I watched the first 10 minutes, plus a number of minutes a few years ago. They were trying to tell us that they had 50,000-100,000 people work the same project for 20 years with technology nobody else had and probably some spiritually guarded revelations. Plus they told us about their recognition of geography, astronomy, and theology. And they wanted their memory to last for millennia. What do you think they were trying to tell us?

I only proposed this line of inquiry because you and u/Neo1 were interested in revival. Looking forward to your next roundtable (or whosever it is that arrives).

As to "occult Nazis", did you want me to continue my inquiry into the Thule Society and related movements?

What assertion

THE UNIVERSE HAS EXPANDED. Ten billion years ago, THE GALAXIES WERE CLOSER TO EACH OTHER

There weren’t just six thousand years is my assertion.

So you don't believe in the ten billion years? Or you do? Either way your credibility remains shot. Even if you're just getting caught up in uniformitarian rhetoric that you don't believe, which is the most generous reading, it's still shot. The point is that the horizon problem is no problem in a young universe, just as I implied.

OP is not about the idea that there were a few myriad more years, it's about the idea that there were billions of years. If you prefer that myriads range, you have no proof the OP title is wrong. If you prefer the billions range, you haven't offered proof and you've also just dissociated yourself from the range. Checkmate in three ... two ....

Guilt by association.

It's not a pattern. Old Faithful going off regularly is a pattern. Sitting on the geyser expecting nothing because one is too stupid to understand the mechanism would still be dumb. Claiming asteroids come because of the earth's angle being toward Aquarius in a 30-degree window, when the data has to be straitjacketed to fit and is based on false ice-core testimony in the first place, isn't a pattern. There's no prediction to it. The fact that there's also no mechanism to this nonpattern is just icing.

Let's predicate arguendo that all these 16 events have causes that can be fit into an overarching causation narrative. You know, in that case I think I'd be better of with Yahweh sending an asteroid as a natural consequence of man deharmonizing the universe at a recorded time in history than I would with an unknown (from-ignorance) Aquarian doing the same thing at intervals claimed by a cabal led by a spirit that we know about by revelation from Yahweh.

I permit (but cordially disbelieve in) entertaining the idea of myriads of years in which multiple cataclysms existed. They might even come about by causes that we can track to the Aquarian sector, and they might even indicate more past destroyed cultures than one set of prediluvians. And then what? Either the asteroids come on schedule ultimately because God set some order in process to cause them, or they don't have a known schedule and they just come providentially when God hits the smite button. Either way OP is still working the false dilemma between age of man due to presumed evolution and age of man due to history. Man being here 250,000 years, if true, should not be used as evidence of the universe being here for billions (but many use it for that); rather, if true, it should be used for putting creation and Adam farther back than the Bible says while still preserving a chain of humanity through one cataclysm or more. So even if it all worked out for you the idea that God's mechanism was one that glorified the zodiac and thereby the secondary powerz, for his own inscrutable reasons, would still be a bit silly. (You're not trying to go back to the created-demiurge idea, are you?) But the fact is that the webbing dissipates so rapidly with the slightest investigation that nothing remains but apophenia masquerading as epiphania.

Add: I missed your statement "If a planet 700 times larger than earth orbits the Sun with a 26,000 year period and a highly elliptical orbit, it would obviously be picking up small bodies as it transited the Oort Cloud and the asteroid belt, which would lead to cyclical impacts as they were dragged closer to earth, following the pattern of the 26,000 orbit." However, I did say that Brown's Planet Nine, the best candidate, has a period of 10,000-20,000 years. Even if there were a 26,000 period (coincidentally the same as the earth's precession), there would still be some idea that only the 30-degree quarter-marks of that period are significant, like there are exactly four biaxial mini-Oorts to sift through. There is no giant Nibiru or Planet transiting the asteroid belt BTW, that would be literally 3 AU perigee when we've already ruled out everything under 150 AU perigee. It would be much more intuitive on the data presented to suppose that Planet Nine has a period of what I said statistically on Carlson's false data, 6,683 years, with one critical transit per orbit instead of four equidistant ones. But since the data is false that theory doesn't line up either. Like I said, it would be interesting to go into the details of all 16 events and demonstrate where the data actually points, and it might even be so interesting that it might yield something with a better fit to the wide transit rate Brown permits, but then it would be so totally different from Carlson as to discredit him completely.

Sometimes I wonder if we can just get a group of the bright minds in here, who can recognize shills, and create our own place... What are your thoughts on such an idea?

Ah, idealism. Sure, create such a place, I'll be there to the degree you accept me as a bright mind, or not to the degree you don't. I'll support you collecting whatever minds you like.

So, no evidence either way.

Funny, flood advocates agree that impact led to deluge and ice age. Nothing cyclical about that. But even if you want to go with the theory that all four cardinal signs are associated with increased ELE meteors and the other eight signs aren't, that's still not a mechanism, but it's getting closer to one.

The problem is precession is actually just an earth issue because the axis tilts toward the sun at a different point in its orbit when regarded as stationery relative to the zodiac. So the events are associated with the idea that chaos happens only when the sun's in Aries in the spring, etc. There's no physical reason why that twelfth of the axial tilt circle should be more prone to asteroids than another twelfth. It's apophenia.

Actually, Magnus Hirschfeld in his book Rassismus was the primary popularizer of the word also used by Trotsky and others. It was used in English by antisegregationist Richard Pratt in 1902, and before that was in French, in both cases as a matter of proper pride in race; it was Hirschfeld that got the redefinition into common use.

All three of those articles literally show Brownian motion mapped from the iron core and nothing about cyclicality, so I assumed you referred to reversal cycles, which are at least defined even if not cyclical. If your new theory is that the movement of the magnetic poles causes near-extinction events at multiples of 6,480 years there's nothing in the evidence for that. The OP theory is literally about Aquarius and Leo and friends. Do you want me to look at the other geological arguments to see if they rely on the same three Antarctic ice cores as others do? Such as when Bill Nye said volcanic ash was obviously constantly produced for 15 years contrary to all observation?

Do we have evidence for "cyclical shifts in the earth’s magnetic poles" other than the stochastically noncyclical reversals in magnetic ore?

The link deals with the facts. I see no fact remaining that piques my curiosity. It should be easy to try to bring some forward if the OP implication were true.

users here are distrustful

Which is why two weeks ago I stopped pressing for the position as soon as doubt in me and other possibilities was broached.

comes across as indecisiveness

Mods should be moderate and not trying to press the community into their own decisions without evidence of community support. I suppose the governance model of "follow me regardless" works for very good decisive independent mods, but I hardly believe that's what this existing community wants. You've noticed I'm pretty decisive about the things I do selectively insist on from community members.

thriving status

We're on a platform that has an established attrition pattern. A mod that promises new blood is likely not to have the thriving of the extant contributors foremost in mind. To me, thriving is the current community getting more inspired to collaborate, and a first mod would be better toward that goal than anarchy IMHO.

Are you voting that we should not petition admin for a single mod but should go some other way? You also say it's right "trying to get a mod". You sound "indecisive".

you should have absolutely no trouble defending yourself in this way

The chart showed that, even given the tolerance rates of the older measurements, there is a downward trend that is not best fit to a flatline. The phenomenon is not the highest statistical significance, but it's enough to provoke inquiry. Further, it's my understanding that everybody measuring lightspeed lately is using atomic measurement that will give the same dimensionless rate regardless of whether its rate compared to physical process is changing, so the chart needs adjustment by comparing different methods of measurement too.

Now we could well ask why God set up lightspeed to have this character of seeming close to constant over a short term of measurement, as if he were baiting the uniformitarians into their false assumptions. The short answer is that he always holds something in reserve to be revealed later, so our disagreement is a healthy part of the revelation of the reality to humanity. But I start from the Bible literally meaning what it said (having tested that hypothesis and found it best), because it's a package deal and what it says about everything else is so solid that if there's a quibble about earth age and there's evidence on both sides I'm still comfortable with the evidence that aligns with the historic testimony of the Bible. When the other side proceeds with ridicule and illogic in part, that's further evidence they have nothing, as you know.

things only jews have ever said

All the Christian theologians of the 15th to 18th centuries upheld the scale of thousands of years, Ussher and Lightfoot and Whiston being the most notable.

They could not be otherwise without the observations every single person has ever made being correct.

Not really. Science is full of wrong observations and theories that are constantly being corrected, including whole classes of observations at once. It's true that the establishment has built a web of interdisciplinary connections on the age point, but whenever I wave my hand through this web it disappears every time.

your god is Allah

Nope. My God is Yahweh in Jesus Christ. That's guilt by association, Patrick.

Why would you link to that article to defend your beliefs?

That was the first copy of the accurate unadorned data that came up. I didn't cite it for the article's conclusion and am not sure what that conclusion was. The chart is enough to show that the flatline isn't the best fit.

Your personal inability to understand it

Seems like scientists smarter than me are proposing VSL without any concern about its effects on radiation or fine structure. So if you have such a concern you should lay it out. Perhaps you have none.

These retards have had to invent 95% of the mass-energy of the Universe in order to get real observations to conform to their mathematical expectations. They’re obviously wrong, either at scale or in general.

Great, I'm glad we've worked out something we solidly agree on.

However, THOSE OBSERVATIONS INCLUDE A SPEED OF LIGHT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE.

Which is exactly why VSL does allow us to get rid of the extraneous invented 95%. You should thank me. If the universe is younger, the whole reason for the 95% (to keep it held together over those billions) becomes irrelevant.

You’ve invented observations to get the Universe to conform to your ontological expectations.

That's what the evolutionists are doing. On both sides it's called starting with a hypothesis. Eventually one hypothesis is disproven by preponderance. The question is whether someone will adjust their ontology based on preponderance. I will, which is why I accept things like CMB and inflation after having initially been ontologically opposed to them.

we need those billions … for the evolution you literally just said–observationally–does not work quickly.

Um, since macroevolution doesn't exist, I don't understand why you need those billions.

When we’ve seen microevolution within human lifespans, it’s obviously real, obviously happens, and was obviously created by Him.

Yes, microevolution is adaptation within kinds, as proven by DNA barcodes and Klee diagrams.

Not the definition and you damned well know it

Of all the "species" claimed by evolution, the vast majority remain interfertile with "prior" species, which is microevolution. Perhaps myriads (out of the claims of billions of species) are indeed independent (as proven by barcodes), which indicates myriads of special creations, which should not be opposed because they are mathematically just as absurd as a single abiogenesis.

So the geological/archeological/biological system which puts single-celled organisms first, growing toward complexity (and therefore fewer numbers)… that doesn’t conform to these expectations?

Correct, growth toward complexity contradicts the second law. Highly ordered things mathematically self-destruct in billions of years and it's mathematically absurd for them to keep getting more ordered. In a closed system. The higher population totals of smaller creatures are not the point, it's that they should have continued growing exponentially until a limit crisis occurred and they crashed and burned. That hasn't happened for millions of "species". The model of cyclical speciation doesn't explain this given its timescales. The fact that we do have mass extinction events begs the question of why any species are still alive. (WAP?)

Why don’t we see it in any other species, then. Particularly those of lesser complexity, where timescales should be observable more readily?

We do see a general upward trend of growth (due to the existing order in DNA) in all species in fitting environments. What we don't see is either the catastrophic hitting of a growth limit followed by extinction, or a wasting extinction at a grand rate. The theory that natural population cycles plus macroevolution is enough to explain the sustenance of the diversity of life for billions of years is facile and uncriticized.

Thus returning things to equilibrium after about seven billion deaths.

Sounds like a Georgia Guidestones and Club of Rome guy. Now I see. Maybe you'd like to put forward some other source for this proposed limit than the same cabal who wants to carry out those deaths.

It’s dealt with in 5th grade science textbooks, where you learn that the cycles of predator-prey populations rise and fall with respect to one another, as observed in nature.

As I said, unsustainable for billions of years, that 5th-grade sinewave was what got me doubting. "Too neat." Sooner or later some other environment adjustment changes the wave, and some of those changes are ELEs.

We see all the variations. Clearly they exist across time.

Yeah, which is why galactic evolutionary theories that one came from another are sus. They couldn't explain how the neat spiral structure persisted without change for billions of years, so they invented theories that new spirals are always forming (detritus left over from horror-film Hoyle theory). The spirals are evidence of youth.

elements heavier than hydrogen

I wasn't asking what they were, I was asking what the proposed "minimum timeline" was.

How are the fused heavy elements going to get into planets, then.

Heavy metal creation requires exacting conditions and I haven't memorized all of them. It seems to me that accretion of the sun and system together permits the heavy metals to be formed en masse when the conditions are reached and then to be accreted at different compositions in all the bodies in the system. The point is that the solar system isn't enough billions of years old so they had to have a theory or continuing creation of solar systems (Hoyle detritus). I presume that the young-earth scientists have put forward models of getting the formation criteria together, but if I have to be the groundbreaking YEC on that sobeit.

This.

I saw little red dots, interesting, and totally unsettled as to working hypotheses. Even if quasistars exist, they aren't required to exist for the stars that exist to be formed. But in stellar evolution they are required because they can't figure out how these stars stuck around for the billions of years. So the point again is that the theory doesn't match the evidence of the current populations of stars. It's duct tape and baling wire all the way down with them.

They’re older than your claimed timeline.

Old trees stay in the thousands range (and I separately remarked that dendrochronology has some slipperiness). The OP is requesting proof of billions. The fact that I have a specific fun chronology was not stated as the baseline but only as an example; I see that people didn't understand that, so I'll work on clear comms in the future.

water will magically affect some rocks more than other, identical rocks right next door to it ... sarcasm

You sound like you've got some idea that layers automatically prove billions rather than rapid sedimentation in rapidly changing conditions. That's question-begging. If you have a specific problem with flood geology, prove the billions.

there’s physical proof that The Flood happened.

Great, and yet you accept the billions as if The Flood didn't cause most of the layering?

We have written human history from before that

Not really, I looked. We have Sumer and Egypt primarily, and they obviously exaggerated. There are a couple things in history arguably older that 6,018 years (see, having fun again), but they don't show the billions and their resolution, while interesting, is unimportant to OP.

Anyone, anywhere, can take five seconds and see you’re lying using basic, reproducible research.

Not really. To prove billions you need a theory because no basic reproducible observation in itself will prove it. Your best one was lightspeed but I showed that lightspeed constancy is not solidly proven due to recent measurements not reproducing phenomena from past measurements. So your exaggeration lands on no actual test, which is why I asked proof. I'm only stating my case with enough precision to show it's sufficient to withstand such dodges as "five seconds".

Are you actually implying that plants can sin?

Plants die because Adam morally introduced into their environment a physical spiritual principle that cursed them. There is no necessary reason why animals or plants should die except the second law's ultimacy. But the second law doesn't apply in the Planck epoch, and so I say it didn't apply for a number of days after that either: the Garden was deathless. It would be silly for God to say, Adam, since you're the first sentient creature, you won't die like these billions of years of other creatures, you'll only die due to moral fault, but the rest died without having a morality system. No, they were cursed because of Adam and weren't cursed before that. That's a theological question, but I'm honestly unaware of some idea that we can respect the Bible's data on the introduction of death while holding billions of years of death. Teilhard de Chardin came the closest I believe, but he dissed the Bible and mysticized it.

“Bible says so.”

It doesn't say billions, it doesn't say death before Adam, it doesn't say pyramids before Adam, it doesn't say any of the things you've postulated that I contended.

(1) ... Didn't happen.

Population: If you didn't see it happen, that's not on me. Population growth models are insufficient to explain continuation of species over hundreds of millions of years.

(2) ... doesn’t disprove the observed age of the Universe.

Clocks: A single clock would disprove observed age unless an origin theory of the clock is given, which is why the uniformitarians work so hard to invent origin theories like dark matter-energy. But we have hundreds of such clocks, of which I've alluded to a couple, and uniformitarians flee even though it's just an application of their own principle.

(3) ... Already showed otherwise.

Stellar formation: What you showed is that there are a couple observed phenomena (little red dots, elliptical galaxies). You didn't show that any star has a billion-year history.

(4) ... you didn’t defend them at all.

Radiohalos: I showed that radiohalos (particularly of polonium with 3-minute half-life) testify of catastrophism and have no explanation in gradualist composition of the earth. Just an example of a clock that I find probative. You don't have to answer, it's just that in the presence of so many clocks I find hand-waving dismissal of all of them as less probative.

(5) ... You showed a guy who said that objective standards are icky fascism.

Lightspeed: I showed the chart, which everyone agrees on, I wasn't linking it for the connected argument. I also didn't bother to try to take an extra minute to link the chart without its attachment, because the chart is objective.

(6) ... The observable universe.

Epistemology: Nobody has observed billions of years.

(7) ... Directly indicated it, yeah.

Radiation: If you're done presenting your evidence from your question about radiation, I don't see that you've proved any assertion.

(8) ... proof that you’re lying.

Dendro: It's not lying to say I believe a specific age but I'm making the post to defend the general range (thousands). But attested tree trunks over 6,000 rings are very few and are easily miscounted.

(9) ... Only talked about erosion.

Erosion: And offered no proof that erosion requires billions. I looked it up and these craters are not dated in billions because of erosion but because of radioactivity.

(10) ... you have no proof of a lack of death before Adam, particularly since the Bible talks expressly about sin-death.

Bible: If it were proven that the passage was not about physical death at all, that would be no proof that the Bible teaches physical death before Adam. All evidence supplied on that point is extrabiblical.

SURELY I SHOULD JUST WORSHIP EVERYTHING YOU SAY SIGHT-UNSEEN, RIGHT?

observational reality disproves

Not at all, just calmly take time similar to what you invested in dilatoriness and review and judge the rationales for the billions. About the only one you really reviewed, rather than just alluded to sight-unseen, was lightspeed. If you have a theological rationale for billions, say so (you apparently mean "God spoke through nature but only as interpreted for me by the recent cabal").

If we both decline to produce evidence, then you haven't proven me wrong.

From my link, "While the builders failed to duplicate the precise jointing created by the ancient Egyptians, [stonemason Roger] Hopkins was confident that this could have been achieved with more practice."

Solar cycles concatenating: Sounds like apophenia, but please lay out the evidence if you like.

Polar shift and magnetic cycles: Yeah, that one's been used by flood proponents too. Geomagnetic "reversal occurrences appear to be statistically random." The most recent is put at 780,000 years ago. The existence of a "Cretaceous normal superchron" of no reversal for 30 million years indicates to me that the uniformitarian interpretation is woefully incomplete (i.e., evidence neither of randomness nor of cycle but of bursts of activity related to cataclysms). But I don't recall offhand what I've seen about what the claims of reversal epochs actually arise from or amount to. Oh yeah, it was based on collecting a bunch of rocks of two different magnetisms and assuming the Geologic Column correctly shows those rock ages. So all such observations are handled by the same approach, namely how did the rock get there and have two different polarities, and flood theorists have worked that for awhile.

If we have evidence something happened, I claim it happened in the scale of thousands of years. If we have evidence that something would have happened if the universe was old enough, like the fit of the sun's movement to an oscillator, then I don't deny that it would happen but I deny that we have any evidence it's happened. The sun's path being oscillating is likely enough but every astrophysicist admits it's all inferred from a very brief period of observation for the sun and other stars. The Age of Aquarius has real astronomic meaning but there's no evidence that it's happened before (and even the alleged evidence only stays on the thousands scale).

Here's some data on the sledge of Djehutihotep, various ramp theories, man-hour calculations, and gypsum mortar. So the question there is not how the high tolerances were achieved (it was by mortar), but how the energy to make the mortar was derived (squabbling about carbon-dating of burnt wood). Sounds very doable to me, but then I'm skeptically credulous.

https://web.archive.org/web/20241103124930/https://i.sstatic.net/DfAo0.jpg (archived from original).

The period of that oscillation is about 65 million years, not 6,500 (ooh, 4 orders of magnitude off, nice coincidence, I wonder what it means). Two seconds to disprove.

There is much more on Planet X from astrologers than from astronomers. The Brown hypothesis, the leading candidate, has a period of 10,000-20,000 years, although it's based on six potential perturbations and potentially disproven by two others.

So it sounds like if such an event could cataclyze the earth (mechanism unproven and Nibiru-like), it would not be cyclical at all but would depend on chaotic factors from many quarters (which I summarized as Brownian motion). But ultimately you're getting back to Biblical demons, the same explanation as the assistance with the pyramids. It wouldn't be based on the Aquarian precession interval that just happens to come close to one good fit of the data. Just because we notice a movement doesn't mean we've proven it sinks Titanics.

No, no one wants to read any further of your intellectual jerking off. How about you just engage with what’s presented

Okay, after a long intro and a reference to Grimault and the theory of alignment of monuments (another apophenia as I showed the last time you brought it up, and I'm not sure you didn't just use the same video again that I previously skimmed), in the 6th minute I find an engineer saying the same argument from ignorance that is commonly called the "gee-whiz" argument. Some of the tolerances are stated to be .02 inches. (Incidentally, razor blades are .005-.01 inches thick). The pyramids comprise 8 listed feats of engineering. There is nothing there about impossibility, only about undesirability. Our own sky-scraping buildings have similar feats of engineering so as to make them marvels; the Egyptians just wanted something with a different awe factor than steel and glass. So I still don't see what's so shocking to you. Do you want me to search now without bias for detailed analyses of how large stones were placed to meet tolerances of sometimes .02 inches, which I'm confident exist? Seeing as you have a history of not wanting to seek out contrary evidence to your own confirmation biases?

The OP outlines the evidence that catastrophes on earth follow a cyclical pattern.

And in that pattern they "only" happen when the sun is in Aquarius or one of the other three Carlson-preferred signs. I have no doubt that if there were 26,000 years the sun would trace a complete precession. What I have doubt about is any mechanism that would create cataclysms at consistent intervals in that period. And astrology has the exact same lack of mechanism for essentially the same reasons.

You do understand how apophenia creates confirmation bias when the bar is so low as matching one out of three periods or relatively close to that, right? Do you want more math demonstration of that?

Where in the two hours sir?

You asked me to look into it, I had told you that my previous evidence on the susness of ice cores was sufficient, and it was.

OP proposes the extraordinary (astrological) claim that Aquarius regularly influences global cataclysms, which isn't supported by extraordinary evidence (or even ordinary for that matter).

Oh, I was trying to be helpful about your request for "direct-evidence-based". An official retraction is often one of the clearest evidences. But you seem to mean evidence like the rocks are there (and then everyone should come to the same interpretation of them?). The pot with copper in it really was there and really has been proven to be a functional battery, so they could've had some control of electricity for instance. But until we have objective agreement on how to view evidence the discussion is, um, restrained. I was trying to find out what the evidence was for the razor claim or for the appeal to ignorance of how it was built, but nobody wanted to summarize it, including myself, so a summary didn't happen.

The horizon problem was proposed when there was not an agreement on inflation. Some VSL proposals are inspired by doubts of inflation, others are inspired by inconsistencies in redshift calculation. I suppose I was hasty to lead with the horizon problem as indicative of several benefits VSL provided compared to the billion-year model, but that doesn't invalidate the proposals. What I asked for in title though was proof of your assertion that there were ten billion years. Since I trust you have not yet begun to fight, I await defense by anyone that the stuff they were programmed in school actually had merit.