How many of u think the age of the earth is less than 6000 years old?

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

The idea of the 6000 year old Earth is a minority view, even among just American Christians. The majority of Christians do not subscribe to it.

Here's a good one,
As a sideline to my sceptic tank business occasionally I'll take a masonry job. You know ..,like retaining walls, patios, etc.
Once in a while the architectchrist will spec "aged granite".
I'm pretty sure all that stuff is about 2 billion years old!!! Aged enough for ya' colledge boy?

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'll go with the Masons' records!

And precisely when do you think the Masons formed?

That's a very good question ,Mr. Quade.
I guess we need to define our terms.
What is your definition of "the Masons"?

And also what is your definition of "formed"?

Blues,
Cliff

I'm willing to go back all the way to Solomon's temple if that's what you want. Unfortunately, it means they still can't possibly have any records before 971 BC (or thereabouts).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'll go with the Masons' records!

And precisely when do you think the Masons formed?

That's a very good question ,Mr. Quade.
I guess we need to define our terms.
What is your definition of "the Masons"?

And also what is your definition of "formed"?

Blues,
Cliff

I'm willing to go back all the way to Solomon's temple if that's what you want. Unfortunately, it means they still can't possibly have any records before 971 BC (or thereabouts).

Solomans 'Temple? , Oh Mr.Quade.., that was the scribe Ezras attempt to bolster his peoples pride.
Please realize that "Masonry" was a spiritual practice and goal long before the era of Ezra.

So what about those definitions ,Mr Quade?

How do you want to define Masons and how do you want to define formed?

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[billvon 2,473]

>Of course three weeks ago Lucy was the earliest ancestor to man.

?? Lucy hasn't had the record for a decade or so. In 1994, paleontologists found fossils of ardipithicus ramidus, a 4.4 million year old hominid.

[quade 3]

Quote

Please realize that "Masonry" was a spiritual practice and goal long before the era of Ezra.

Prove it. Show me a document.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BDashe 0]

Quote

Once in a while the architectchrist will spec "aged granite".
I'm pretty sure all that stuff is about 2 billion years old!!! Aged enough for ya' colledge boy?

Blues,
Cliff

Yeah... education is for suckers! You could potentially learn facts, languages, cultures, and shit.

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

>Of course three weeks ago Lucy was the earliest ancestor to man.

?? Lucy hasn't had the record for a decade or so. In 1994, paleontologists found fossils of ardipithicus ramidus, a 4.4 million year old hominid.

Exactly! Thanks and I'll call on you again Bill the next time I need a records boy to run to the library for me.

Point is that the historical first is often superceded by a new discovery.
And with a first written text of 3500 bc a new one found of only 1500 years earlier isn't even out of the question. Infact Mr Quades text of 3200bc could actually date to 5000 bc. There just isn't that much time between the two.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[wolfriverjoe 1,369]

Quote

Quote

>Of course three weeks ago Lucy was the earliest ancestor to man.

?? Lucy hasn't had the record for a decade or so. In 1994, paleontologists found fossils of ardipithicus ramidus, a 4.4 million year old hominid.

Exactly! Thanks and I'll call on you again Bill the next time I need a records boy to run to the library for me.

Point is that the historical first is often superceded by a new discovery.
And with a first written text of 3500 bc a new one found of only 1500 years earlier isn't even out of the question. Infact Mr Quades text of 3200bc could actually date to 5000 bc. There just isn't that much time between the two.

Blues,
Cliff

Ummm, not really.

There have been enough discoveries of different "civilizations" that the evolution of written communication has been pretty well established. From pictograms to cuneiform to ideograms to alphabets. (although I may have the order wrong and I probably missed some)

There may well be undiscovered settlements, and there are very probably undiscoverable (due to locations that are inaccesible or due to complete destruction for any number of reasons) settlements.
Some may have a form of writing we aren't aware of. But to say that there was usable writing in the known world well before the generally accepted 3500BC or so is going pretty far out on a limb.

They keep discovering new "Missing Links" or "Earliest Human" fossils on a reasonably regular basis, but so far every one of these discoveries fits perfectly into the theory of evolution. There are simply a lot of unfilled slots in the path we came down.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

Please realize that "Masonry" was a spiritual practice and goal long before the era of Ezra.

Prove it. Show me a document.

LOL!!! Look it up in your most trusty Wikepedia, why don't cha??LOMROTFLOL!!!!

Hey , you referenced it earlier,Mr. Quade.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[cliffwhite 0]

Point is that the historical first is often superceded by a new discovery.
And with a first written text of 3500 bc a new one found of only 1500 years earlier isn't even out of the question. Infact Mr Quades text of 3200bc could actually date to 5000 bc. There just isn't that much time between the two.

Blues,
Cliff

[billvon 2,473]

>Point is that the historical first is often superceded by a new discovery.

Not quite. There is no "first" hominid, just a gradual line of changing ancestors. However, once you have a fossil (or a cuneiform tablet, or whatever) you can date it pretty accurately.

If someone finds an earlier example of writing, it doesn't make a given tablet any less real, or the date any more vague.

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

>Point is that the historical first is often superceded by a new discovery.

Not quite. There is no "first" hominid, just a gradual line of changing ancestors. However, once you have a fossil (or a cuneiform tablet, or whatever) you can date it pretty accurately.

If someone finds an earlier example of writing, it doesn't make a given tablet any less real, or the date any more vague.

Still, 1500 years since the beggining of written history isn't a large gap.
I believe it to be more likely than not we will find written text 1500 years earlier than what most modern archeologists believe is the beginning of written lanquage. The keystone tells me so.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The keystone tells me so.

Would that be Keystone Original, Keystone Premium, Keystone Light, or Keystone Ice?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

The keystone tells me so.

Would that be Keystone Original, Keystone Premium, Keystone Light, or Keystone Ice?

Keystone cops and you always must belive what your government tells you.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

The keystone tells me so.

Would that be Keystone Original, Keystone Premium, Keystone Light, or Keystone Ice?

Masonic Keystone. A symbol for Masons. Him saying the Keystone tells him so is roughly equivalent to saying "it's in the Bible". Silly thing is, modern Masons have no actual connection to the masons at Solomon's temple regardless of what some folks would like you to believe.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[petejones45 0]

I do! and its proven in the bible!

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The keystone tells me so.

Would that be Keystone Original, Keystone Premium, Keystone Light, or Keystone Ice?

Some Masonic Keystone (book/puzzle box/set of instructions) that, well, let's face it, wasn't even written until what the mid-1300s? It certainly had no actual connection to the masons at Solomon's temple regardless of what some folks would like you to believe.

Yes well go about your business then , Mr Quade. If you'll re-read the thread you came to me seeking knowledge.
I didn't seek out you.
The answers have been provided ,actually they have been in your own memory all along.
Genesis -6 tells you what you've always suspected.
Look for your ancestors at the dog star.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[quade 3]

Quote

If you'll re-read the thread you came to me seeking knowledge.

The only knowledge I required was to know the basis for your beliefs. Doesn't mean I was looking to believe them myself.

Quote

Look for your ancestors at the dog star

You can't be Sirius?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

If you'll re-read the thread you came to me seeking knowledge.

The only knowledge I required was to know the basis for your beliefs. Doesn't mean I was looking to believe them myself.

Quote

Look for your ancestors at the dog star

You can't be Sirius?

I believe we can all be Sirius, at least half the time.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[quade 3]

So tell me, where is it written in Masonic beliefs that aliens are the "sons of god"? Or is that just something you came up with on your own?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

So tell me, where is it written in Masonic beliefs that aliens are the "sons of god"? Or is that just something you came up with on your own?

Oh No !!! It wasn't me and I can't speak for the Masons.
It's in the Bible . Genesis -6 "The sons of God(note plural) seeing that the daughters of man were fair, took them for wives , all that they wanted."

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[quade 3]

Quote

It's in the Bible . Genesis -6 "The sons of God(note plural) seeing that the daughters of man were fair, took them for wives , all that they wanted."

You said this earlier in post #15 of this thread;

Quote

My interpretation is that there were extra terrestials mating with earth women at that time.

So, you are telling us that you believe space aliens landed on Earth about 5,000 years ago and impregnated human women. Is that correct?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

Quote

It's in the Bible . Genesis -6 "The sons of God(note plural) seeing that the daughters of man were fair, took them for wives , all that they wanted."

You had mentioned alien earlier. You said;

Quote

My interpretation is that there were extra terrestials mating with earth women at that time.

So, you are telling us that you believe space aliens landed on Earth about 5,000 years ago and impregnated human women. Is that correct?

Yes.
the first year AL.
The missing link.
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the LORD said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants Num. 13.33 in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Blues,
Cliff

2muchTruth

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

So, you are telling us that you believe space aliens landed on Earth about 5,000 years ago and impregnated human women. Is that correct?

"I'm a space alien, let me impregnate you". Wow, is THAT ever a corny pick-up line.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jimmytavino 16]

Of course this planet is NOT 6,000 years old..
it is waaay waaay Older than that..


as a geological ROCK, it's billions of years old...


and much has come and gone,, during it's long history...

The emergence of "man",,, can be looked at, either as
"a monumental event" or as " a plague"... depending on ones interpretation of mankinds impact on the planet...

seems like things got along pretty well,, ( balance of nature, equilibrium of ecosytems, life and death of species ,
evolution and changes of plants, animals and geological topography....) just fine,, before WE intruded....

we are Damn Lucky to be enjoying the existance which we so easily "take for granted"....

this planet is certainly unique, within the context of our "local" celestial neighborhood..

beyond that,, in other galaxies???? who knows??? There Must be intelligent life elsewhere and i wonder if they skydive ??

Evidence?? of intelligent Life????? simple...
they have refused to make verifiable contact with US.... and likely have been monitoring us for eons, from afar..
waiting, wondering, hoping, that SOMEDAY we will finally show, some common sense, some true brotherhood, and some RESPECT for the fragile planet, on which we reside..
then and only then... might they reveal themselves to us....
and i bettcha THEY know how old the planet is.......



jimmy