Question About Intellgent Design

[Kevin Lockard]

I have a question for all those out there who subscribe to Intelligent Design. I'm not asking this question in hopes of starting a flame war or debate, I am honestly curious as to what someone has to say. I haven't been able to get any answers at all.

How do Christians maintain that the earth is only ten thousand years old when evidence in the form of the fossil record, continental drift, sedementary layer, volcanic preservation, carbon AND mineral dating, glacier tracking, and red light shift (the degredation of light from distant stars as a mathmatical means of determining distance, speed and age.) indicate that the universe has been around for billions of years?

How is it that Evolution is constantly denied, with occasional errors in carbon dating as the usual excuse, when there has yet to be a single documented case of a rabbit or cat or modern chiahuahua fossil being dated to the same time frame of the dinosaurs? I do not intend this as intolerance, though I certainly am baffled by the pushing of Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory. I am legitimately curious as to how the arguments of this "science" are broken down. Further more, I would be very interested in knowing what precisely it is about the bible that makes it so undeniable in the eyes of it's followers, especially to deny all the fundemental tenants of science?

I hope someone takes the time to answer, again, I mean no disrespect, but I do not understand how someone could willingly adopt this viewpoint. How can we deny what physics, biology, geology, genetics, linguistics, techtonics, quantum theory, astronomy, and yes, even computer research are telling us? These completely seperate fields all have numerous specific and unrelated experiments that link all the evidence in, if you ask an expert, nearly unlimited redundancy. It's as close to scientific fact as anything at this point, and yet we continue to have to argue and tolerate people corrupting the education of the masses and poisoning the potential of future generations with what, if you'll pardon my point of view on this, looks completely like fascist propoganda. You have to understand, I don't want to have this view of my fellow human beings, but whenever I am given the opportunity to ask my questions, the answer always comes back to "faith", which seems like a completely empty answer to me, it means "I believe it because I want to."

[Ningishiddza]

I do not intend this as intolerance...

I am legitimately curious...

...I mean no disrespect...

...if you'll pardon my point of view on this...


You have to understand, I don't want to have this view of my fellow human beings...

What, did you eat a big box of Guilt donuts for breakfast?

As a human being, you have an inherent correctness to be intolerant of that which you are not willing to tolerate. Stop feeling guilty about it, sally forth and make yourself known.


looks completely like fascist propoganda.

Well, I don't know, we'd have to evaluate that, and I don't think it fits.

All forms of Fascism appeal to emotion, and I don't see where Intelligent Design (ID) does that.

The purpose of Fascism is to explain why social conditions are the way they are, and I don't see how ID does that in a clear manner.

I suppose you could make a good argument that ID helps people know their place in the world, their source of belonging, ie to the christian thing, and it would support, at least in part, the Fascist concept of Believe!, Obey! Fight! Slay the enemies of the Nation!

Still, I'd think you'd find ID to be more of a liberation ideology, which could have a mix of fascist, nationalist, socilalist, communist, liberal or conservative elements.

[Traveler]

To a large extent the date of 6 thousand years is derived from the list of who begot who in the bible. To a large extent there is also a lot of miss interpritation involved.

To give an example the earth was only set in orbit around the sun on the fourth day so it stands to reason that as there could not be any type of litteral day before the fourth day then the days referred to in the creation account cannot be refering to days as we understand them. It would be better to look at them as specific ages or periods involved in the creation.

This is something that I posted a while back on the subject but that seems to have been deleted. So I’ll repost it here again.


The Theory of Special Creation.

The first thing that goes through anybodies mind when they read this tittle is, “Oh no, its those people that believe that the world was created in six days”. Well, if the Bible account is to be taken literally then it soon becomes quite obvious that the fires of the sun were only ignited on the fourth day, so how could there have existed three days prior to this event. Unless of course the days referred to someone else’s days or periods of time!

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the explanation that was given in the book of Genesis was a very simplified account meant for a person that did not poses the education that we take for granted to day. If a five year old asked an electronics engineer how a television worked do you think that the engineer would go into all the mathematical details of how a resonant circuit worked and how to tune the receiver so that it would resonate with the incoming carrier wave. Together with all the calculations needed to bias all the transistors in the amplification circuits? Of course not! The child would not understand what he was talking about. Likewise the explanation in the account of Genesis is a very simplified version of a very complex subject. However, even from this extremely simplified explanation of the creation account, a very thought provoking and indeed, rational picture can be put together that does correspond with the fossil record and new discoveries in other branches of the sciences.

As I am a product of the modern education system, I am well versed in Darwin’s theory of Evolution. You have to be in order to graduate from high school. But if you do any research on the subject you will eventually come across writings by the creationists that pull Darwin’s theory to pieces and rightly so, as it is full of holes and assumptions that are used to fill in all the blanks. At the very least the theory must match the fossil record! The conclusion that one inevitably comes to is that the question regarding the origin of the species should have been left as an open question, while awaiting the gathering of further data. But even in scientific circles there is the inevitable politics involving the desired direction of research based on funding, so the evolution agenda is pushed to the detriment of all others.

However, throughout this entire debunkel, I have yet to come across a single article that takes the first chapter of Genesis, so as to scrutinize it in such a way as to form a solid and coherent theory that will explain the origin of the species. Therefore I have decided to do it myself. I have used the Revised International Version of the Bible as this is the most widely used these days and it basically says exactly the same as the King James that I normally use. Only in a more modern form of English. It is my hope that those more qualified than myself in the fields of Physics, pantology and the like will stand back a second and consider what I have laid before them as a viable, though somewhat crude theory, and give the subject a second look from this new angle. If they would contribute their own fields of expertise to the subject in a honest and positive fashion, then it should develop to the point where the more critical points of it could be either proved or disproved on the basis of proper scientific principles, both in the laboratory and in the field. For everyone else, this is how the Bible says we came about, so feel free to check it out for yourselves!

The First Day.

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirt of God was hovering over the waters.
3. And God said “let there be light,”and there was light.
4. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5, God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And there was evening and there was morning- the first day.

Verse one indicates that there was a beginning. This beginning involved all the matter that makes up our universe. The entity that we identify as God claims responsibility for the creation of all the matter that exists in our universe. Now current scientific theory suggests that it all started with a big bang. This may or may not be the way that God did it, we cannot tell from the scripture alone. But the next verse does lean towards another method.

God obviously had plans for the earth right from early on as his attention in the form of his spirit was directed towards it. At this point in time the earth is described as a formless mass of mud that contained a predominant amount of water. The fact that it is described as formless is significant. Further on in the Old Testament the scriptures describe the sphere of the earth indicating a mass that was round. But here it was formless indicating that although there was a large enough mass of matter to form a planet there was no gravity to pull it into the shape of a sphere yet. In other words the constants and laws of the universe were still in the process of being designed and written. Hence I question if the big bang was the way it happened as that would mean that the universal constants would have to be set in motion from the moment of the beginning. While scripture indicates a slower more deliberate process.

The next two verses have to be looked at very carefully. Up to this point light did not exist. God claims to be the one that created and made light possible. In fact further on in scripture light seems to be Gods signature, indicating that its creation was considered a rather big deal. Ever since the invention of the first radio there has been debate regarding wether or not there is an either that acts as a conducting medium for radio waves or light waves, in fact to carry any form of electromagnetic radiation. The concept of an either falls in and out of vouge in scientific circles continuously. The indications from the creationist point of view is that it does exist and that it is tied up with gravity in some way, indicating that gravity pushes rather than pulls matter towards other matter. Just what the source of this first light was is not indicated but it was not from the sun. The sun was only set in place on the fourth day so as to replace this first form of light that had started to fade by then. Now it is interesting to note that astronomers have indicated that the outer reaches of the universe are blocked from view by what they term white noise. Could this be the last residue of this first original light.

The Genesis account then goes on to say that God made a clear separation between the light and the darkness. Now we tend to think of light as travelling in a straight line so that it permeates everywhere unless blocked by a solid object resulting in a shadow being cast. But here it is described as being separated by some hither to unknown mechanism. It is only in recent years that astronomers have become aware of dark matter. Your speculation is as good as mine but there are areas in this universe where light has no means of propagation. Hence we have dark areas, a clear separation between light and darkness. It is called night and day as those are terms that an uneducated man would understand. What else is God to call it anyway?

Now the last verse is also interesting. The time between the evening and the morning is understood by us to be the night time but in the Genesis account it is referred to as the first day. This should further indicate to us that the days referred to in the Genesis accounts are God’s days, not ours. From our perspective it would be better to just say that the first time period of unknown duration passed.

The Second Day.


6. And God said “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water”
7, So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
8, God called the expanse “sky” And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

The next few days are devoted to how God prepared the earth so that it could sustain life. In this second day an explanation is given on how our atmosphere was developed.

It should be noted here that at no time in the scriptures is the development of the earth considered unique or a one off event. Just take a look at the Lords Prayer, “Let thy Kingdom come, Let thy will be done, in earth, as it is in Heaven.”If God has a Kingdom, then he must have dominion over all the subjects that make up that kingdom. The implication is that this earth has been in rebellion against, or opposed to, Gods kingdom, ever since the fall of Adam. The Lords prayer is asking that this earth be brought back under the kingship, or will of God, like the rest of creation! So from a creationists point of view, the only thing unique about us is that we are currently in a state of rebellion against the creator, while the rest of creation is still in line with his will. A particularly unwise state to be in, considering the obvious power, that this entity we know of as God, must of necessity posses.

Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand! By the second day gravity must have been put in place and the earth, under its own gravitational pull, consolidated itself into a sphere. Obviously the physical laws governing the specific gravity of the elements would also be in effect by this stage, so all the heaver elements would sink to the bottom with the lighter elements and liquids being near the surface. Hence we have a planet who’s entire surface area is covered by water. Obviously there would need to be some source of heat to ensure that the water was in a liquid state. The only cause of heat that I can think of here was that when the earth pulled itself together the friction of the event and the compression of the heaver elements in the core provided the energy necessary. To this day we still have a molten core through which an electric current of some form passes, giving us our magnetic field. Something that not all planets have.

[Traveler]

To carry it on


Now the Geneses account says that God used the water to create the atmosphere. But this first atmosphere was a bit different from the one we have today. The account indicates that the upper atmosphere enveloped the planet with a layer of water, with the lower regions being occupied with the normal gasses that made up the planets atmosphere at that time. This layer of water in the upper atmosphere would be the perfect shield against radiation that was probably quite prolific in the universe during the time of its early formation. This also answers two questions, where all the water came from to make possible a flood as large as the one described by Noah and his Ark. Also why it never rained up to that point in our history. Obviously something has happened to our atmosphere to prevent it from retaining moisture as it did prior to Noah’s flood. Perhaps a temperature difference of some kind. Now our deserts just keep on growing!

The Third Day

9. And God said,”Let the waters under the sky be gathered in one place, and let dry ground appear.”And it was so.
10. God called the dry ground “land”.And the gathered waters he called, “seas”.And God saw that it was good.
11. Then God said,”Let the land produce vegetation: seed bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seeds according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13. And there was evening and there was morning - the third day.

As would be expected the earth pulled itself into a perfect sphere under its own weight with the denser matter settling to the bottom. As there was a great deal of water molecules present in the conglomeration of matter that went into the composition of the earth, it stands to reason that the earth would naturally be a water planet with a solid crust that made up the sea floor or ocean bed. However God decided that he was going to make this planet habitable for life that would also exist in a gaseous atmosphere as well as liquid water.

In order to achieve this he would have to rake up the solid matter from the ocean floor to form a mound of solid ground above the water level. Hence we have dry land and a misshapen planet that is no longer a perfect sphere. I have often seen exposed strata on the sides of cliffs and mountains. I see layers of quartz and granite in this strata but they are at crazy angles and often looped back over themselves or formed patterns like that found in crumpled paper. Now these are igneous rocks. They are supposed to have formed and solidified as the earth cooled down so as to form the crust of the planet. Why are they not horizontal and consistent in their layers? What I see is consistent with huge chunks of earth being displaced and shoved around. I am forced to conclude that the formation of dried land on our planet has to be the result of an event that took place in our distant past, or as the book of genesis says, an act of Devine intervention. Take your pick, but a satisfactory explanation is required here.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that solid land on this plant is the result of some outside action. That means that the law of decay will be in effect concerning it, as is the case with everything as it ages. That means that the dry land must gradually sink back into the sea from whence it came, albeit over an incredibly long period of time. Now it is interesting to note that in chapter 10, verse 25 it says, “Two sons were born to Eber, One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided: His brother was named Joktan.”Could this refer to the time that the continental drift first started as this first original land mass or super continent, that science refers to as “Gondwanaland” started to break up and drift apart, as it gradually sinks back into the sea.

Now to this point God had a planet, The planet had an atmosphere that provided protection from harmful background radiation. He had dry land, Lots of water, heat still emanating from the interior of the planet and a form of light emanating from a hither to unknown source. It was time to start creating life, and what better place than the bottom of the food chain. Hence he started with the vegetation. The fact that this vegetation came with its own seeds enabled it to be self perpetuating. Here light was converted into energy that could be consumed by higher life forms in order to sustain the life of those higher life forms. It would appear that microbial life is lumped together with the vegetation as the two are interdependent on each other.

This also brings us back to the story of which came first, the chicken or the egg! The soil needs to be prepared with the needed nutrients for vegetation to grow and the soil needs the decomposing vegetation in order to develop the required humerus that forms the nutrients that are needed to support vegetation. Hence we have one of the first impasses that can only be explained by intervention of a third party.

It is interesting to note that after each phase of the creation process, God would stand back and examen what he had made to see that it all functioned the way he intended. Also how much is accomplished in each day, or time period, can be taken as an indication of the complexity of each stage.

The Fourth Day
14. And God said,”Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night , and let them serve as signs to mark the seasons and days and years.
15. And let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.
16. God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night . He also made the stars
17. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth
18. To govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19. And there was evening and there was morning - the fourth day.

We now come to the point where the universe is starting to settle down into the state that we see it as to day. The initial burst of light that permeated throughout the universe at the start of creation is now starting to fade away and another source of light now has to be found to sustain life on this planet we call earth.

It is interesting to note that there was no set period of day and night on the earth up to this point, which indicates that the original source of light that was used up till this time was of a form that pervaded everywhere. We can also make the assumption that a source of heat was also needed as the surface of the planet would have started to cool down by this time. Obviously it was at this point in time that the earth started to experience what we now have come to understand as our regular day and night. Therefor we are forced to the conclusion that the six days of creation has to refer to some other form of time duration that we are not presently aware of as yet. Call it Gods days, which indicates that this simple explanation is being recited from his perspective, not ours.

It is also at this time that the rhythms or cycles of nature was set up. Not just between day and night but also between winter and summer. The sun is obviously the greater light and the moon is the lesser. We now know that the moon is older than the earth with its own distinct geology. It also keeps the earth stable in space so that the planet does not start to tumble but swings back and forth, no further than 23 and a half degrees, thus giving us our seasons. Once again, how the binary system of the earth and moon came to be, points to intelligent design and outside interference. After all the two bodies are not really related and the results of their relationship indicates prior planning.

The sun was probably in the process of forming for quite some time before this event, basically pulling in all the hydrogen atoms from the surrounding space with its gravitational field. It was only now of a high enough density to ignite in its nucleolar reactions. Likewise all the other stars in the universe were also going through the same process. Only now that you had a regular day and night due to the earths rotation, the other stars became visible during the dark periods of the nights. As the earth was rotating around the sun so every night a different part of the sky would be visible, which enables us to tell when the earth has completed a complete cycle around the sun or one solar year as viewed from our perspective.

According to Biblical prophecy this rhythm will remain stable and in place until the last days when there will be a disruption that will cause the earth to rock to and fro like a drunkard. Until that time we can rely on a regular stability between the seasons.

The Fith Day

20. And God said,”Let the waters team with living creatures and let birds fly across the expanse of the sky.”
21. So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teams .according to their kinds. And every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the waters in the sea, and let the birds increase on the earth.
23. And there was evening and there was morning - the fifth day.


Now this also follows a logical path. Vegetation had been seeded on the dry land which of course was spreading at a slow but steady rate. In turn it would be modifying the atmosphere in the form of oxygen production. All the dead leaves etc that fall to the ground would of course break down into humerus that would be used to prepare the soil to accept more vegetation.

The water however has no self cleaning mechanism. What erodes off the land into the sea will just sit there, slowly degenerating into sludge. Hence the need to create life in the sea, starting with the crustaceans etc, which are basically the bottom feeders or natures little cleaners if you will. It is also interesting to note that every creature would reproduce after its own kind. There was no cross breading between species and this trait remains with us to this day.

It is also indicated that only a small but viable sample of each creature was created and then they were left to breed on there own until the populations grew to the point where they spread out across the oceans. No doubt the predators were introduced later so as to control the numbers resulting in natures checks and balances. This also explains why life just seems to explode into the fossil record in its fully developed form.

On dry land there was a need to speed up the propagation or spread of the vegetation. As the vegetation had only spread out to a limited extent from its point of origin, it was only able to provided food for a limited amount of animal life, hence the creation of bird life first. Small consumers while far travellers. The bird eats the fruit then poops out the seed far from the fruit tree. Hence the process of spreading seeds was greatly speeded up and natural obstacles such as mountain ranges was overcome. The further the natural vegetation spreads, the greater the likely range of the bird life. A rather good example of a symbiotic relationship.

Again the earth would be left for a time, until it was ready fo the next step in its development.

The Sixth Day

24. And God said, “ Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind: Livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so
25. God made the wild animals according to there kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26. Then God said, “ Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air. Over the livestock. Over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
28. God blessed them and said to them. “ Be fruitful and increase in number: fill the earth and subdue it, Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29. Then God said,”I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
30. And to all the beast of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning - The sixth day.

Now we come to the last day, where all that which we consider to be the higher life forms are created. With humans being the very last on the list. It is interesting to note that at this point in time all the creatures, including man, was supposed to be vegetarian in nature. Obviously the eating of meat only came later.

There is however one very interesting point to the story. It has to do with Gods method of operation in the creation process, as far as living creatures are concerned. In Chapter 2 verse 21 it says.

21. So God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep: and while he was sleeping, he took one of the mans ribs, and closed up the place with flesh.
22. Then the lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Now, in modern science we would know this as cloning. God already had a man that was functioning as he wanted. In effect he already had a human stencil, why create the female of the species right from scratch. All he did was to take the genetic code that was already established and tweak it so as to grow into the female version of the same species. Now if he did that here it is quite probable that he used the same method while developing all the other species.

Look at all the different antelope. They all have 4 hooves, a set of horns and a tail. But all are separate species that do not interbreed with each other. The relationship between them is also quite apparent, but they are at the same time genetically distinct and separate. In all probability, what happened was that God had already developed the basic stencil of the early antelope from scratch. He then tweaked, or modified it to form the next antelope and then modified that to form the next and so on and so forth. This would explain why each separate species of animal just appears in the fossil record in its fully developed form, with no gradual evolution from one form to the next to be found.

This would explain why it would appear that there must have been a common ancestor that each species evolved from. If this hypothesis is correct, then there was a common ancestor all right, but there was no evolution, there was a process of cloning with modifications as each species was modified to form the next. Hence the reason that we have failed to find the evidence of gradual evolution in the fossil record. Its just not there because it never happened

[Nu Kua]

So you don't believe the world is only 6,000 years old, right?
I know other Christians who do not believe that. I used to date one. He believed that some parts of the bible are allegorical, symbolic, not actual.

Speaking of the ages...

I might have a problem coming up. My 12 year old just learned that the year 2007 refers to after the birth of Christ. He is not sure that Christ even existed, but in his mind, he is very certain that having the date of the year based on the supposed birth of Christ is bullsh*t.
(His indignation was fueled by a magic show he went to Friday night- with no warning of what was to come in the ad or on the ticket, he spends $10 only to discover it is a Christian magic show- and the magician attributed all of the magic to the power of Jesus. Every trick had a bible verse or a lesson incorporated with it. Sounds creative to me, but I can see where he was upset.)

Anyway, my point, he says he is no longer writing the year 2007 on his papers at school. He is going to write 4.3 Billion, for the year.

I won't talk him out of it. It will be a good lesson for him, and plus I am curious to see where this goes.

[Ningishiddza]

Speaking of the ages...

I might have a problem coming up. My 12 year old just learned that the year 2007 refers to after the birth of Christ. He is not sure that Christ even existed, but in his mind, he is very certain that having the date of the year based on the supposed birth of Christ is bullsh*t.

Anyway, my point, he says he is no longer writing the year 2007 on his papers at school. He is going to write 4.3 Billion, for the year.

I won't talk him out of it. It will be a good lesson for him, and plus I am curious to see where this goes.

Technically, yes, however in typical stupid christian fashion they screwed it up because they were too dumb to realize that Augustus ruled under the name of Octavian for about 4 years before taking his new name (called a prenomen). In reality, it would be 2011 if you're going to use the AD time-reckoning thing.

There are many different ways to reckon time, and a number of groups have come up with their own way.

The Nippurian Calendar was set for exactly 6,000 years and ends in what would be 2240 (or 2244 to be technical).

The Hebrews appropriated the calendar and use it, so it's like 5767 in their calendar. The muslims also have their own calendar.

It doesn't really matter how you do it, so long as you have something to reference dates in the past.

Personally, I like Aries time point Zero, and if they ever quit bickering and fix the date, it'd be somewhere between 1607 and 1807. We could still have centuries and stuff, and the calendar would just start over when 25,600 or whenever the end of precession is reached.

We could move the New Year back to the first day of spring where it belongs. Do you have any idea how many people die of hypothermia because the New Year is in the dead of winter?

[Traveler]

This new museum may interest you.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

When the idea was first presented it was mocked and put down no end but as it turns out the whole idea has taken off and it is expected to get around 400,000 visitors this year.

Once again the news media gave a negative voice that was louder than reality but the people proved different.

[Sadhaka]

Technically, yes, however in typical stupid christian fashion they screwed it up because they were too dumb to realize that Augustus ruled under the name of Octavian for about 4 years before taking his new name (called a prenomen). In reality, it would be 2011 if you're going to use the AD time-reckoning thing.

Hey Ning,

A bit off topic, but here goes...
Does this mean that 2012 is actually next year? How do we know when the Mayan 2012 is?

[DeVolut1on]

Most Christians really don't believe the earth is 10,000 years old to my knowledge... you can't really deny there were dinosaurs after all, and Jesus
(assuming he existed) didn't ride along side a pet velociraptor named Tito.

But, day by day, more Christians are taking evolution for truth. Have you not heard? Since Galileo, the church has always attempted to censor Science.

[Ningishiddza]

Hey Ning,

A bit off topic, but here goes...
Does this mean that 2012 is actually next year? How do we know when the Mayan 2012 is?

Good question. I don't really know.

All I know is that the calendars are based on a 5,125 year cycle.

Each calendar follows the previous.

Each cycle is an "age." The total cycle is 25,625 years, which is about almost exactly equal to one precessional cycle. You follow? It takes about 2,160 years to move through one sign of the zodiac, so 12 signs is 25,920 years.

Except that isn't really true because the Earth doesn't really slow 1 degree for each 72 years, it's a little less than that, so it's actually about 25,800 something years, except that is affected by planetary alignments that can cause the Earth's orbital velocity to accelerate slightly (and retard), so the precessional cycle is closer to 25,625 years than it is 25,920 years.

So the real question is when do the calendars start? As the 3rd calendar ends with the Age of Jaguar (for the Aztecs), that might be synonymous with the entry into the constellation Leo, which would be about 10,860 years ago, and so the Mayan calendar ended in 610 BCE.

But if it ended with the exit from the constellation Leo, then that would put the Mayan calendar ending in 1550 CE, which makes absolute sense.

The Incas, Aztecs, Mayans and others were awaiting the return of Quetzalcoatl at the end of the calendar, and the Spanish showed up right then in 1542 CE.

Another possibility is that the calendars started with a fixed reference point and that whoever set the calendars up did so knowing the distance to the Galactic Center, which is 26,000 light years +/- 1,400 light years, or 24,600 to 27,400. I would suggest that the actual distance IS the precessional cycle, or 25,625 light years.

In other words, someone set up the original 12 zodiacs in such a way that the precessional cycle and distance to the galactic center would coincide.

Anyway it's important to remember that there is no such thing as "the Mayan Calendar." They didn't invent it, they borrowed it. It was either the Aztecs or Incas that had all 5 calendars in gold discs which the stupid Spaniards melted down into gold ingots. There's a stone copy of the 5th (and current calendar) that is in a museum. That's the same calendar the Mayans are using.

One of the bishops (not de Landa, the other one) made hand drawn copies of all five discs before they were melted down, but you can't see them because they are in the Vatican library and you aren't worthy, as you are small, shallow inconsequential being, at least according to the Vatican.

[iulian28ti]

Hey Ning,

A bit off topic, but here goes...
Does this mean that 2012 is actually next year? How do we know when the Mayan 2012 is?

That would be correct. I always wondered "Is this calendar sure?".
The first thing which caught my attention is the 365-366 thing, and the second is the hour change.

Got to say i saw that when i was 8.:deal: It looked suspicious back then, and then through documentation, things became clear. The calendar is not accurate.

PS: reading Ning's post it gets even clearer (!) that the present calendar is funked.

[Sadhaka]

Good question. I don't really know.

All I know is that the calendars are based on a 5,125 year cycle.....


....One of the bishops (not de Landa, the other one) made hand drawn copies of all five discs before they were melted down, but you can see them because they are in the Vatican library and you aren't worthy, as you are small, shallow inconsequential being, at least according to the Vatican.

Thanks Ning, yeah I'm aware of that last fact ;-)

Some interesting points. As with everything that's discussed on this forum however, who really knows?

Much Love and Many Blessings,
Sadhaka.

[Sadhaka]

That would be correct. I always wondered "Is this calendar sure?".....


Bugger. I thought we had a few more years... (cue Aud Lang Syne)

Much Love and Many Blessings,
Sadhaka.

[Ningishiddza]

Thanks Ning, yeah I'm aware of that last fact ;-)

Some interesting points. As with everything that's discussed on this forum however, who really knows?

Much Love and Many Blessings,
Sadhaka.

We know one thing for certain, nothing will happen.

This is nothing more than one guy laughing all the way to the bank. Jose Arguelles never heard of Votan, then one day he claims to have visions, then claims to hear voices, then claims to be channeling information from Votan, then he claimed to be in direct communication, now he claims he is the incarnation of Votan.

That's one sick pup.

Just like when you come to the end of your calendar you throw it away, that's what'll happen with the Mayan calendar. We could have a new one, except the "Mayan elders" don't know how to make one.

[Sadhaka]

We know one thing for certain, nothing will happen....

...Just like when you come to the end of your calendar you throw it away, that's what'll happen with the Mayan calendar. We could have a new one, except the "Mayan elders" don't know how to make one.

That is interesting, but I don't know. I always thought that with the end of the precession came earth changes akin to the deluge or perhaps Earth Crust Displacement as theorised by Charles Hapgood.

Much Love and Many Blessings,
Sadhaka.

[Ningishiddza]

That is interesting, but I don't know. I always thought that with the end of the precession came earth changes akin to the deluge or perhaps Earth Crust Displacement as theorised by Charles Hapgood.

Much Love and Many Blessings,
Sadhaka.

Funny how everyone believes Charles Hapgood, except Charles Hapgood.

Put yourself in Hapgood's place for just a moment.

You're in class teaching, and a student asks, "Are there mountains in Antarctica?"

Your answer is what? No. That's your answer. There are no mountains, because the weight of the ice cap would have already crushed and eroded them.

And how old are the ice caps? Your answer is what? That's right, the ice caps are 1 Billion years old.

And why is that? Your answer is what? Because Continental Drift, the slow movement of the continental crust over the Earth's mantle has left Antarctica in about the same position for nearly 1 Billion years.

And when was Antarctica discovered? Your answer is, of course, in the year 1820. And that's 1820 CE, not BCE.

And that kind of gives an idea of what Charles Hapgood knew and how he would have formulated ideas and his basic thinking process.

See, Antarctica was thought to be just an huge ice floe, like the North Pole. No one had any idea there was a huge freaking continent underneath all that ice until 1820.

Now imagine you're Charles Hapgood, and you find the Piri Re'is map and the Orantaeus Finaeus map with a clearly defined Antarctic continent, free of ice and depicting mountains, rivers and lakes. Of course you're going to be shocked.

What is the prevailing paradigm? THERE CAN BE NO MOUNTAINS IN ANTARCTICA. Or rivers or lakes for that matter.

So you can imagine how delighted Charles Hapgood was when in the following year, 1958, the Geophysical Survey Team borrows an army ground radar and lugs it up to the top of a glacier to beam down through the ice and finds, of all things, mountains. On top of that, the ice is now believed to be not more than 100 Million years old.

Hapgood doesn't believe the ice is 100 Million years old. As a point of fact, he's right, but only partially so.

And he attempts to explain the anomalies of Antarctica in the only way he knows how, and that was by assuming Continental Drift was accurate and that the continents could slide in one mass movement.

Of course, he was wrong. At that time it was illegal to shout "tectonic plate" in a crowded theater. It wasn't until 10 years later, around 1969 that Tectonic Plates were accepted as a theory and professors were no longer fired from their jobs, and another maybe 5 or 6 years when it was fully accepted.

And that was in large part due to satellites with earth penetrating radar flying around the world. They didn't have satellites in Hapgood's day.

The theory is totally at odds with Tectonic Plates. Subduction zones go into the mantle. Plus the crustal material varies in thickness as does the weight of each continent.

He claimed a 15 degree shift, but that defies the evidence. It's based largely on a mammoth found frozen with buttercups still intact in its mouth and stomach. As we know now, buttercups do grow at that latitude, but the shift would have to be south to north, in order to move the animal from a warm area to a cold area, and it really isn't that much of a change in weather, not to mention it's in the opposite direction of the movement the pole shift goofs claim.

One thing's for sure, you can't believe in pole shift and global warming. Global warming is predicated on the eastern ice sheet in Antarctica being at least 10 Million years old.

Plus there's no evidence of dead zones. Get glass of water and jerk it suddenly. Does the water move or not? Yeah it moves alright. Do you have any idea how much water is in the Pacific Ocean? Enough for a two mile high tidal wave to sweep over the Earth several times. That isn't the point. It, and all other oceans just have to sweep once. Salt water in the soil will kill everyting. A few trees will survive, but vegetation is history. That's why the Romans tilled salt into the soil at Carthage after they defeated the Carthaginians, so nothing would grow there, and 1,500 years later, it's just starting to get some life.

Salt water in the Great Lakes would have killed off all the fish. Salt water would have pooled in all the low lying inland areas and destroyed everything.

Pole shift is a theory predicated on bad science.

The only significant even on 21.12.2012 is the end of the Milankovitch Cycle, and about 30 days later, the Earth will be closer to the Sun than it ever has been in recorded history, and then the Earth will begin to move from a circular-sort of orbit to a more elliptical orbit as the Earth moves back into an ice age over the next several thousand years. Remember? This is an [u]inter-glacial[/i] period.

[Sadhaka]

Wow, so much data to take in...

A few questions:

If the Peri Reis map was copied from earlier sources, then isn't it suffice to say that 'Antarctica' was discovered ages ago?

What do you think of theories that there was an ice free period for Antarctica as close as 6000 years ago?

Doesn't the map's accuracy imply that it had to be drawn from arial surveillance?

Doesn't the Earth's core rotate faster than the crust (lapping the surface every 400 years)? Thus indicating that the crust is seperate and could slip over/around the core

Isn't it accepted that we have magnetic pole reversals? (I know that that is not really connected to pole shift)

Uranus spins on it's side. What does that imply for the axis of rotation/poles for other planets?

Shouldn't Global Warming be renamed Solar System warming, with the sun burning hotter, and temperatures rising throughout the solar system?

Much Love and Many Blessings,
Sadhaka.

[Raptor Witness]

The argument for intelligent design is simpler than what I'm reading here. It goes something like this:

If we were to send out probes to other galaxies, assuming that we had that capability, we would no doubt want to know if we were alone in the universe. How would we go about determining if other intelligent life had evolved beyond the earth? Listening for radio signals hasn't helped us so far, so we would need another method, especially for determining if civilizations had previously colonized another planet's surface. What would our probe look for, to determine if intelligent life had evolved somewhere else? How about roads, bridges, buildings, or the simple organization of matter on a planet's surface? That would be easy.

The criteria we would use to determine intelligent life elsewhere in the universe can be applied to the universe as a whole. Einstein said, that "God does not play dice with the universe." So if the organization of matter is an acceptable fingerprint for higher intelligence, then organization generally should also be evidence of a designer. Our roads, bridges and buildings, are nothing compared to the design of living systems.

To say that there is no intelligence behind our design, is to contradict one's own argument entirely. It's the most foolish statement of self condemnation that I can imagine.

[Ningishiddza]

If the Peri Reis map was copied from earlier sources, then isn't it suffice to say that 'Antarctica' was discovered ages ago?

Sure, it's a White Thing. It's claimed that Columbus discovered America, but very obviously, others had discovered long before that, and the best evidence is the peoples who were already living there. So why is Columbus celebrated? Is the discovery by the peoples already living here somehow tainted or disqualified? If so, on what basis?


What do you think of theories that there was an ice free period for Antarctica as close as 6000 years ago?

I'm not aware of any, but I don't believe it's geologically possible. There's essentially two ice sheets, one old and once very recent, about 10,000 years old, so that would be about 8,000 years ago.

You have to consider the other evidence, too, that of areas that we now see as deserts. Those were not deserts 8,000 years ago. The Sahara is the best example, along with the Saudi Peninsula. They were lush fertile plains filled with beasties. There's lots of cave art and other graphic depictions in the area. A giant river, now called the Kuwait River, flowed from the Hijazz Mountains in western Saudi Arabia across the peninsula to the Kuwaiti delta and emptied into the Persian Gulf. That, the Tigris and Euphrates in Iraq, and the Karun River in Iran, were the four rivers of the Garden of Eden.


Doesn't the map's accuracy imply that it had to be drawn from arial surveillance?

Not inherently. It isn't so much the accuracy as the fact that it is a non-equidistant azithumal representation, which can only be made from high altitude. You can see that through the distortion of the shape of the land masses, which occurs only when you are above the Earth looking down, and the distortion is magnified when viewed through a lens, like a camera lens.


Doesn't the Earth's core rotate faster than the crust (lapping the surface every 400 years)? Thus indicating that the crust is seperate and could slip over/around the core

In theory. Have you seen the core? No one has yet, but the evidence suggests there is a solid iron/nickel core suspended in a fluid of whatever that rotates. We can't be certain because of the mantle of dense rock that exists between the crust and the core. Crust, mantle, core, it's all very simplistic, but it's a little more complicated than that with the boundary areas of lighter plastic-like molten areas.

Still, the crust is of varying material, mostly lighter materials, and it's thickness and density varies all over the Earth. There's no uniformity to it whatsoever. People do a disservice by making statements like, "The Earth's crust is like the skin of an apple." That couldn't be farther from the truth. If anything, it is like a moldy peach, where parts are mushy but still firm in other areas, and pitted and rotted out to varying depths.


Isn't it accepted that we have magnetic pole reversals? (I know that that is not really connected to pole shift)

Accepted? Proven, but not related to extinction events and there's been no harm to humans who have survived at least 3.


Uranus spins on it's side. What does that imply for the axis of rotation/poles for other planets?

It got smacked, just like Neptune did, which is also canted. Triton, the moon of Neptune is the only object in the solar system that rotates clockwise. By that I mean that Triton's axial spin is clockwise and that it's orbit around Neptune is clockwise. Aside from a few comets, nothing else in the solar system has a clockwise rotation, everything is counter-clockwise, including the axial rotation of all planets, moons, moonlets, and satellites, and the orbits of all planets, moons, moonlets, and satellites.

Did Triton originate in this solar system? No. No way. Not even possible. Totally impossible.

The Shumerians say Triton was a moon of Nibiru that escaped orbit, struck the original moon orbiting Neptune and totally destroyed that moon, knocking a chunk of it into Neptune and knocking Neptune on its side, and that the remainder of the destroyed moon formed "rings" around Neptune, and that Triton was captured and remained in orbit around Neptune.

About 10 years ago, NASA scientists came to the conclusion that Triton struck the original moon orbiting Neptune and totally destroyed that moon, knocking a chunk of it into Neptune and knocking Neptune on its side, and that the remainder of the destroyed moon formed "rings" around Neptune, and that Triton was captured and remained in orbit around Neptune.

What NASA scientists haven't figured out is where Triton came from, but all agree Triton is not from this solar system.

The Shumerians explain in some detail what happened to Uranus. Same story, but that moon did not survive the collision. NASA scientists have come to the same basic conclusion, they just don't know where that moon came from either.


Shouldn't Global Warming be renamed Solar System warming, with the sun burning hotter, and temperatures rising throughout the solar system?

Sure, but it's just a temporary thing, and when the Milankovitch Cycle ends in December of 2012, the Earth will start moving back to its normal elongated orbit and it will cool off a lot, a whole lot, in fact the Earth will move back into its normal weather, which is cold, colder, freezing cold, with lots of snow, ice and glaciers.

Assuming you'd be around 50,000 years from, you ought to enjoy the warmth while you can.