunity to repent and turn to him for salvation. But man actively reject God and his salvation. They choose to be on Satan’s side and indulge in sins of various kinds. Eventually they will have to face the consequences, for the sake of the meek who do wish to live in peace and obedience to God. As they say, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. And even here, once again, there is NO COMMAND to hurt the sinful person. God himself will deal with them.

            So, I’m going to have to grade your effort to prove that Christianity is a violent religion as a total failure. But I’m feeling a little charitable, so I’ll give you one point for being able to quote some bible verses, even if unsupportive of your argument. :-)

          • mycho saniac

            even by contriving to eliminate your own historical roots from the equation (the old testament: or did bush’s fundamentalism obliviate all ten commandments, as appears to be the case?), you would be hard pressed to maintain that these instruments were intended to be used for writing words of peace in stone:

            36And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it
            along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat
            and buy one.

            37″For
            I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE
            WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its
            fulfillment.”

            (jo brown probably doesn’t get irony)
            “But I’m feeling a little charitable, so I’ll give you one point for
            being able to quote some bible verses, even if unsupportive of your
            argument. :-)”

          • Jo Brown

            So what’s your point? Are you really suggesting that the verses you just quoted prove that Christianity is a violent religion?
            On their earlier missionary journeys, Jesus sent them out with no provisions, presumably to teach them to rely on God for their needs and also to show them that as workers for God they were worthy of the “wages” they’d receive in the form of hospitality and food from those they preached the good news to.
            But now that he was about to be arrested, a new phase in their ministry was to begin, and they would be sure to encounter hardships, so he prepared them for that.

            As for the need to buy a sword, Jesus even explained the reason for it in the verse you quoted! It was to fulfill the scripture that said he was numbered with the transgressors. When the disciples said that there was a sword among them, Jesus said that that was enough. He never gave any command regarding its use. In fact, when Peter used that sword a short time later to cut off the ear of one of the men in the group that came to arrest his Lord , Jesus instantly told him sternly to put his sword away.

            So, I’ll give you one point too, for being able to quote some bible verse, even if in your case that verse was also unsupportive of your argument. :-)
            The fact remains, Christianity does not endorse violence.

          • mycho saniac

            ha ha! laughable exercise in semantics: he told them to get swords because he was besieged with “transgressors”, but did not suggest that they actually ‘use’ them – lol!

            signification occurs not simply in semiotic deconstruction of the texts themselves, but in the manner in which they are put to use – the militant radical fundamentalism of the bush-rove-james watt junta’s jihad on the environment and all ‘other’ religions (including most christian ones), and the global terror exercises and invasions of small oil-rich nations, are all launched in the name of jesus, with the same pure unadulterated sanctimonious hypocrisy their cia-created and trained partners in crime conducting the non-domestic false flag terror attacks in the islamic world falsely express towards islam

          • Jo Brown

            Once again you got it wrong. The purpose of the sword that Jesus wanted them to have was not to attack the transgressors who were besieging him, but that they needed to have a sword so as to be perceived as trouble-makers, as revolutionaries, as transgressors. Having a sword in their possession would be enough to allow those labels to be applied, thus fulfilling scripture. They didn’t need to actually use the sword, as Jesus’ stern words to Peter make quite clear.

          • mycho saniac

            lol! we just carry guns around so we’ll look like bad-asses when “transgressors” besiege us – we wouldn’t actually use them! there’s an old saying: you don’t pull out a gun unless you intend to use it, because you can be shot dead just for doing so at the wrong time – are you contending that the roman soldiers were the “transgressors” who would be intimidated by fishermen with swords? your dual use of the term is particularly unclear

            it is amusing that you seem not to get how counter-intuitive it is to a supposed message of peace just to “fulfill scripture” – not to mention the circular reasoning involved: what scripture? what he was saying at the time? we’re going to do something totally against our own message (of turning the other cheek) “so that we will be perceived as… transgressors” as a response to being beset by transgressors?!! do you really not see the confusion in your forays into tautology (circular reasoning) and amateur semantics?

          • Jo Brown

            Oh the irony of an ignorant, backward, barbaric muslim trying to tell me my comments are tautological and amateur semantics.
            You can laugh and mock all you like about how silly it is to have a sword and not use it. The fact remains that Jesus wanted there to be a sword among his group so that scripture would be fulfilled that he would be seen as (numbered among) a transgressor. (A revolutionist most likely in this case, because people were constantly rising up against the Roman occupation, and they hoped that this Jesus would be the great leader who would set the Jews free from Roman oppression.)
            I don’t care how amusing you think it is that I don’t agree with you that it is counter-intuitive to Jesus’ message of peace to fulfill scripture by possessing a sword. If you have an issue with that, perhaps you should take it up with Jesus the Messiah rather than with me. But the scripture he was fulfilling was Isaiah 53:12, where it is written:
            [i]Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and [b]was numbered with the transgressors[/b]. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.[/i]

            But rather than laugh and mock in order to give the false impression that you’re right and I’m wrong, what you need to do is to produce scripture verses that show that Jesus gave a command about committing some act of violence with that sword, or that Jesus himself committed some act of violence with that sword. You’ve not managed to do so thus far.

          • mycho saniac

            ha ha ha! i’m not muslim, and have taught philosophy: no surprise that you are unable to see the hilariously ironic paradox of the ‘pacifists convention – swords mandatory’ p.o.v.

            i told you i would not be reading your diatribes, because you did not examine the evidence i posted: i even spelled it for you in these quite explicit terms:

            20 hours ago

            i will give this lengthy comment the respect it deserves:

            “I don’t need to know if they’re “strategically incorrect translations”
            or not. Just looking at the way muslims treat people says an awful lot
            about them and about their so-called religion of peace.”

            these ridiculous false stereotypes about muslims resemble the false
            translations you posted above, and i would do you and other readers a
            disservice were i pretend that i was ever going to dignify whatever you
            added to your diatribe after you have acknowledged that you had not
            verified the accuracy of the source of your self-serving, intentionally
            misrepresenting translations, and that you were not about to even
            attempt to do so

            such brazen disrespect for the accuracy and veracity of your own contentions guarantees that further dispatches fromyou, lengthy or otherwise, will be laughed at enthusiastically

            unread, of course :-)

          • Jo Brown

            I see you have nothing new to add to the discussion but must resort to re-quoting yourself to give the appearance that you’re some kind of authority on the subject. You might fool yourself with this ruse, but others reading this will see it for what it is: you have nothing to back your argument with, and are just using bluster to save face.
            I accept your defeat.

            And it’s strange that you claim not to be a muslim, yet go out of your way to defend these barbaric monsters and pretend they don’t do those nasty vile things that I’ve mentioned in previous posts. But hey, ignorance is bliss I suppose.

          • mycho saniac

            (apparently he didn’t get it) – for the remedial class: you have disqualified yourself from the discussion by insisting on disregarding evidence: furthermore, as a certified bigot, you are not worthy opponent: enjoy your soliloquy! your other post is very long, and rest assured i will ignore it as you did the evidence i posted

            i will address the shorter one below , because you are so wrong on this one that i almost feel as though i had not posted this information already juts above: “9-11 was a false flag attack, jet fuel cannot melt steel girders, and if you search ‘intel agent admits all domestic terror attacks are false flags’ you will see that muslims are being wrongly blamed for 9-11 (and much else, including the boston marathon and san bernardino) – and if you search ”carol rosin – von braun’, you will hear a former nasa director describe a contrived war on “islamic terrorists” discussed in a meeting she walked out of in the 70’s”

            Jo Brown

            mycho saniac

            17 hours ago

            “Your error is that you believe that because muslims were falsely
            blamed for 9-11, that therefore all attrocious behaviour by muslims as
            reported in the media is also false.”

            once again, you’re an idiot who believes tv, and cites it as an authorty: please shut up and stop regurgitating network opinions ad nauseum, ty

          • Jo Brown

            Yep, just as I thought. You’re a total retard who can’t handle the truth. Can’t acknowledge and address the attrocities that muslims commit around the world, whether it’s raping women in Sweden, or smashing ancient temples and artifacts to pieces in Syria. So you’re saying all these people who are hurt by muslims are all lying? Your failure to address these attrocities is akin to you claiming that all these people are lyinging.
            And yes I know about 9-11 and that the “official” version is not the truth. But you can’t use that to then say that all reports of attrocities committed by muslims are false. That’s faulty logic.

            And look at the hubris in your post: “you have disqualified yourself from the discussion by insisting on disregarding evidence”. Says who, numb-nuts? You? I suppose you ARE the authority on this subject here because you have certainly been disregarding evidence of muslim attrocities, like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. “Nope, can’t see a thing from here, therefore muslims don’t commit attrocities. It’s all lies by the media, because I can’t see a thing.”

          • mycho saniac

            you don’t seem to be paying full atention to your comments: if you disagree with the intelligence officer (op cit) who asserts that ALL domestic terror attacks are false flags, take it up with him! (sheesh: WHAT a maroon! lol!)

            this is equally hilarious: “you have disqualified yourself from the discussion by insisting on disregarding evidence”. Says who, numb-nuts? You?” it’s so simple that a child should be able to follow this: if you refuse to examine the evidence, then your opinion is so uninformed that your emotional venting can never be more than a source of amusement – the sentence is better without the context removed as you have done: “(apparently he didn’t get it) – for the remedial class: you have disqualified yourself from the discussion by insisting on disregarding evidence: furthermore, as a certified bigot, you are not worthy
            opponent: enjoy your soliloquy! your other post is very long, and rest
            assured i will ignore it as you did the evidence i posted”

            go ask your neighbours kids to explain it to you, neinstein! :-)

          • Deannette Pickford

            True ignorance…….won’t waste my breath with an explanation!A fool shall always be right in their self proclaimed intelligence and will never be man enough to stop being so prideful!Might learn if listened more!Jo browns reasoning is sound and yours just…….sounds……

          • Deannette Pickford

            Can’t argue with a fool and mycho seems to be a big one!Excuses excuse!Learn how to interpret.,…… If you haven’t learned by now u never will!

          • mycho saniac

            you don’t even demonstrate that you are following the discussion, so your input here is easily dismissed – and aren’t you the same character who ‘corrected’ us about science? “What planet are you talking about?Only stupid scientist believe that bs!The earth is less than ten thousand years old!” – i assume you are attempting to discredit the informative thread by carrying on with such flagrant delusions

          • Joseph Chastain

            How about you google the words “Tyre still stands” or the thousands of other Bible prophecies that didn’t come true, how about the prophecy that says the Nile would dry up? Or the Jebusites be out of Israel when they were still there in later verses?

            Also who cares if he quotes the old testament, it’s quoting it to say it’s correct and STILL IN EFFECT.

          • Shibin

            its wrong..
            pls do validate ur statements before posting

          • Eram

            Do research on the Anakim aka nepilum and you will find out why God told “His” people to “kill” every lastan woman and child. They were the one with elongated skulls. The mixed seed. As it was in the days of Noah so will it be in the days of the coming of the Son of man.

          • Josh S.

            I’m glad you said this because I was gunna.. Anunaki = fallen angels same with paladieans they will come with talks of peace and say there going to fix everything blah blah blah… Noah and his family was the only humans that weren’t some sort of hybrid beast! I can’t hate I did so much research and I thought to that alien will help that they were good. That anunaki were gods had me going but please research this its real Jesus is great. I was full blown atheist most of my life intill I pieced the truth together. Also in the days of noah they were more advanced then use they stole history from this and if you read the bible it says this.. THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN

          • Deannette Pickford

            Plenty of them so your the one that needs to do his research and stop believing what u find on the internet…….I happen to study one……

          • mycho saniac

            “study one” what? (and, who is she talking to?)

          • Deannette Pickford

            I’m talking to a ignorant fool who pridefully thinks they know everything but is full of self believed nonsense that only makes sense to the ignorant……..

        • Muhammad Abbass

          The morality of Muhammad is not under any question. He was universally recognised as a man of the highest character and I have answered the perverted imaginings I suspect you also are referring to like other verminous types.

          • Jo Brown

            He is not “universally recognised as a man of the highest character” because there are people who’ve dug a little deeper and say this man not a man of good character, being sexually immoral with young girls for instance.

          • Innernowledgeman

            Don’t worry man, there are to many worpt heads in this discussion, no doubt the majority of speakers are septic tanks !!!!!!

        • mycho saniac

          you appear to be accepting as accurate the strategically incorrect
          translations taken out of context which have been spamming the airwaves
          in the wake of the contrived war on “islamic terrorism” that was used as
          a false pretext for the illegal oil-grab invasions openly discussed in a
          meeting which nasa’s carol rosin walked out of in the 70’s – almost
          surprisingly, many seem unable to follow the not very complicated
          logical progression that since 9-11 was an obvious inside job false flag
          staged terror event* facilitating the iraq invasion, it stands to
          reason that the rest of these atrocities are home-brewed as well *http://www.collective-evolutio…

          • Jo Brown

            I don’t need to know if they’re “strategically incorrect translations” or not. Just looking at the way muslims treat people says an awful lot about them and about their so-called religion of peace. Women who are gang-raped by muslim men, and dare to report it, get stoned to death for adultery. (I guess she should have single-handedly fought off all of her rapists.) A young boy of about 8 years old, who stole a loaf of bread, has his arm crushed by driving a car over it. Yeah, that’ll teach him not to steal! Of course, if he loses the use of his arm, he won’t be able to work for a living when he grows up, and thus forced to steal just to survive. And the next time he steals, they’ll cut his hand off instead. How barbaric!
            I saw an interview between a muslim woman (the interviewer) and an ex-muslim woman. The ex-muslim wore a veil, out of respect for her family and to maintain some anonymity. The woman interviewer did not wear a veil. The interviewer woman was rabid hard-core muslim, and wanted sharia law in place everywhere and that would make the world a better place. She said “yes we SHOULD chop the hands off thieves, and we SHOULD stone people for adultery”, among other things. She was a raving lunatic!
            I saw a panel discussion, where an imam or whatever was saying when it would be acceptable for a husband to kill his wife for adultery. He’d have to do it as soon as he catches her in the act. If he goes away for an hour or so and then comes back to kill her, it wouldn’t be right, but if he does it immediately (don’t think about it, just do it!) then it’s OK. And he said it’s different for a woman who catches her husband in the arms of another woman. She can’t assume her husband is committing adultery, because the woman he is with could be his 2nd, 3rd, or 4th wife, in which case it’s not adultery, and she’d be committing murder if she killed him. A woman on the panel said that when the husband married the 2nd wife, the guy performing the ceremony must give notice to the 1st wife. To which the man on the panel replied that there’s an issue with giving notice, that such notice could get lost in the post, bla bla bla…
            Yeah, when you see people talking idiotic crap like that in the name of their religion, then you can be sure that their religion is a total falsehood and definitely not a religion of peace but a religion created by Satan himself, infusing the adherants of that religion with hatred, and desires to inflict pain and punishment on others for the slightest wrong, including MURDERING people made in the image of God to appease their “god” Satan.

          • mycho saniac

            i will give this lengthy comment the respect it deserves:

            “I don’t need to know if they’re “strategically incorrect translations”
            or not. Just looking at the way muslims treat people says an awful lot
            about them and about their so-called religion of peace.”

            these ridiculous false stereotypes about muslims resemble the false translations you posted above, and i would do you and other readers a disservice if i were to pretend that i was even going to dignify whatever you added to your rant after acknowledging not only that you had not verified the accuracy of the source of your self-serving, intentionally misrepresenting translations, but that you were not about to do so

            such brazen disrespect for the accuracy and veracity of your own contentions guarantees that further dispatches from you, lengthy or otherwise, will be laughed at

            unread, of course :-)

          • Jo Brown

            You just can’t help being ignorant, can you? Just like that other muslim “professor” I saw in a youtube video, who thought that the sun revolved around the earth, and who didn’t know that the scientific meaning of the word “theory” is quite different from the non-scientific meaning of that word. What an ignoramus! And you’re just the same. Are you really going to pretend that there aren’t literally hundreds of youtube videos and web articles and news reports showing muslims misbehaving badly? Muslims forming “sharia police” in western cities and harassing western people for doing or not doing what these muslims think they should or shouldn’t do. Muslim men sexually harassing and sexually assaulting women in nightclubs. Muslim men gang-raping young girls in England. Rape crimes sky-rocketing in Sweden after the arrival of muslim refugees. Muslims chopping hands off thieves, or crushing the arm of an 8 year old boy for stealing a loaf of bread. A muslim cleric raping his 5 year old daughter to death because he was apparently concerned about her virginity! And the same vile scum was released from prison after a few months because he paid a fine to be released for his sick crime! Muslims stoning a woman for adultery, when in reality she was gang-raped by a bunch of muslim men. A muslim man killing his daughter because she supposedly brought disgrace on his family. Muslim women needing to be covered from head to toe so they can’t be seen, because apparently muslim men can’t control their sexual urges, or can’t be bothered exercising any self-control. Muslims debating on a tv show about what circumstances make it OK for a husband to kill his wife for adultery… And on and on it goes, one crazy messed up thing after another.
            Are you seriously going to claim that ALL, or even most, of these youtube videos, web articles, and news reports are false?
            Like I said, I don’t need to know whether your koran was strategically mistranslated or not. It is immaterial. Just looking at the way muslims treat other people and the way they think and the crazy things they believe, is enough to tell me that islam is not a religion from the Almighty Creator, but from Satan. Religion of peace? What a sick joke! Religion of violence, murder, hatred, sexual perversion, fear, and oppression more like it!

          • mycho saniac

            i did promise not to read your lengthy denials and confusions, and this assurance remains confidently in effect – but the first two lines almost always pay off: “You just can’t help being ignorant, can you? Just like that other muslim “professor” I saw in a youtube video”

            i’m not muslim, neinstein – and you have already been ridiculed for claiming that i “ignored the rest of your post” when i had already responded to it with the point that claiming tv as your “authority” is the likeliest source of your frequent misunderstandings

            i am ignoring you because you are an idiot who refuses to examine any evidence which will debunk your narrow conceptions – please go bother someone else/find a baby-sitter

            does this not ring any bells already?

            (d) lol! – you look pretty silly pretending that i have “ignored everything else” in your post after i wrote something which you ironically still refuse to acknowledge and address:

            mycho saniac

            Jo Brown

            12 hours ago

            hmmm,
            you use the word “yet” as though there were some contradiction in
            doozie’s statement – yet there isn’t any! perhaps you are not so
            “fortunate to have a tv station” as your source of “authority”

          • Jo Brown

            You are the idiot and the moron in this debate. It seems your only goal is to “win” an argument by insulting and “ridiculing” your opponent.
            And yes you did ignore that post, and all the others where I mention muslim atrocities. Is it because you just can’t handle that muslims do in fact do these things? There are reports coming from many places around the world about such things!
            As for that crap that you claim I “refuse to acknowledge and address”, why should I address it? I did actually respond to it in my first reply to your post in which you mentioned it, but you pretended that I didn’t. I won’t address it again, because you refuse to acknowledge and address the many examples of muslim attrocities I’ve brought up over various posts, and instead insist that I must have read a “strategically mistranslated” version of the koran which supposedly makes me believe muslims are bad. (yeah, like all those news reports and web articles about bad muslim behaviour had nothing to do with me forming that opinion about them!)
            You’re totally deluded and can’t even formulate a proper argument, just like those deluded muslims out there with their wacky ideas and beliefs. Pointless arguing with a half-wit, so I’ll leave you to your deluded ignorance.

          • mycho saniac

            whatever you say, jo, you’ve done such a great job of substantiating your ‘sources’ so far lol!

          • Deannette Pickford

            What country spawns this ignorance you believe n spew out your mouth!?

          • mycho saniac

            the sources i refer to by name are freely available on the (international) internet: was there a specific point you wished to pretend that you could attempt to refute, or is this just another passing spam which does not (again) even indicate that you are following the discussion?

      • mycho saniac

        solomon’s account of commanding the d’jinn to built his temple springs to mind

      • Deannette Pickford

        Only ignorant idiots believe in the mumbo jumbo written in the qran……it’s a bunch of senseless quack!

        • Muhammad Abbass

          Only idiots believe it is even possible to make such a determination. I don’t really think I will lose any sleep worrying about you being brighter than I. :-)

        • mycho saniac

          like you’ve read anything but convenient misinterpretations, if that – you are not exactly speaking from the deep end of the library, and your four fleeting cracks so far tonight have yet to land squarely on a single issue – go back and see how often you have been invited to do so (if you think you can, and dare)

          • Deannette Pickford

            Can’t and shouldn’t ague any valid points to a fool cause then the fool would become more foolish in their own mind!Your just a single man who puts ALL their trust n beliefs in the writings of other men and have no facts to back what your foolishly stating as evidence but foolishly can’t prove nothing you claim!If you were wise in any way,then you wouldn’t be on social media trying to dispute “YOUR” so called truths/beliefs!

          • mycho saniac

            as excuses for not addressing the facts presented already, this one goes back under the psychological projection category again, this time in the ‘continue to duck and change the subject with personal ad hominem hysterical attacks’ department (that’s ‘hysterical’ both ways) – speaking of facts, you still have not responded to the evidence i posted for you of human occupation of carolina 50,000 years ago

            New Evidence Puts Man In North America 50,000 Years Ago

            Date:November
            18, 2004Source:University Of South CarolinaSummary:Radiocarbon tests of
            carbonized plant remains where artifacts were unearthed last May along
            the Savannah River in Allendale County by University of South Carolina
            archaeologist Dr.
            Albert Goodyear indicate that the sediments containing these artifacts
            are at least 50,000 years old, meaning that humans inhabited North
            American long before the last ice age.

            – “human artifacts in carolina from 50,000 years ago: unless you know something we don’t?”

          • Deannette Pickford

            Only a fool would conveniently misinterpret rational reasoning as I’ve seen you do several times!Oh,and I have no issue with a ignorant fool!Continue on being wise only in your own mind lmbo!

          • mycho saniac

            “as I’ve seen you do several times!” – then it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to demonstrate that you are not an “ignorant fool” by producing a single example – who else but one such fool would make an ignorant accusation they can’t back up? substantiation, please…

    • mycho saniac

      d’jinn genie demon dragon – in ‘china’ they’re called shen Aquatic dragon – In Chinese mythology, the shen or chen is a shapeshifting dragon or sea monster believed to create mirages

    • Deannette Pickford

      Your right on about the dinosaurs not being taken on the ark with Noah!As far as planes it also mentions them in the Bible too!Man just didn’t call them airplanes then………ever read about the “flying chariots”……..

  • FreeThinker

    “…the powers that be, for whatever reason, do not want us to know our history.”

    The Reason:

    “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” -George Orwell

    Perhaps this is why children are no longer taught the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Ignorant people are much easier to impose a police state onto.

  • MichaelfromTheEconomicCollapse

    Thank you for that info, and you are not cluttering up the comments at all. In fact, I hope everyone will check out your new book which you can find here…

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1449791344/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1449791344&linkCode=as2&tag=theeconomiccollapse-20

    Michael

    • Lyn Leahz

      Well thank you! You’re so kind. God bless you a whole bunch! My news website is under some construction right now, just changed hands to a new host… he is pre occupied with another matter right now, but would be more than happy to add your book to my sidebar soon! Right now I have to get some ‘ads’ I do not want there off..but I don’t personally know how to remove them..LOL

  • Lyn Leahz

    Hey Michael. I just left a comment on your article on infowars. I did not know you wrote for them! Awesome! :-)

  • Judy Pearl

    Is it just me, or do those hieroglyphs look too freshly made?

    • alice walters

      they may be freshly made but if something is not exposed to light and the elements it can be in pristine condition.

  • Mrweedcopeman69 .

    The nephilem is somthing you should all research

  • Muhammad Abbass

    These things do not prove the Bible was true. The Bible is provably false on many counts. Deliberate alterations were made, a historically proven fact. The Scofield Bible is a Pharisaic hoax. These things merely prove the current historical and archaeological paradigm is not true.

    • JoBrown85

      Please give details on those many counts.
      I’ve heard of the Schofield bible being a pharisaic hoax, but that doesn’t mean the original scriptures are.

    • krinks

      The Bible is false only to a fool trying hard to justify the mindless rants of a pedophile that can’t seem to make up his mind. I speak of course of Mohammed was had a six year old for a wife.

      • Martin

        And how old was Mary, the mother of Jesus?

      • Muhammad Abbass

        Your information is incorrect. You are spouting a bigoted opinion, based on nothing but an invented narrative. The prophet Muhammad did not marry a six year old you cretin, the truth is nobody knows exactly how old Aisha (RA) was although Islamic opinion varies from 9 according to Sunni scholars, 12-16 according to Shias but all agree the marriage was only consummated when she had reached menarche as was customary at the time. However the age and marriage customs as such were common to all groups in the area, including Christians, you seem to forget this was thousands of years ago and even Christian nations didn’t set age of consent for brides until the last couple of hundred years. In fact the Q’ran was the first to give women equal rights before Allah and to ensure they would be protected in marriage, including from violence and the ‘ran gave a minimum age for marriage based on biological requirements which was also the first and its teachings whilst not setting an age specifically are in tine with trends these days around 16-19 and in practice most Muslim women are older than Westerners when they first experience sexual relations and at least most of them do so within the sanctity of marriage.
        The Q’ran made it a condition for the first time that women agree to any marriage. Women ceased to be property and were granted rights superior to most Western laws yet today. I happen to be a convert who has seen it all as far as Western standards go and I hold your ignorance and pathetic bigoted opinions in the utmost contempt as someone who unlike you actually knows what he is talking about.

        • krinks

          Read it and weep, pedophile protector:

          Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
          ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

    • Deannette Pickford

      God gives us his promise that even though the words may change the meaning shall ALWAYS be the same……….does this mean anything to you?!

  • Lucyme

    Adam was an idiot consumed by greed and lust like his children today 2014

  • The riddler

    Pseudo, hyper interpreted bollocks. As soon there is any real evidence give me a call…for now I’ll be basking in the warm glow of logic.

    Whoever believes it takes great technology to build a pyramid needs a head check. Unless a few thousand slaves is an equivalent…

    Also, if you find an article where people are proceeding to use the bible as a legitimate, historical reference, you know you’ve stumbled across a veritable mine of truth and knowledge :I

  • Matt

    Ok, lets think about this logically. The Great Pyramid, we are told, took around 20 years to construct and the build consists of around 2.3 million blocks of stone. Using simple mathematics you can work out that they would have had to lay around 13 blocks an hour or one every 4 to 5 minutes…..24 hours a day……..365 days a year……for 20 YEARS. I’m sorry but to keep that up non stop for 20 years would be impossible.

  • Defiant

    Ica stones? Give me a break.

  • Jerry

    I’m sorry, but some of you have your head so deep in the sand, I don’t even know how you breath. These artifacts have been proven to be real. They have been photographed, videoed, and tested to be legit. And there are hundreds more like this. All you have to do is open your mind and do your own research. Even so, some people will deny it ’til their dying day just because it goes against what they have been taught to believe. Deny all you want, but it doesn’t change the truth.

  • Pablo Hein

    And how about the Father Crespi video on youtube.. you see incredible stuff there. Search Father Crespi Ica Stones on youtube.One stone even shows a long neck giving milk to his calf like any mammal does! The skin patterns weren’t known until few years only, man AND dinosaurs riding or hunting them..There are stones showing humans operating people, from brain surgery or even a cesarean, but more jaw dropping is those stones showing humans operating while being watched by REPTILIAN humanoids! NO KIDDING, very hard to find, just keep looking at many Ica Stones video’s.
    I lived in Peru and my father was an off grid archaeologist, did the same things as seen at Indiana Jones.

  • Nayana

    Forbidden archaeology by Michael Cremo is a must read check it out.
    And talking ancient civilizations this carving is Sumerian not Egytpian, Angka wot the temple also being refered to here is not Buddhist it’s Hindhu it depicts Ramayana the storie of lord Rama whose bridge is found just under the sea between India and Sri Lanka and is visible by space google it too it dates 1.75 million years.
    Up to 14000 years ago in the pacific from Hawaii, down past Fiji and the rest of the islands are the scattered remnants of Lumeria, which is logical as it creates the bridge really or stop over if you will between the east and west. “One world culture” and in the Atlantic the mythical Atlantis between us, canada, Ireland. Up and to 10000 years ago.
    Google that also.
    Google why you at that the world is growing and expanding hence why this plates of the earth if you decrease then fit perfectly and also explains the disappearance of this great civilizations.
    History hundreds of millions of years old. Modern day scientist are much all like Dr zaius and friends on the original planet of the apes in full knowledge but happy to destroy evidence and keep the notion that they where the first and most advanced. Which is not the case. Just like Giants. The world grew much larger in the millions of years prior and so did humans. These Humans who grew to up to 36ft are the missing link to the timeless question how’d they move the limestone? Modern history 3-4years at best with lots of blind spots. All this talk of religions is questionable to as this so called religions only appeared in the last 2000years and the bible was written not as it happened but 100 years after? And had more or less staple pages in over a 1000 yearsEmperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action – MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the “word of God” into existence. (I wish to thank Brian Show for pointing out in his rebuttal to this article that the final version of the Christian Bible was not voted on at the Council of Nicaea, per se. The Church leaders didn’t finish editing the “holy” scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed. However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine!

    • Nayana

      Or modern day King James Bible made for you guessed it King James. In the end I put no stock religion or Evolution for that matter. In the end the truth is out there staring you in the face.

    • Deannette Pickford

      The holy Bible is a must read,check it out!Ignorant fools have all the answers before them but can’t n won’t ever understand it n so seek man written books n knowledge cause they are primitive enough for their foolish minds to comprehend!

  • howudothat13

    Very simple, time travel will be discovered in the future, connecting us to our past.

  • KATIE K

    Nothing new, look up on the works of Stewart Swerdlow – “Blue Blood, True Blood: Conflict & Creation”.

  • Richard Lockwood

    If you want proof that humans have been getting dumber for thousands of years, just read this article.

  • Gregory Wyrdmaven

    As far as helicopters and airplanes…that’s not what they are. You’re seeing what you want to see, just like people “see” bigfoot in videos when it’s an owl, or a bear, or whatever. Just like people “hear” ghosts when they’re ghost hunting. As far as dinosaurs, again we’re thinking that the ancient world of the era of man began a few thousand years when it’s more likely in the tens if not hundreds of years ago whereas modern man has made up his mind about how long ago the dinosaurs lived based on just the fossil record, etc. that he’s been able to discover in just two-three hundred years of paleontology. So the question “why did the ancients make sculptures of dinosaurs” is answered by “why have we made up our mind about when they existed”?

  • Mike

    The reality is that the creationists are probably wrong as well as the scientists. It’s a fact that we don’t know what we don’t know. Religion is faith, and science is only as good as the latest discovery. Being open minded and willing to change ones paradigm is a good way to go I think.

  • krinks

    Check the facts. He carved 1100 tons TOTAL. The stones of which I speak are 1000 tons EACH.

  • Suspect

    My question is..
    Why are they writing this stuff on walls?
    Do we write on walls?

  • Jo Brown

    I just read that article. Wow, what a horrible religion Islam is! So focused on violence, murder, looting, oppressing, and all sanctioned by their so-called prophet.
    I wonder what Muhammad Abbas will have to say in reply to the contents of your link.

  • JonInJapan

    In answer to your question regarding the Egyptian heiroglyphs and the helicopter etc … they don’t depict those items. Take a look at the explanation: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_hitech03.htm

  • Aisha Muhammad

    We have spend this life already , our souls are ancient and connected to one soul that we call Holy Spirit, which is there from start to end , when we start peaking within ourself we cross the boundary of time and can see past and future and that is the part of mind usually used by Artist so sometime they create the things which belong to the future or past, some people call it predictions , some intusions.

  • ericlipps

    “Why Does Ancient Art Contain Depictions Of Flying Aircraft, Helicopters And Dinosaurs?”

    For the same reason that there are “faces” in the clouds: human beings are “wired” to find familiar patterns even in completely random images.

    In other words, just because certain things in ancient art look like “flying aircraft, helicopters and dinosaurs” to some of us today, that doesn’t mean that was what the artists intended to portray.

  • scott

    Jo, I agree with just about everything you’re saying. But don’t use this verse in Matthew for a Muslim. Muslims are NOT our brothers. This verse is talking about fellow Christians, not just anybody.
    Remember, seculars have Satan as their father, not JHVH, the god of the Bible. They are goats, we are sheep. For what fellowship does Christ have with Belial?

  • http://nomorethannothing.com apostrophedave

    “dinosaurs died out millions of years ago and modern scientists only started digging them up a couple hundred years ago. And yet this engraving is there…”

    “In fact, much of the anatomical knowledge about dinosaurs depicted on these stones was only discovered by modern scientists, just very recently…”

    what makes you think that Egyptians couldn’t dig a hole and find dinosaur remains in it?

  • MagikGimp

    lol you’re all a waste of space.

  • Michele

    Why do people put so much faith in a God/Gods who do not appear, yet laugh out loud at the suggestion that aliens lived on the planet and that we are the descendents of their interference? Religions are invented by charismatic people who seek power over the masses. We give our so called God this ideal of power and look where it has led us, to wars, to the ransacking of humanity and the planet, all to appease a non existant entity who will not or cannot appear, despite the abhorrent things done in his/her/its name.
    We are slaves to an ideal and these artifacts just show how wrong we can be. Science may or may not prove the existence of man during the dinosaur period or even before, but neither will religion prove the existence of their God/Gods. Me? I think I’ll stick with science until God appears and proves me wrong or the scientists blast us to pieces. Both parties have a tendency to destroy what they don’t understand.

    • mycho saniac

      nicely put!

  • Muhammad Abbass

    That is a hate site, it is designed specifically to deride and slander my religion.
    I repeat, you know nothing about my religion.

  • mycho saniac

    perhaps you are not aware that you are taking strategically misrepresenting ‘translations’ from out of context – it is easy enough to search for reliable translations by reputable scholars

  • Deannette Pickford

    About time someone wrote some wise words!

  • mycho saniac

    here, you seem to require special assistance – from above:

    mycho saniac

    Jason

    3 days ago

    perhaps you are not aware that you are taking strategically
    misrepresenting ‘translations’ from out of context – it is easy enough
    to search for reliable translations by reputable scholars

    (did you really expect me to do your own fact-checking for you after you have already admitted that you refused to examine the evidence i offered earlier?)

    (from above, 21 days ago:)

    you did not examine the evidence i posted

    i even spelled it for you in these quite explicit terms:

    20 hours ago

    i will give this lengthy comment the respect it deserves:

    “I don’t need to know if they’re “strategically incorrect translations”
    or not. Just looking at the way muslims treat people says an awful lot
    about them and about their so-called religion of peace.” (it ‘goes on’)

    these ridiculous false stereotypes about muslims resemble the false
    translations you posted above, and i would do you and other readers a
    disservice were i pretend that i was ever going to dignify whatever you
    added to your diatribe after you have acknowledged that you had not
    verified the accuracy of the source of your self-serving, intentionally
    misrepresenting translations, and that you were not about to even
    attempt to do so

    such brazen disrespect for the accuracy and veracity of your own
    contentions guarantees that further dispatches from you lengthy or
    otherwise will be laughed at enthusiastically

    unread, of course :-)

    you blow off the evidence i post for you, but now ‘i’m’ the “cowardly wuss” for refusing to post evidence for each fake translation you find? you’re funnier than you may realize!)

  • Deannette Pickford

    Actually I know something you either overlooked or just ignorantly refuse to believe!Who has greater authority and wisdom?God or man?You believe in the ignorant follies of imperfect man and I will continue without!Scientists have so many beliefs people accept as fact its ridiculous smh!What animal did you evolve from cause according to scientist we did that also…….big bang,ice age,extinction of dinosaurs on a global scale by what,a meteor or whatever else they choose to write!Ig you were wise then you would know better!Also would know to prove your point no matter how far fetched somewhere where it counts instead of on social media cause your just writting alot of time wasting mumbo jumbo for yourself!

    • mycho saniac

      gosh what a far-fetched bout of actually pretty accurate psychological projection! (lol – “mumbo jumbo”, and she’s citing ‘god’?) – the sitchin interpretation i described earlier establishes that “creation vs evolution is a false dichotomy”: the pictographs show solar system details invisible to the naked eye, as well as instructions for genetic manipulation

      • Deannette Pickford

        You sir are a childish fool with your self proclaimed “evidence!” I gave you facts not opinion but you seem to override all common sense that everyone with sound reasoning gives you!Only a fool is wise in their own beliefs and wants so bad to be right that they don’t have any ideal that they are wrongful idiots smh!It’s sad to see you waste your time and effort trying to argue your nonsense here!I can see why you no longer are teaching your bs opinions cause too many people know a fool when they here one and you sir are full of far-fetched ideas you want so badly to be true but you will never know the truth cause you can’t handle truth and rather accept the teaching of idiot’s!Lmfao!Its OK cause I’m done trying to turn a fool from their own foolishness continue on believing what you want but stop wasting my time OK cause your not in your normal state of mind and need counselling for mental damage caused by always being wrong……continue on!

        • mycho saniac

          could you produce a single example of the “facts” you allege that you have produced? you don’t mean your conveniently self-serving and totally incorrect estimate of the limits of reliable carbon-dating, do you? these emotional personal ad hominem contrived tangents of yours would almost make sense if you had an actual position to represent in the debate

      • Deannette Pickford

        It’s really funny cause you have to resort to trying to preach your nonsense beliefs here cause you can’t find a willing audience anywhere else lol!Well guess what?No one here is willing to listen to your bs either and if you doubt this evidence then go back and see how many people have liked your ignorantly based comments and how many people you have to debate with!Hint:Hardly no one agrees with you!Almost no likes at all!Jo Brown was right so try to listen to him OK…….Do you cry after going back to your comments and reading the responses……..it’s ok! Take a break and recuperate with time alright…….

        • mycho saniac

          jo brown? you mean the guy who admits outright that he did not look at the evidence i posted for him? as a response to my point that you are not addressing (or even examining) the evidence i posted specifically for you, citing jo’s identically evasive maneuvers is quite amusing – but anybody who claims carbon dating is only good for a maximum of 4000 years ago is so absurd i have to wonder whether your quest to refute scientific knowledge (and other mortal tasks) isn’t deliberate disinfo: where do you pretend to find such misleading data?

          this is your response to the information i posted indicating that my time frames were more accurate:

          Deannette Pickford

          mycho saniac

          12 hours ago

          Do more research instead of believing the first things you read as
          fact……spend a lil more time reading instead of jumping to worthless
          conclusions you and only you claim to be evidence!The only evidence you
          have given anyone here is that you are a ignorant fool who will always
          believe what you want instead of the truth no matter what you learn!

          perhaps you would be good enough to direct us to this ‘alternate universe’ source of scientific data which informs you that carbon dating becomes unreliable before 4000 years ago? not everybody has your magical research crystal ball, apparently

          • Deannette Pickford

            When u grow up to be a man instead of a lil boy then I would be proud as to not see you foolishly wasting time on social media sites!With all the time your ignorantly wasting you could be really learning something that means something and matters instead of the trash can garbage that ain’t and won’t ever do anything for anyone besides yourself!This truth hurts huh but read this carefully and in the next few years come back n post your apology lmfbao!

          • mycho saniac

            if you actually examined the evidence i posted specifically for you then you’d be in a somewhat better position to judge what is “”trash can garbage” (remember that your carbon-dating estimates were perpendicularly wrong)

          • Deannette Pickford

            Your lonely and single with more woman problems than you’d ever care to admit huh?I can feel your frustration!It’s OK you can find someone who loves lil penises if you search hard and long enough!Personally I don’t like lil boys and so I must move on from wasting my time conversating with one OK!

          • mycho saniac

            no ‘alternative source’ for inverse-capacity limits for carbon dating? let’s invent an inflammatory and offensive personal ad hominem diversion to conceal your non-response

            the sick fantasies you project reveal more about yourself than you would care to realize

          • Deannette Pickford

            Jump to navigation
            SEARCH CARM

            Is Carbon Dating Reliable?
            by Helen Fryman

            Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate?

            Response: I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

            (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.

            For objects over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.

            Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I won’t go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date, we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years, we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).

            Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life worldwide (the flood of Noah)!

            I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it, don’t hesitate to write.

            (2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ. The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as “corrected” by dendrochronology). The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time and that the older the dates the larger the error.

            Despite this, she continually uses the C14 dates to create “absolute” chronologies. She says that this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology. (They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating. The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine). So they tested some of the ring sequences by C14 to put the sequences in the “right” order. Once they did that, they developed the overall sequence. And this big sequence is then used to ‘correct’ C14 dates. Talk of circular reasoning!!!!

            (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.

            (4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay. In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate. This skews the “real” answer to a much younger age.

            Related Articles
            Did men and dinosaurs live together?
            What about dinosaurs and evolution?
            Why are there still simple life forms if life evolves from simple to complex?
            Why did Neanderthal Man die out?
            Are scientists actually observing macroevolution in bacteria?
            Was Noah’s Ark possible?
            Why are there so few human fossils from the flood?
            Are All Fossils Transitional?
            Can you explain the biogeographical distribution of species?
            Are Christians against science?

          • Deannette Pickford

            I’m using the same crystal ball as you but I just use mine more effective and efficiently!If you stop searcing for lies then you will find the truth………only a fool is wise in his own eyes and u mam are one who decieves even your own self!

          • mycho saniac

            people who refuse to examine evidence which contradicts their own confirmation bias are clearly psychologically projecting their own unauthorized auto-biographies with such banal deflections: “If you stop searching for lies then you will find the truth………only a
            fool is wise in his own eyes and u mam are one who deceives even your
            own self!” – let’s hope that at least you are deceiving yourself (since no one else will buy it), because that way your ‘not’ culpable of flagrantly disseminating disinformation

          • Deannette Pickford

            Hahahah lmfbao lol!I thought so lol!Knew for a fact you weren’t gonna address the which I just hit you so hard in the face with that your probably still hurting!Well sorry for hurting your fragile emotions but I’m done talking to a foolish moronic imbecile lol!You have a good life arguing your foolhardy beliefs to an audience that Never listens,agrees,or even comments in agreement with you hardly ever cause wise people know not to bother with a fool and is the reason u can no longer teach cause you have nothing worth listening to but the same boring blah blah blah over n over again…..,..have you ever asked yourself why do you do it?Have you ever asked yourself how many lives have you changed with your comments?Probably not one and yet here you are rambling on about absolutely nothing worthwhile lol!Good luck but I’ve wasted all the time I can spare on you and now I’m MOVING ON.,…….lol!

          • Deannette Pickford

            Jump to navigation
            SEARCH CARM

            Is Carbon Dating Reliable?
            by Helen Fryman

            Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate?

            Response: I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

            (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.

            For objects over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.

            Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I won’t go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date, we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years, we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).

            Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life worldwide (the flood of Noah)!

            I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it, don’t hesitate to write.

            (2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ. The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as “corrected” by dendrochronology). The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time and that the older the dates the larger the error.

            Despite this, she continually uses the C14 dates to create “absolute” chronologies. She says that this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology. (They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating. The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine). So they tested some of the ring sequences by C14 to put the sequences in the “right” order. Once they did that, they developed the overall sequence. And this big sequence is then used to ‘correct’ C14 dates. Talk of circular reasoning!!!!

            (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.

            (4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay. In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate. This skews the “real” answer to a much younger age.

            Related Articles
            Did men and dinosaurs live together?
            What about dinosaurs and evolution?
            Why are there still simple life forms if life evolves from simple to complex?
            Why did Neanderthal Man die out?
            Are scientists actually observing macroevolution in bacteria?
            Was Noah’s Ark possible?
            Why are there so few human fossils from the flood?
            Are All Fossils Transitional?
            Can you explain the biogeographical distribution of species?
            Are Christians against science?

          • mycho saniac

            hilarious: “For objects over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for
            the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem
            in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard.” – the sumerian cuniforms (and associated archeological sites replete with grave sites) are 4500 to 5000 years old, and segue nicely into the akkadian, babylonian, hebrew, egyptian etc translations which followed (often citing these originals and using their older language): you refuse to acknowledge evidence which does not conform to your confirmation bias, then attempt to defend this maneuver by citing a source who denies basic reality: priceless tautology

          • Deannette Pickford

            Truth hurts and can’t be accepted by fools!Why I will no longer entertain your ignorance!Good luck with your foolish endeavor on this site whatever that may be?

          • Deannette Pickford

            If you want more I can teach you how to find them but then again I’d rather not cause what good will it do if you just bypass facts and like your ears to be tickled with far fetched fantasy!I got a lot more but will share with more sensible people so with that being said I will exit this senseless debate and let you have your nonexistent audience back on this site……..your welcomed!

          • mycho saniac

            you appear to be severely deluded (for example, your source on carbon dating is a joke) – please keep your word this time around and stop annoying me – thank you! :-)

          • Deannette Pickford

            Annoyed by truth………as always lol!People will see what I’ve posted and be able to decide for themselves but I can guarantee that no one will disagree with the facts I’ve left but you lol!I got one last thing to tell you……..goodbye ignorance…….the Bible was dead on about the ignorant fool!I left you truth and reasoning and now I’m finished with you …….

  • Deannette Pickford

    More accurate on trees less than 4000 years old lmbbo

    • mycho saniac

      you contest the findings? pointless – i have already referred you to the evidence that the pyramids of the coast of cuba straddle a geological fault which has been dated at 50,000 years ago: you want to pretend that cuba is too far away from the pyramids in mexico and elsewhere in the americas for this to be corroboration? priceless

      • Deannette Pickford

        You wanted facts?Now people can read them for themselves instead of your ignorant misinformative views/opinions/flawed research!

    • mycho saniac

      here, this is much closer to the 50,000 years i claimed than the “4000” you claim: in fact, it is exactly the same number, indicating if anything that the artifacts and pyramids could indeed be even older:

      C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit dating of older samples. (from wiki) – it seems that you have cunningly inverted the reliability range

      • Deannette Pickford

        Do more research instead of believing the first things you read as fact……spend a lil more time reading instead of jumping to worthless conclusions you and only you claim to be evidence!The only evidence you have given anyone here is that you are a ignorant fool who will always believe what you want instead of the truth no matter what you learn!

      • Deannette Pickford

        According to wiki dragons existed too lol!Unicorns anyone?Lol at your lack of research and knowledge…… Keep trying to use big words in an attempt to appear like you know something when the facts remain the same you were born a fool and once a fool always a fool u can’t help the way u are there’s no changing for u smh!

        • mycho saniac

          “your lack of research and knowledge” is amusingly ironic coming from someone who refuses to substantiate their allegation that carbon dating is only reliable going back “4000 years”:

          Extinct ‘Siberian unicorn’ may have lived alongside humans, fossil suggests

          Scientists said that creature, which looked more like a rhino than a
          horse, went extinct 29,000 years ago instead of 350,000 after finding
          skull in Kazakhstan

          An extinct creature sometimes described as a “Siberian unicorn”
          roamed the Earth for much longer than scientists previously thought, and
          may have lived alongside humans, according to a study in the American Journal of Applied Science.

          Scientists believed Elasmotherium sibiricum went extinct 350,000 years ago. But the discovery of a skull in the Pavlodar region of Kazakhstan provides evidence that they only died out about 29,000 years ago.

          Unfortunately, despite its sizable horn, the “Siberian unicorn”
          looked more like a rhinoceros than the mythical creature its nickname
          refers to. It was about 6 feet tall, 15 feet long, and weighed about
          9,000 pounds, making it more comparable to a woolly mammoth than a
          horse.

          https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/29/siberian-unicorn-extinct-humans-fossil-kazakhstan

          • Deannette Pickford

            Jump to navigation
            SEARCH CARM

            Is Carbon Dating Reliable?
            by Helen Fryman

            Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate?

            Response: I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

            (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.

            For objects over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.

            Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I won’t go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date, we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years, we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).

            Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life worldwide (the flood of Noah)!

            I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it, don’t hesitate to write.

            (2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ. The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as “corrected” by dendrochronology). The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time and that the older the dates the larger the error.

            Despite this, she continually uses the C14 dates to create “absolute” chronologies. She says that this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology. (They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating. The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine). So they tested some of the ring sequences by C14 to put the sequences in the “right” order. Once they did that, they developed the overall sequence. And this big sequence is then used to ‘correct’ C14 dates. Talk of circular reasoning!!!!

            (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.

            (4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay. In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate. This skews the “real” answer to a much younger age.

            You can find some further good information here:

            http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon–read the full page if you get the chance.

            Related Articles
            Did men and dinosaurs live together?
            What about dinosaurs and evolution?
            Why are there still simple life forms if life evolves from simple to complex?
            Why did Neanderthal Man die out?
            Are scientists actually observing macroevolution in bacteria?
            Was Noah’s Ark possible?
            Why are there so few human fossils from the flood?
            Are All Fossils Transitional?
            Can you explain the biogeographical distribution of species?
            Are Christians against science?
            USER LOGIN
            CAFEPRESS
            CARM STORE
            CARM SURVEYS
            CARM RADIO
            CARM’S NEWSLETTER
            SUPPORT CARM
            VISITOR GLOBE
            GET
            CARM’S
            NEWSLETTER
            Help CARM by Liking It!

            DONATE TO CARM

            UPCOMING EVENTS

            2017 Israel Trip
            logos software10% Discount on Logos Bible Program.
            CARM highly recommends using the Logos Bible Research Program. Just go to logos.com/carm. Use the coupon code of 6CARM.

            ≡MENU
            Home

            Contact | Facebook | Twitter | Newsletter | Blog | Store | Radio | Toolbar | Copying and Linking | Statement of Faith | The Warning Tract
            Submit Broken Link | Submit Correction | Submit Feedback |Submit Question | Submit Research Request | Submit Suggestion
            CARM, PO BOX 1353, Nampa ID 83653 | 208.466.1301 | carmstuff@yahoo.com

            ČeskyChichewa/ChinyanjaDeutschEspañolFrançaisIndonesiaNederlandsNorskPolskiPortuguêsRomânăРусскийعربى中文日本語SrpskiБългарск

          • Deannette Pickford

            cant say nothing about the truth i just posted can you?Now everyone can see for themselves how you will foolishly try to argue your mis beliefs!

          • Deannette Pickford

            Jump to navigation
            SEARCH CARM

            Is Carbon Dating Reliable?
            by Helen Fryman

            Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate?

            Response: I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

            (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.

            For objects over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.

            Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I won’t go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date, we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years, we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).

            Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life worldwide (the flood of Noah)!

            I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it, don’t hesitate to write.

            (2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ. The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as “corrected” by dendrochronology). The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time and that the older the dates the larger the error.

            Despite this, she continually uses the C14 dates to create “absolute” chronologies. She says that this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology. (They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating. The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine). So they tested some of the ring sequences by C14 to put the sequences in the “right” order. Once they did that, they developed the overall sequence. And this big sequence is then used to ‘correct’ C14 dates. Talk of circular reasoning!!!!

            (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.

            (4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay. In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate. This skews the “real” answer to a much younger age.

            You can find some further good information here:

            http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon–

          • Deannette Pickford

            Jump to navigation
            SEARCH CARM

            Is Carbon Dating Reliable?
            by Helen Fryman

            Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate?

            Response: I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

            (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.

            For objects over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.

            Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I won’t go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date, we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years, we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).

            Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life worldwide (the flood of Noah)!

            I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it, don’t hesitate to write.

            (2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ. The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as “corrected” by dendrochronology). The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time and that the older the dates the larger the error.

            Despite this, she continually uses the C14 dates to create “absolute” chronologies. She says that this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology. (They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating. The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine). So they tested some of the ring sequences by C14 to put the sequences in the “right” order. Once they did that, they developed the overall sequence. And this big sequence is then used to ‘correct’ C14 dates. Talk of circular reasoning!!!!

            (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.

            (4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay. In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate. This skews the “real” answer to a much younger age.

          • Deannette Pickford

            Read for yourself the truth about how carbon dating is flawed and there’s no way to get around it unless they estimate lol good try Mycho but if u continue to rely on flawed research then your comments pertaining to “evidence” will be flawed and misleading also as you have and seem to like being mislead instead of accepting the simple truth!Now read and see for yourself like everone else can cause everyone reading this can see your a fool and will only post more flawed bs instead of grasping this truth lmbao!

      • Deannette Pickford

        Jump to navigation
        SEARCH CARM

        Is Carbon Dating Reliable?
        by Helen Fryman

        Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate?

        Response: I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

        (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.

        For objects over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.

        Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I won’t go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date, we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years, we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).

        Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life worldwide (the flood of Noah)!

        I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it, don’t hesitate to write.

        (2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ. The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as “corrected” by dendrochronology). The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time and that the older the dates the larger the error.

        Despite this, she continually uses the C14 dates to create “absolute” chronologies. She says that this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology. (They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating. The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine). So they tested some of the ring sequences by C14 to put the sequences in the “right” order. Once they did that, they developed the overall sequence. And this big sequence is then used to ‘correct’ C14 dates. Talk of circular reasoning!!!!

        (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.

        (4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay. In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate. This skews the “real” answer to a much younger age.

        You can find some further good information here:

        http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon–read the full page if you get the chance.

        Related Articles
        Did men and dinosaurs live together?
        What about dinosaurs and evolution?
        Why are there still simple life forms if life evolves from simple to complex?
        Why did Neanderthal Man die out?
        Are scientists actually observing macroevolution in bacteria?
        Was Noah’s Ark possible?
        Why are there so few human fossils from the flood?
        Are All Fossils Transitional?
        Can you explain the biogeographical distribution of species?
        Are Christians against science?
        USER LOGIN
        CAFEPRESS
        CARM STORE
        CARM SURVEYS
        CARM RADIO
        CARM’S NEWSLETTER
        SUPPORT CARM
        VISITOR GLOBE
        GET
        CARM’S
        NEWSLETTER
        Help CARM by Liking It!

        DONATE TO CARM

        UPCOMING EVENTS

        2017 Israel Trip
        logos software10% Discount on Logos Bible Program.
        CARM highly recommends using the Logos Bible Research Program. Just go to logos.com/carm. Use the coupon code of 6CARM.

        ≡MENU
        Home

        Contact | Facebook | Twitter | Newsletter | Blog | Store | Radio | Toolbar | Copying and Linking | Statement of Faith | The Warning Tract
        Submit Broken Link | Submit Correction | Submit Feedback |Submit Question | Submit Research Request | Submit Suggestion
        CARM, PO BOX 1353, Nampa ID 83653 | 208.466.1301 | carmstuff@yahoo.com

        ČeskyChichewa/ChinyanjaDeutschEspañolFrançaisIndonesiaNederlandsNorskPolskiPortuguêsRomânăРусскийعربى中文日本語SrpskiБългарски

      • Deannette Pickford

        Jump to navigation
        SEARCH CARM

        Is Carbon Dating Reliable?
        by Helen Fryman

        Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate?

        Response: I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

        (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.

        For objects over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.

        Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I won’t go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date, we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years, we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).

        Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life worldwide (the flood of Noah)!

        I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it, don’t hesitate to write.

        (2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ. The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as “corrected” by dendrochronology). The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time and that the older the dates the larger the error.

        Despite this, she continually uses the C14 dates to create “absolute” chronologies. She says that this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology. (They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating. The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine). So they tested some of the ring sequences by C14 to put the sequences in the “right” order. Once they did that, they developed the overall sequence. And this big sequence is then used to ‘correct’ C14 dates. Talk of circular reasoning!!!!

        (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.

        (4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay. In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate. This skews the “real” answer to a much younger date

  • Deannette Pickford

    Jump to navigation
    SEARCH CARM

    Is Carbon Dating Reliable?
    by Helen Fryman

    Question: What about radiocarbon dating? Is it accurate?

    Response: I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

    (1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. Example: wood found in a grave of known age by historically reliable documents is the standard for that time for the C14 content. This standard content of C14 can then be used for wood not associated with a historically documented date. Dates up to this point in history are well documented for C14 calibration.

    For objects over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby, the discoverer of the C14 dating method, was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all, this what the archeologist guessed in their published books.

    Some believe trees are known to be as old as 9,000 years. They use tree rings as the calibration standard. A lot of people doubt this claim for various good reasons I won’t go into here. We believe all the dates over 5,000 years are really compressible into the next 2,000 years back to creation. So when you hear of a date of 30,000 years for a carbon date, we believe it to be early after creation and only about 7,000 years old. If something carbon dates at 7,000 years, we believe 5,000 is probably closer to reality (just before the flood).

    Robert Whitelaw has done a very good job illustrating this theory using about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. One of the impressive points Whitewall makes is the conspicuous absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago illustrating a great catastrophe killing off plant and animal life worldwide (the flood of Noah)!

    I hope this helps your understanding of carbon dating. If you have any more questions about it, don’t hesitate to write.

    (2.) I just listened to a series of lectures on archaeology put out by John Hopkins Univ. The lecturer talked at length about how inaccurate C14 Dating is (as “corrected” by dendrochronology). The methodology is quite accurate, but dendrochronology supposedly shows that the C14 dates go off because of changes in the equilibrium over time and that the older the dates the larger the error.

    Despite this, she continually uses the C14 dates to create “absolute” chronologies. She says that this is ok so long as you take into account the correction factors from dendrochronology. (They conveniently forget to mention that the tree ring chronology was arranged by C14 dating. The scientists who were trying to build the chronology found the tree rings so ambiguous that they could not decide which rings matched which (using the bristlecone pine). So they tested some of the ring sequences by C14 to put the sequences in the “right” order. Once they did that, they developed the overall sequence. And this big sequence is then used to ‘correct’ C14 dates. Talk of circular reasoning!!!!

    (3.) Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of C12 to C14 in the initial sample, the dating technique is still subject to question.

    (4.) Traditional 14C testing assumes equilibrium in the rate of formation and the rate of decay. In fact, 14C is forming FASTER than the observed decay rate. This skews the “real” answer to a much younger age.