Does the Bible predict the use of nuclear weapons?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I've examined the physical evidence.

In atheist and Darwinist schools, we are taught the lie that plutonium didn't exist until the 20th century.

"Plutonium was the first man made element produced in a quantity large enough to see. It was created in 1940 at the University of California at Berkeley." -- John McPhee, reporter, 1971

"Once in the early nineteen-forties, all the plutonium in the world was in a cigar box in a storeroom next to the office of Glenn Seaborg, one of the elements four disocverers." -- John McPhee, reporter, 1971

Now, everyone on earth knows those Darwinist myths to be a lie.

2 billion year old weapons grade plutonium was recovered from the ancient uranium mine and nuclear power plant at Oklo.

What does Darwinism or atheism have to do with that?

Plutonium was not found to exist outside of the laboratory until much later. it is extremely rare. That doesn't mean what was reported was a 'lie'. It was based on what was known at the time. If they said Plutonium existed in nature, that would be a lie, as they didn't know it at the time.

In atheist and Darwinist schools, we're taught the lie that prehistoric ancient people were so primitive they only mined copper to make copper tools.

Now, everyone on earth knows that Darwinist myth to be a lie.

The article is talking about the presence of radon gas is copper mines, which was a danger to ancient miners in Jordan.

In atheist and Darwinist schools, we are taught that desert glass (Trinitite) didn't exist until the Trinity Shot at Alamagordo on July 16th 1945.

Now, everyone on Earth knows that Darwinist myth to be a lie, because we found Trinitite dated to 26 million years ago in the Tomb of King Tut.

Schools don't really teach that. Trinitite glass is really an obscure term. I am not seeing any proof from you that anything in the tomb of King Tut resembled Trinitite glass.

"I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." -- Mahabharata/J.Robert Oppenheimer

When asked by an interviewer at Rochester University if the Trinity shot at Alamagordo was the first detonation in history, Oppenheimer replied, "Well, yes, in modern history."

I am not seeing any evidence of those actual quotes.

Atomic Theory has been known for millions and billions of years.

" ... if one must believe Poseidonius, the ancient dogma about atoms originated with Mochus, a Sidonian, born before the Trojan times. However, let us dismiss things ancient." -- Strabo, geographer, 7

"At least those atoms whence derives their power
To throw forth fire and send out light from under
To shoot the sparks and scatter embers wide."
-- T. Lucretius Carus, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

You do realize that Newton atoms derive their name from Greek Philosophical atoms, right? The ancient philosophers realized that if you continue to split any substance, you eventually come to a single entity that in splitting it, it ceases to be the same substance. They called it 'atom'. The term was applied to evil darwinian atheistic science for basic elements. It was believed that you could not 'split' the atom, as the Greek philosophers believed.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

What does Darwinism or atheism have to do with that?

Darwinists and atheists are the people who preach and allegedly "teach" the myth i.e. brainwash people into believing that weapons grade plutonium didn't exist until the 20th century.

Plutonium was not found to exist outside of the laboratory until much later.

The weapons grade plutonium at the ancient Oklo uranium mine and nuclear power plant was dated to be 2 billion years old. The last time I checked that predates the 20th century.

it is extremely rare.

Not anymore and I believe it never was.

That doesn't mean what was reported was a 'lie'.

Anyone who says plutonium didn't exist before the 20th century is either simply ignorant of the facts or else deliberately lying.

It was based on what was known at the time.

I.e. based upon Darwinism.

If they said Plutonium existed in nature, that would be a lie, as they didn't know it at the time.

Well, we know it now. Darwin didn't have the evidence we have now.

"I think that if it was pointed out to him that after 150 years, because he wrote his book Origin of Species 150 years ago, it was published in 1859, I think if he were able to come today and see after 150 years that so much fossil evidence has accumulated that contradicts his theory, I think that he might be willing to change it. But for many of his supporters today, his theory is not so much a scientific idea, but an ideology which cannot be questioned. And it's people like that, you know, his supporters today, who aren't willing to listen to evidence that contradicts their theories, who have now a government enforced monopoly so that their ideas only can be taught in the education systems in most countries in the world including the United States, who really object to what I'm saying. I don't think Darwin himself would object to what I'm saying. I think he'd listen. And, I think, he would be willing to change his ideas in the face of evidence. But many of his supporters today, they don't want to hear evidence that contradicts their theory, they try to suppress that evidence, they try to restrict those who want to speak about that evidence. " -- Michael A. Cremo, author, March 19th 2008

The article is talking about the presence of radon gas is copper mines, which was a danger to ancient miners in Jordan.

Ah. My apologies. I see you don't have access to Science Direct and can only read the abstract.

Try this link: http://www2.northampton.ac.uk/porta...edscience/docstore/radon-group/a10-jordan.pdf

Whilst the copper ores were the main objectives of the ancient mining, numerous other toxic metals are present in significant quantities, including minerals such as thorium and uranium

"Can we not read into them some justification for the belief that some former forgotten race of men attained not only to the knowledge we have so recently won, but also to the power that is not yet ours?" -- Frederick Soddy, radiochemist, The Interpretation of Radium, 1909

Schools don't really teach that.

Exactly. I'm glad you see my point.

Trinitite glass is really an obscure term.

It's so obscure it's all over Libya.

I am not seeing any proof from you that anything in the tomb of King Tut resembled Trinitite glass.

The scarab is trinitite aka Libyan Desert Glass. It is from a nuclear war that was fought 26 million years ago.

I am not seeing any evidence of those actual quotes.

Just because you're not seeing the evidence doesn't mean that it does not exist. I have seen the evidence which is why I made the claim. It is a well known historical fact that Oppie quoted the ancient Hindu sanskrit texts. He had read in the Mahabharata that the ancients possessed celestial weapons and the science of celestial weapons and therefore he quoted the Gita.

You do realize that Newton atoms derive their name from Greek Philosophical atoms, right?

Yes I do realize that Newton plagiarized all of his Prisca Sapientia from the ancients who were far more scientific and advanced than modern Darwinist scientists.

"... to what Agent did the Ancients attribute the gravity of their atoms and what did they mean by calling God an harmony and comparing him & matter (the corporeal part of the Universe) to the God Pan and his Pipe?" -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 169-

"Monsieur Newton croit avoir decouvert assez clairement que les Anciens comme Pythagore, Platon, &c, avoient toutes les demonstrations qu'il donne du veritable Systeme du Monde...." -- Nicolas Fatio de Duiller, mathematician, February 5th 1691/2

"... the Egyptians ... concealed mysteries that were above the common herd under the veil of religious rites and hieroglyphic symbols." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1694

"He [Newton] will show that the most ancient philosophy is in agreement with this hypothesis of his as much because the Egyptians and others taught the Copernican system, as he [Newton] shows from their religion and hieroglyphics and images of the Gods, as because Plato and others--Plutarch and Galileo refer to it--observed the gravitation of all bodies towards all." -- David Gregory, mathematician, July 1694

The ancient philosophers realized that if you continue to split any substance, you eventually come to a single entity that in splitting it, it ceases to be the same substance. They called it 'atom'.

No.

The term was applied to evil darwinian atheistic science for basic elements.

A creationist named Newton plagiarized Atomic Theory from the ancients. The Darwinists and atheists are merely the last in line of an endless list of plagiarizers. God is the only one original. God invented the atom.

It was believed that you could not 'split' the atom, as the Greek philosophers believed.

The Pythagoreans believed that matter including infinite atoms were infinitely divisible (also see Euclid). It wasn't generally believed you could not split the atom, rather it was forbidden too split the atom because the ancients were far more aware of the atoms destructive power than we are today.

"At least those atoms whence derives their power
To throw forth fire and send out light from under
To shoot the sparks and scatter embers wide."
-- T. Lucretius Carus, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

 

[Kharak]

The ancients came up with modern atomic theory?

Maybe I should tell them that neither earth, water, fire, air or ether are elements . . .

Mind you, this is the same group of people who also believed that the earth was the center of the universe, that crushed 'dragon' bones increased fertility and that a full moon made you insane (among other things). A lot of the ancient Aegean and Hellenistic cultures also had some strange psuedo-science, Classical Greek philosophers included. I'm sure you don't believe in humors, right?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The ancients came up with modern atomic theory?

Correct.

"... his [Democritus's] ... atoms are infinite in number ... and [he] compares them to the motes of air [photons] which we see in shafts of light coming through windows ...." -- Aristotle, philosopher, On the Soul, 350 B.C.

"The atomic theory, adopted later by the Epicureans, came to us, and she is still professed today by the majority of chemists. It thus seems that it is by a kind of natural affinity that the alchemists reported their origins to Democritus." -- Marcellin Berthelot, chemist, 1885

"Democritus understood that the complex forms, changes, and motions of the material world all derived from the interaction of very simple moving parts. He called these parts atoms." -- Carl Sagan, cosmologist, 1980

Maybe I should tell them that neither earth, water, fire, air or ether are elements . . .

You don't need to tell them anything because they were more aware of scientific realities than any man living today.

"He [Anaxagoras] asserted that the sun was a mass of burning iron...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

In fact it is: http://www.thesunisiron.com/

"It is noteworthy that, according to ancient alchemy, gold was made from mercury or lead. In the periodic table of elements, the atomic number of gold is 79, that of mercury 80, and of lead 82 -- in other words they are neighbors. It was Mendeleyeff who in 1879 first formulated a table of the elements and arranged them in order of increasing weight according to their atomic structure. The question is -- had the alchemists discovered the table before Mendeleyeff?" -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971

Mind you, this is the same group of people who also believed that the earth was the center of the universe

Are you referring to modern people?

I agree that Big Bangers are wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe.

Fortunately, the ancients knew that the Earth orbits the Sun therefore is not the center of the universe.

"... then yonder sun strings these worlds to himself on a thread. Now that thread is the same as the [solar] wind; and that wind is the same as this Vikarnî: thus when he lays down the latter, then yonder sun strings to himself these worlds on a thread." -- Yajnavalkya, gymnosophist, Satapatha Brahmana, 1st millenium B.C.

"This [heliocentrism] was the philosophy taught of old by Philolaus, Aristarchus of Samos, Plato in his riper years, the whole sect of Pythagoreans, and that wisest king of the Romans, Numa Pompilius." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1694

that crushed 'dragon' bones increased fertility and that a full moon made you insane (among other things).

These things are indeed what modern people believe.

In China, plesiosaur bones are sold on the black market for that purpose.

And gravitational physicists allege that the moon causes tidal forces on the Earth.

A lot of the ancient Aegean and Hellenistic cultures also had some strange psuedo-science, Classical Greek philosophers included.

I agree that evolution is pseudoscience.

"He [Anaximander] said that mankind was at the beginning very like another animal, to wit, a fish." -- Hippolytus, priest, 2nd century

I'm sure you don't believe in humors, right?

No. But then again, neither did any ancient until very recently.

Hippocrates and other moderns once again lead humanity astray.

 

[Kharak]

Correct.

You left out the part where you have no clue what modern atomic theory is. Electron orbitals and the proton/neutron nucleus included. Fire is not an element: It is a chemical interaction with molecular oxygen. Water is not an element: It is a compound. Air is not an element: It's a collection of gaseous molecules with a recordable pressure. Earth? Well, do I need continue? They were correct in that you could split things apart, but they had no scientific classification system (it was all assumption). Sort of like the arbitrary taxidermy systems the Greeks also created. This is exactly how circular orbits were assumed until astronomers such as Keppler disproved them and replaced them with elliptical orbits.

"He [Anaxagoras] asserted that the sun was a mass of burning iron...." -- Diogenes Laertius, historian, 3rd century

If the sun is fusing iron, that is not a good thing: That means it's about to go nova and you shan't worry about life much longer. That's because fusion of heavier elements under gravity does not create sufficient energy for our purposes (unless you like living next to a pathetic dwarf star). Although spectrometers indicate the particular energy emitted from the sun is mostly hydrogen with some helium. The particles coming off the sun as solar wind indicate this as well. But iron!? We even record neutrinos emitted from our sun as indicating nuclear fusion!

"It is noteworthy that, according to ancient alchemy, gold was made from mercury or lead. In the periodic table of elements, the atomic number of gold is 79, that of mercury 80, and of lead 82 -- in other words they are neighbors. It was Mendeleyeff who in 1879 first formulated a table of the elements and arranged them in order of increasing weight according to their atomic structure. The question is -- had the alchemists discovered the table before Mendeleyeff?" -- Andrew Tomas, author, 1971

No, they assumed gold *could* be made from lead as both were quite heavy and malleable when pure. Regardless, the author just demonstrated he knew nothing of the table of elements. Gold is more similar to platinum and silver than lead or mercury. Mercury isn't even solid at room temperature. Creating gold from lead would also be unlikely, as fusion of 'lead' molecules would create something certainly much more massive than gold. Assuming they had an atom smasher tucked away. Though it was pretty hilarious how you brought the ramblings of a self-proclaimed UFO researcher into an argument about chemistry.

Are you referring to modern people?

I agree that Big Bangers are wrong about the Earth being the center of the universe.

Fortunately, the ancients knew that the Earth orbits the Sun therefore is not the center of the universe.

No: The mainstream ancient belief among academics was that the Earth was indeed the center of the universe until astronomers like Galileo proved it impossible. "Planet", a Greek word meaning wanderer, described the apparent retrograde rotation of the heavenly bodies (Mars, Venus, etc) as they transited across the sky. The Greeks' poor understanding of planetary astronomy created the basis for the crystalline sphere explanation for these strange orbits, which was later discarded during the Renaissance. Of course, mythology among cultures also explained why the sun 'orbited' the earth by means of mystical chariot or gigantic dung beetle. Pity no one gave them cable television.

In China, plesiosaur bones are sold on the black market for that purpose.

Erm, any bone (or fossil) can be sold. Why just an aquatic reptile? And I'm pretty sure those ancient depictions of dragons and very well documented ancient remedies for infertility might have something to do with indicating that the ancients believed in such things. Sort of like how like the Greeks believed that bleeding people would balance their non-existent humors.

And gravitational physicists allege that the moon causes tidal forces on the Earth.

Aside from the tides on earth? Gee, better tell that U-Boat captain who attacked Scapa Flow that the moon doesn't effect tides (well he's dead, but still). I'm pretty sure tidal forces also keep that one side of the moon facing us all the time too. Tidal forces from Jupiter against Io and Europa even keeps the cores all warm for said satellites. Hence why one is more volcanic the earth and the other retains at least some amount of salty, liquid water.

I agree that evolution is pseudoscience.

How did you turn a discussion about chemistry and astronomy into biology? Not that you actually study any of what you actually wrote, but why study when you can quote UFO "researchers" who didn't study either? I'm sure if they did study, there would be a lot less unidentified flying objects. That said, it's much easier to copy and paste some nonsense created by another person than have the audacity to criticize for yourself. Quoting and, well, doing nothing else but quoting is a really bad idea.

In fact, I'm really arguing against a bunch of dead guys. Agonances is actually practicing Necromancy or Voodoo from a distance. Luckily, I have Turn Undead somewhere here.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

You left out the part where you have no clue what modern atomic theory is.

This is a flame.

Electron orbitals and the proton/neutron nucleus included. Fire is not an element: It is a chemical interaction with molecular oxygen. Water is not an element: It is a compound. Air is not an element: It's a collection of gaseous molecules with a recordable pressure. Earth? Well, do I need continue? They were correct in that you could split things apart, but they had no scientific classification system (it was all assumption). Sort of like the arbitrary taxidermy systems the Greeks also created. This is exactly how circular orbits were assumed until astronomers such as Keppler disproved them and replaced them with elliptical orbits.

Absolutely irrelevant.

If the sun is fusing iron, that is not a good thing: That means it's about to go nova and you shan't worry about life much longer. That's because fusion of heavier elements under gravity does not create sufficient energy for our purposes (unless you like living next to a pathetic dwarf star). Although spectrometers indicate the particular energy emitted from the sun is mostly hydrogen with some helium. The particles coming off the sun as solar wind indicate this as well. But iron!? We even record neutrinos emitted from our sun as indicating nuclear fusion!

The Sun is iron and it is not about to go nova.

No, they assumed gold *could* be made from lead as both were quite heavy and malleable when pure. Regardless, the author just demonstrated he knew nothing of the table of elements. Gold is more similar to platinum and silver than lead or mercury. Mercury isn't even solid at room temperature. Creating gold from lead would also be unlikely, as fusion of 'lead' molecules would create something certainly much more massive than gold. Assuming they had an atom smasher tucked away. Though it was pretty hilarious how you brought the ramblings of a self-proclaimed UFO researcher into an argument about chemistry.

Atoms are not an assumption. They are an ancient observation.

No: The mainstream ancient belief among academics was that the Earth was indeed the center of the universe until astronomers like Galileo proved it impossible.

No.

Galileo was the last person on Earth to say that the Earth is not the center of the universe.

Philosophers have known the Earth orbits the Sun for thousands of years.

 

[Blackguard_]

The Sun is iron and it is not about to go nova.

it's hydrogen and helium.

Hey Kharak, If the sun were fusing iron, wouldn't it not only be about to go nova but also be red giant and already have fried the Earth?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

it's helium and hydrogen.

That's a 20th century myth.

The surface of the Sun is iron: http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

The surface crust of the sun is mostly made of iron.

The Sun is iron: The Sun is a ball of Iron!

Hydrogen is formed in the corona as predicted by Hoyle.

"The idea that hydrogen atoms might naturally be coming into existence was first made popular by astronomer Fred Hoyle who suggested the process might be occuring in the space between stars." -- Richard Milton, writer, 1992

Solar Flare Surprise: Stream Of Perfectly Intact Hydrogen Atoms Detected

NASA’s twin Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory (STEREO) spacecraft made the discovery: "It was a burst of hydrogen atoms," says Mewaldt. "No other elements were present, not even helium (the sun’s second-most abundant atomic species). Pure hydrogen streamed past the spacecraft for a full 90 minutes."

***

Hey Kharak, If the sun were fusing iron, wouldn't it not only be about to go nova but also be red giant and already have fried the Earth?

Not if it's a yellow main sequence star.

 

[Kharak]

This is a flame.

Stating that you are mistaking modern atomic theory for the four elements (excluding ether) is not a flame: It's an observation.

Absolutely irrelevant.

What's so irrelevant about mentioning their version of, "Atomic Theory"? That it was incorrect?

The Sun is iron and it is not about to go nova.

Iron? Do you have any evidence to indicate that the telescopes, spectrometers, particle collectors and neutrino detectors are wrong? I'm sure you have a comprehensive explanation for the gaseous nature of the sun too. And the sun spots . . . And maybe those prominences and flares as well.

Atoms are not an assumption. They are an ancient observation.

And they assumed they were made of a wind, earth, fire and water. They never observed elements, they assumed them without scientific investigation. They did not create a table of elements or foster an understanding of protons, electrons, neutrons, positrons, quarks, gluons, etc. Did they even consider the construct of an electron probability cloud?

No.

Oh, they didn't. Well then.

Galileo was the last person on Earth to say that the Earth is not the center of the universe.

Tell that to all the astronomers who spent the better part of the Middle Ages attempting to reconcile the recorded solar calendar with the Crystalline Sphere. It was the Papacy's request for accurate calendars, in fact, that spurred much of the first astronomical revisions of planetary movement (including the Earth's).

Philosophers have known the Earth orbits the Sun for thousands of years.

Philosophers? We've been talking about astronomy, which is studied by astronomers. Philosophers talk, and well, talk some more about stuff which may not be of any importance (especially if they are a Sophist in reality). Remember, too, that I did mention that the Greeks were responsible for this whole Terra-centric mess called the Ptolemaic System. That's right: The entire reason a geocentric astronomical model existed was because Ptolemy (an astronomer himself) had postulated that the Earth was the center of the universe. Yes, one of the ancients was dead wrong. Probably one of the most influential men of his time, and a Diadochi as well.

Hey Kharak, If the sun were fusing iron, wouldn't it not only be about to go nova but also be red giant and already have fried the Earth?

It would be very toasty indeed. SPF 100,000 sunblock might protect us though, if our oceans don't boil away and turn the whole rock into a Venusian sauna on steroids millions of years before it is consumed.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Philosophers?

Yes philosophers. Philosophers study the truth.

We've been talking about astronomy, which is studied by astronomers.

Philosophers, physicists, and mathematicians study astronomy as well. I don't see your point here.

And if astronomers are wrong which they often are, I'd rather be a philosopher.

A pseudoscientist named Harlow Shapley who taught astronomy at Harvard University used to teach that the Milky Way was the entire universe and that all the galaxies in the universe were nebulae in the Milky Way.

Iron?

Yes iron.

http://www.thesunisiron.com/

Do you have any evidence to indicate that the telescopes, spectrometers, particle collectors and neutrino detectors are wrong?

Wrong about what?

 

[Kharak]

Yes philosophers. Philosophers study the truth.

Science is not about philosophical truth, it's about observable fact and creating testable models of reality. This is why theories are often discarded for better ones. Sort of like how the previously mentioned Ptolemaic Geocentric model of the universe was scrapped for the present, "there is no observable center" model with funky accelerating expansion rates. Also like how stars are no longer holes in the crystalline sphere letting in the light of heaven, but giant balls of compressed hydrogen gas undergoing nuclear fusion.

Philosophers, physicists, and mathematicians study astronomy as well. I don't see your point here.

Philosophers don't actually have to know anything about astronomy to be philosophers, or any discipline that requires scientific or mathematical study for that matter. A lot of thing like to make things up out of thin air because their ideas are non-falsifiable to begin with. I can't actually prove that the core concepts behind Atlas Shrugged are not true, but the pages do make for good toilet paper in emergencies (if albeit sharp).

And if astronomers are wrong which they often are, I'd rather be a philosopher.

So you would rather sit around on your hands and think, rather than actually get up and prove any of their models incorrect? You're not a philosopher, you're just lazy. At least decent philosophers make a proactive attempt at reconciling reality with ideas, rather than wholly rejecting it.

Oh, thank you for once again sidestepping the other responses that dealt with your blatantly incorrect postulations that the ancients were some sort of scientific Aryan supermen. I also look forward to your remodeling of the nuclear forces to justify your iron based sun, noting again that our sun would go nova if it was actively fusing iron instead of lighter hydrogen, but you're a philosopher and have no use for observable fact anyway.