Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any Christians/Creationists torn over the timeline presented in the GP?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by M.O'Connor
    aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
    I was refering to your last paragraph, I thought you might have a link to some article proving Antartica was on the map? Maybe it was a quote from someone else?.

    Its been a while since i reallyhave been into all this .in the meantime i have changed computors several times. thus i lost links.i emailed some people who should have it.as soon as i get it .i will post it. not only is this draging me into knowledge unknown but also to past endevors i have places in my memory. egad!!

    Comment


    • #77
      don't bother going through the trouble.

      I don't see any time-line connection with the Bible in the dna Evolution time-line.

      Maybe you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by M.O'Connor
        don't bother going through the trouble.

        I don't see any time-line connection with the Bible in the dna Evolution time-line.

        Maybe you're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

        the point to be made was man wasnt so dumb back then.he knew stuff we dont today

        Comment


        • #79
          I still don't see any time-line association with the bible's creation story, and Man's journey according to thie Genographic study?.

          aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

          Earlier Man must have had good fortune mixed with intelligence to have survived as a species where other life forms have failed.

          What things did early man know, that we don't know today?

          The toys and tools have changed. We probably have looked differently and we didn't have the refined things like today..but he had or made of found in his wanderings what we needed then. food, housing, tools, weapons.

          I can understand how people can think they were not intellegent?
          That's the image we were given.
          I have had the opinion for some time now that they were smart also.

          ...and the more spare time people got..the more time for invention,thought, and superstition.

          It's easy for people to look at our present surroundings and think that someone who lived 20 thousand of years ago couln't have been smart. I don't go along with the notion they were slow moving slouched shouldered idiots.

          (to me)The name cave-man is wrong. Not everyone could live in a cave. There just weren't enough caves to go around. Housing made of organic material would have vannished in almost all cased.

          My guess is most people would have made dwellings from branches, bone, mud, and hide in any number of combinations of things they come across.

          Ideas come fast...making them work or fail takes practice.(and thinking)

          We are still thinking new ideas.

          jmo
          Last edited by M.O'Connor; 7 January 2006, 11:19 AM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by M.O'Connor
            I still don't see any time-line association with the bible's creation story, and Man's journey according to thie Genographic study?.

            aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

            Earlier Man must have had good fortune mixed with intelligence to have survived as a species where other life forms have failed.

            What things did early man know, that we don't know today?

            The toys and tools have changed. We probably have looked differently and we didn't have the refined things like today..but he had or made of found in his wanderings what we needed then. food, housing, tools, weapons.

            I can understand how people can think they were not intellegent?
            That's the image we were given.
            I have had the opinion for some time now that they were smart also.

            ...and the more spare time people got..the more time for invention,thought, and superstition.

            It's easy for people to look at our present surroundings and think that someone who lived 20 thousand of years ago couln't have been smart. I don't go along with the notion they were slow moving slouched shouldered idiots.

            (to me)The name cave-man is wrong. Not everyone could live in a cave. There just weren't enough caves to go around. Housing made of organic material would have vannished in almost all cased.

            My guess is most people would have made dwellings from branches, bone, mud, and hide in any number of combinations of things they come across.

            Ideas come fast...making them work or fail takes practice.(and thinking)

            We are still thinking new ideas.

            jmo

            What things did early man know, that we don't know today?

            2400 bc fred flintdsone resident stone age built a pyramid he used stone the size of streetcars that were cut to opital standards, he used cement between these stone 1/50th of a inch, which never cracked. the arabs who brokeinto the pyramid built a fire next to it heated the stones and pouredcold vinegar on it to crack the stones not the cement.
            this building is based on pie abt 2000 years before the greeks discovered it. the triangle is in direct relationship to the distance between the moon and the earth inches to miles top to bottom.
            add to that the map of antiartica lol someone knew something
            btw all this was found to be true by the heads of the scotish society of astromony.
            it has been proven cheops didn't build the pyramid but if he did when he wa born he would have had to decide to do it and add a stone every 10 minutes.

            when they removed a stone from the airshafts they also found natural air conditioning sitting in the desert that building does not exceed 70 's i think thats the temp

            you see i wouldn't teach creationism. just the pyramid and let the kiddies decide

            oh that eygptian on tv his job is deny any conection to supernatural anything because muslim nations dont like anything connected to the jewish god
            Last edited by Jim Denning; 7 January 2006, 12:23 PM.

            Comment


            • #81
              What is it you don't understand about quarrying stone for pyramids and moving tham into place??

              http://www.guardians.net/hawass/pbuildrs.htm


              The cement thing?...you should look for more information when you find a fantastic article. A lot of times the wind goes out of these kind of ideas
              like a released un-ied balloon.

              There are logical answers..

              Just because there was some cement material used in construction it doesn't mean we can't make it. I wish you wopuld provide some links to your scientific claims....I feel I am being misled here in this discussion.

              People sensationalize wierd situations and temporay unexplained things from around the world, and people eat it up like it's Mom's home cooked dinner.

              Now I will go searching the net for your claim about this Cement?

              I you are going to post something questionable, or sensational
              be good enough to provide a link to your source.

              aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

              Your comment: "oh that eygptian on tv his job is deny any conection to supernatural anything because muslim nations dont like anything connected to the jewish god"
              aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

              Anybody who believes in a god doesn't have any use for other people's god(s)

              and as far as gods are concerned I see no proof that any god ever existed.
              There never has been any proof of god that I have ever seen. Have you ever seen a god?, heard a god?..you can read the words of Men..but no god ever wrote a book. gods don't have pens.

              If you have a god do you know what god is exactly?..and how do you know you have not been led astray?

              I am curious....I am not trying to offend anyone.
              Last edited by M.O'Connor; 7 January 2006, 04:20 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Jim Denning
                i have no problem with religion or science both are belief systems
                i happen to be christian but can understand jewish protestant catholic and penticostal doctrine and merge themi also can do the same to science.i see what dna people say and archeolgists find and physicists do

                the key is keep an open mind
                both scientists and religious have their territories and derogate the opponent. for 1700 years or so the church believed the term "that which is perfect" meant christ .but the baptists had a problem with the penticostals . they spoke in tounges .so the baptists changed it to mean the word of god the bible. which came in 500. this way they could persecute them. which they did
                now today tell a biologist that a anthropologist found something. and you get "oh thats not real science" lol "thats soft science"

                funny how people are like that
                aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


                How can you merge religions...i think you should really think twice about what you post.

                Your comment :" now today tell a biologist that a anthropologist found something. and you get "oh thats not real science" lol "thats soft science"

                Please give me an actual example...that comment is confusing and rediculous.

                Comment


                • #84
                  Here is a map of Antarctica's coast. It doesn't match that old map.


                  http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/ay.html

                  Comment


                  • #85
                    Originally posted by M.O'Connor
                    Here is a map of Antarctica's coast. It doesn't match that old map.


                    http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications...k/geos/ay.html

                    I believe thats with the ice i didnt see any mention of it

                    Comment


                    • #86

                      heres the problem this is the same cement we use and others used
                      but we cant use it the modern cement on stones cut to optical standards
                      the size of street cars and separate them by 1/50th of an inch
                      take a ruler and look at 1/50th of an inch

                      <<Early History and Development of Cement
                      The Romans are generally credited as being the first concrete engineers, but archaeological evidence says otherwise. Archaeologists have found a type of concrete dating to 6500 B.C., when stone-age Syrians used permanent fire pits for heating and cooking. These fire pits, built from area limestone, showed a primitive form of calcining on the exterior faces of the limestone rocks that lined the fire pits and lead to the accidental discovery of lime as a fundamental building material. The newly discovered technology was widely used in Syria, as central lime-burning kilns were constructed to supply mortar for rubble-wall house construction, concrete floors, and waterproofing cisterns.

                      Lime, quicklime, and burnt lime are the common names for calcium oxide, CaO, a grayish-white powder. Today over 150 important industrial chemicals requires the use of lime in order to be manufactured.. In fact, only five other raw materials (salt, coal, sulfur, air, and water) are used in greater amounts. Lime is used in glass, cement, brick, and other building materials; as well as in the manufacture of steel, aluminum, and magnesium, poultry feed; and in the processing of cane and sugar beet juices. It is strongly caustic and can severely irritate human skin and mucous membrane. Thus, the discovery of lime as a building material opened the door for many other improvements as well.

                      In Europe, archaeological evidence for early use of concrete is also found from along the banks of the Danube River in Yugoslavia, where in approximately 5600 B.C. it was used to make floors for huts.

                      In China, as far back as 3000 BC, there is evidence of a type of cement used in the Gansu Province of northwest China.

                      The Egyptians used cement as far back as 2500 B.C. Some scholars believe that a cementing material produced from either a lime concrete or burnt gypsum was used in forming the Great Pyramid at Giza. The earliest known illustration (dating to about 1950 B.C.) of concrete being used in Egypt is shown in a mural on a wall in Thebes. Archeologists have long thought that the Egyptians were masters of the stone as stone artifacts (hard stone vessels, statues) made of metamorphic schist, diorite and basalt were produced. These smooth and glossy stone artifacts (between 4.000 and 5.000 years old) bear no trace of tool marks. Some archeologists believe that the ancient Egyptian artists knew how to convert ores and minerals into a mineral binder for producing stone artifacts. They believe that many of the Egyptian statues were not carved from rock, but rather were cast in molds, and are synthetic stone statues.

                      The first evidence for this comes from a new deciphering of the C-14 Irtysen Stele (dating 2.000 BC, Louvre Museum, Paris). The stele is the autobiography of the sculptor Irtysen who lived under one of the Mentuhotep Pharaohs, 11th. Dynasty. The stele C-14 of the Louvre has been often studied. Yet many of its expressions pertain to the domain of stone technology and have been tentatively translated in the past with terms differing so widely that the translators were obviously not able to understand the described technology. According to sculptor Irtysen, cast man-made stone was a secret knowledge. (Egyptian Made-Made Stone Statues in 2000 B.C.: Deciphering the Irtysen Stele,(Louvre C14 6 pages) Was this material a type of cement?

                      Some scientists are now proposing that the pyramids were made of poured stone, rather than quarried stone. From a geological point of view, the Giza Plateau is an outcrop of the Middle Eocene Mokkatam Formation. Yet, the outcrop that dips into the wadi, where the quarries are located and also the trench around the Sphinx and the Sphinx body, consist of softer thickly bedded marly nummulite limestone layers with a relative high amount of clay. The amount of water-sensitive parts, expressed as weight percent of stone, is strikingly very high, ranging between 5.5% to 29%. It is obvious that the builders took advantage of the thickly bedded softer limestones. The disaggregated muddy material was ready for geopolymeric reagglomeration. Perhaps the biggest surprise encountered in this study deals with the hieroglyphic verbs for to build, namely khusi (Gardiner's list A34). The sign khusi represents a man pounding or packing material in a mold. This is one of the oldest Egyptian hieroglyphs. (Construction of the Egyptian Great Pyramids, 2500 B.C., with Agglomerated Stone. Update of the latest Research,: 42 pages)>>


                      what you and most people dont understand is EYGPTIANS DIDNT BUILD THE PYRAMIDS not the ordinary ones anyways. It was the first to use the sacred inch also used in the temple in jerusalem, and noahs boat. all three of which had instrutions given to the workers.

                      this isnt what the romans and greeks did and definatly not what the reg eytgptians used. do you know the great one at gisa was first. the others went down hill after that .the standard was forgotten or not in possesion of the copiers.

                      enough of that POURED STONE LOL look the stone on the top of the great pyramid are still there. test them

                      anyways remember this is 2000 yrs before the great minds of the greeks
                      on the evolutionary trail where did it mention all this in my science books.
                      these people should of been barely literate and outside of eygpt barbarians
                      lol.i think those people were just like us. and dna really says that. doesnt it
                      E3B 13 24 13 10 16 18 11 12 12 13 11 30 16 16 9 9 11 11 26 14 20 33 14 16 16 17 9 11 19 19 17 12 17 19 31 34 11 10
                      THATS MY E3B FROM SOMALIA i will bet that someone with it was just like me.To cut those stones to optical standards wasnt what fred flintstone did in the quarry. now i may look like fred as in the picture above but 6500 years bc the syrians did cement and other stuff lol i bet when you read all this it surprised you and our readers
                      wanna bet there is other stuff out there .

                      Comment


                      • #87
                        I asked before if you would supply a link to these claims you are making.

                        2000 years before the great minds of Greese??
                        (surely other cultures or Peoples had great minds amonst them..why are you surprised?)

                        Those links I provided were just a few of the returns i got from a search on MSN..I didn't look for the oldest claim to cement. If cement was developed in Roman Times it could have also been inveted centuries or more earlier by someone else with a lot of time on their hands.

                        Stone work?.yea..they did stone work...how did they do it?..who cares..they did it...I know they did it because it is there. We have since moved on to other things more important to us than stone.

                        Plunge yourself into the Stone-Age ...you'll figure it all out then. Looking at it from the outside must be frustrating.

                        anyways.....would you provide links to your stories?
                        Last edited by M.O'Connor; 7 January 2006, 10:38 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #88
                          Originally posted by M.O'Connor
                          I asked before if you would supply a link to these claims you are making.

                          2000 years before the great minds of Greese??
                          (surely other cultures or Peoples had great minds amonst them..why are you surprised?)

                          Those links I provided were just a few of the returns i got from a search on MSN..I didn't look for the oldest claim to cement. If cement was developed in Roman Times it could have also been inveted centuries or more earlier by someone else with a lot of time on their hands.

                          Stone work?.yea..they did stone work...how did they do it?..who cares..they did it...I know they did it because it is there. We have since moved on to other things more important to us than stone.

                          Plunge yourself into the Stone-Age ...you'll figure it all out then. Looking at it from the outside must be frustrating.

                          anyways.....would you provide links to your stories?
                          There are 100 books on the Pyramid you can read them by some of the greatest minds of the 1800s they are there for the reading. You might find them interesting
                          Last edited by Jim Denning; 8 January 2006, 08:59 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #89
                            You Claim:"There are 100 books on the Pyramid you can read them by some of the greatest minds of the 1800s they are there for the reading. You might find them interesting"

                            aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

                            No links to these 100 books..or no idea Who these Great Minded People were?

                            aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



                            How about you read this one page: www.guardians.net/hawass/pbuildrs.htm

                            Comment


                            • #90
                              Originally posted by M.O'Connor
                              You Claim:"There are 100 books on the Pyramid you can read them by some of the greatest minds of the 1800s they are there for the reading. You might find them interesting"

                              aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

                              No links to these 100 books..or no idea Who these Great Minded People were?

                              aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



                              How about you read this one page: www.guardians.net/hawass/pbuildrs.htm

                              Many were heads of the scotish society of astronomy most were taught in major colleges until german relativism

                              why is it i have to provide links and no one esle does. why is it thatthe major excepted therory of migration is siberia bering straight to america when no X Haplogroup or the tools [clovis] are found here . when you question that . no one has to provide books for every reader. lol

                              look you want to know go to a library and search books by Davidson,Lemesurier,Rutherford,Capt. ect You obviously are new to all this
                              read their stuff and maybe we will talk ok

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X