Thursday, October 31, 2013

Eric King Has The TRUE Understanding On How The Earth Was Formed




Eric King has a new article up where he claims to have the TRUE knowledge regarding the age of the earth and its formation.   The Story of Our Planet ~ By Eric W. King

This is a very interesting work written by Mr. E.W.King. It starts 13.7 billion years ago and walks us up to our present period of time in earth’s history. This is a must read for those who want to know the real story about our planet. Read with prayer and share with others. Mr. E.W.King completed this work on October 30th 2013. Thank you. ~ COGSR/SOCT Staff-

I have written short papers regarding the “first earth age” and I have given a basic outline of events regarding the re-creation of this planet some 6000 plus years ago but I have not written many details in my past articles regarding this most fascinating subject. It is very important to understand the history of our planet. In this work I will try and give many more details and a chronological outline of events starting from the creation of our universe some 13.7 billion years ago.

55 comments:

Byker Bob said...

I suppose he thinks that people who know in advance that what he has written is pure crap, so determine not to waste precious moments of their lives reading it are just not very open minded. What an ego!

BB

Dennis Diehl said...

"So the reconstruction of this planets surface began some 6000 years ago. This agrees with the chronology of the Bible.-"

And therein lies the problem. Keep trying to factor the Bible in paleontology and cosmology and you end up with an E.W.King fairy tale.


"And if everything was all dark blackness what was before black…black is a color?"

Actually white is the combination of all colors and black is the abscence of color. White reflects all color and black none. Ultimately all color is a reaction of the mind to frequencies.

King is obviously watching NOVA, The Discovery Channel and Youtube cosmology and evolution video and having to admit some things. It is his mixing it all up in a Bible context that throws him off the cliff.

At least he is a bit ahead of of the COG science curve

Douglas Becker said...

Are we sure he is talking about how earth was formed and NOT the 9 circles of hell?

Anonymous said...

Douglas, if a person has the middle initial W, they probably know the truth about everything, from billions of years ago right up to the present and at least thousands of years beyond now.

;-)

Anonymous said...

Looks as if he aspires to be the Mr. DeGassee of the Armstrong heirs.

Anonymous said...

It's stellar output like this that makes me think King is the dumbest of the the cog carnival barkers. Remember those insightful thoughts on the human mind? What about those ridiculous predictions which amounted to that earthquakes would indeed happen sometime in the future?

Anonymous said...

"It is very important to understand the history of our planet ... from the creation of our universe some 13.7 billion years ago."

Things are often not what they appear to be. The 13.7 figure is a Big Bang number. The BB theory (originally conceived by a Catholic cleric, apparently to prove the absurd Catholic doctrine of creation FROM NOTHING) is based on the supposed expansion of the universe. The entire observational justification for expansion is the redshift, which started with Hubble, but there are other causes for redshift besides expansion that they DON'T tell you about.

Further, there were a number of problems with Hubble's research that the DON'T tell you about. I wont get into it here--long story.

Hubble himself later warned people that his redshift "law" was probably NOT evidence of expansion (i.e. the supposed big bang). He believed the redshift was probably caused by something else.

Funny how big bangers never mention that either.

More recently, observations show high redshift objects visibly located in FRONT of galaxies of much lower redshift. That basically kills the BB right there, and the evidence is irrefutable, but is being suppressed.

Funny how BB "scientists" never mention that.

Establishment "scientists" today have been caught photoshopping images of galaxies to remove features they don't want people to know about because it refutes the BB.

This is only a drop in the bucket. I could write volumes but nobody here will listen ... what an opinionated bunch.

Allen C. Dexter said...

"They (very vague term) won't tell you," "it's being suppressed."

Give me a break already. You make a lot of dogmatic statements with no substance except that you're sure we're being lied to. Science doesn't work like that. Religion does.

As much as we do know, science is still in its infancy and there are oodles and boodles of stuff yet to be discovered. Scientists are very busily engaged in that process, and if anything is not quite right, you can be damn sure it will eventually be exposed to the light of day. That's a whole lot more than can be expected from any religious loudmouth!

James said...

Anonymous said...

"It's stellar output like this that makes me think King is the dumbest of the the cog carnival barkers"

Carnival barker. Precious picture you painted there! I never thought of them in such a humorous way.
-------------

Another Anon writes "The entire observational justification for expansion is the redshift, which started with Hubble, but there are other causes for redshift besides expansion that they DON'T tell you about."

Sounds like one of those conspiracy theory videos you see on news sites. "What FEMA doesn't want you to know..."

Windbag.

Corky said...

Claiming the earth was re-created 6,000 years ago can't be true for the simple fact that there is no 'bottle neck', at that time, of life on this planet.

There is also no 'bottle neck' of life on this planet at the supposed time of Noah's ocean trip around 4300 BCE either.

So...allegory? If so, what does the allegory mean? If allegory, and you don't know what the allegory means then it's still just a useless, meaningless fable - since it didn't literally happen.

Byker Bob said...

Who is this sudden anonymous, and what is his point? Is this science lecture somehow supposed to either validate or refute Armstrongism? Young Earther?

There are gravitational effects on redshift, meaning there would not always be uniform acceleration of bodies from the hypothesized center of the Big Bang, or evenness of the Doppler Effect.

I'd suggest that somebody read Shroeder's "Genesis and the Big Bang", and brush up on their Maimonides.

BB

Anonymous said...

"Give me a break already. You make a lot of dogmatic statements with no substance ..."

No substance? Rubbish. I keep telling people what to look for and where to look!!! Read the long list of books I mentioned!!! You want me to write a book on it?

Go to Amazon.com. Use Google. Do your research.

"As much as we do know, science is still in its infancy ... you can be damn sure it will eventually be exposed to the light of day. That's a whole lot more than can be expected from any religious loudmouth!"

Hey you fool, I'm agnostic!!!! I was attacking the BB not science and I sure as hell don't support religion.

Exposed? It has been exposed, but opinionated people only look at one side.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like one of those conspiracy theory videos you see on news sites. "What FEMA doesn't want you to know..."
-------------------------
Some conspiracy theories are baloney and some are not. Did you actually check into many of them? If not, then you know nothing.

Anonymous said...

There is a war going on between science and religion. When corruption in science is exposed the "science" buffs hate it because it gives ammo to the religionists. They don't seem to care about getting the science right, just winning the war against religion by hook or by crook.

Don't shoot the messenger. Blame the crooked scientists for giving science a bad name. They have a lot to answer for.

Anonymous said...

"Who is this sudden anonymous, and what is his point? Is this science lecture somehow supposed to either validate or refute Armstrongism? Young Earther?"

Clearly, my post was attacking the BB. So I reject any of King's ideas that are based on the BB. So it is germane to the point of this thread.

Who said anything about a young earth? There are a number of theories of cosmology. The BB and Young Earth are probably the silliest of them all.

Anonymous said...

". you can be damn sure it will eventually be exposed to the light of day."

We cannot assume that truth will win out in the end. The world is too full of self-serving controllers and liars.

How do you know we are not now in a Dark Age of sorts?

If the whole world gets converted to some dumb idea (e.g. Islam or Armstrongism) you can be sure everyone will then say "truth has won out."

Anonymous said...

"Science doesn't work like that."

Right. But what we get from Hawking et al. isn't real science.

Anonymous said...

Big bangers have a lot to answer for. The patent absurdities of the Big Bang help keep Bible fundamentalists like Armstrongists and Young Earthers in business. Any bloke can see the universe did not pop into existence out of nothing. Have you ever seen anything pop into existence out of nothing?

Anonymous said...



Isn't the big bang simply Einstein's theory in reverse? Something slows down pure energy, and it once again separates into mass and light?

Dennis Diehl said...

Anon said:

" I could write volumes but nobody here will listen ... what an opinionated bunch."

LOL Now there are two concepts one does not see often in the same sentence! hilarious

James said...

Anon says he or she is not religious. I bet Anon is religious, part of the ACOG's and is pissed off because Harmstrongism is going by the wayside.

In an attempt to hide their affiliation, the Harmstrongist ALWAYS (just like Herbie, screaming caps) say they are not religious, or part of Herbie's family business.

I believe they are attempting to deceive us like their father..what's his name???

Douglas Becker said...

I've misplaced my copy of The Onion Tenth Circle of Hell Book but the illustration here is certainly reminiscent.

The premise of the book is that hell was so full that 9 circles weren't enough any more and the Devil was busy working on the 10th circle.

Dig to the bottom of hell, and it seems like we'll find Armstrong Mafia leaders like E. W. King, Roderick Meredith, David Pack, Gerald Flurry, Weinland and others there.

The strangest part of it is that they seem to think we should take them seriously -- sort of like sometimes people take news flashes from The Onion that are satire seriously.

Anonymous said...

"LOL Now there are two concepts one does not see often in the same sentence! hilarious."

What's your point? I've researched both sides at great length. Have you?

Anonymous said...

The book by Gerald Schroeder claims the BB and Genesis are describing the same thing. It's nonsense. It only goes to show how the bible can be "interpreted" to prove just about anything. But if Schroeder were right, it would refute Genesis because the Big Bang never happened.

I think had a copy of that book years ago when in one of the COGs. It is based on the silly BB.

Trying to harmonize the bible with modern science is futile.

For example, the Bible teaches a flat earth. That's why the devil could take Jesus to a high mountain and show him all the kingdoms of the earth. You can only do that if the earth is flat. Otherwise, what's the point of going up a high mountain?

Head Usher said...

Our anon pro-ID conspiracy nutcase is just a baiter.

On previous threads such as this one and "this one, her statements for ID and against both "evilution" and the big bang theory have revealed she argues not just against the scientific establishment, but also for theism:

"If an archaeologist digs in the earth and finds a rock or lump of clay which looks like it might have been man-made, he examines it more closely to see if it bears the hallmarks of intelligent design (i.e. if it is man made), or whether it was formed merely by the forces of nature alone. That is science, not dogma. If you examine living things with an open mind to see if they could have come about by forces of nature alone, that is not dogma, and it's not unscientific unless you are biased by religion. In the COGs they insist that man started 6000 years ago, so they are biased. If you reject the possibility of a creator out of hand, you are also biased."

"The "big bang theory" simply defies the logic of what is known about cause and affect,yet evilutionists say just this once ignore the fact that explosions have a cause and look at the results of the explosion because we don't know what caused it?"

"Fact is the theory of "big bang" does not explain the source of the bang, but merely says believe the theory for the theory's sake.You have no evidence of what made the bang happen, but you believe it happened, and that is faith in an unknown actuator, an unknown cause for the affect.Hence you have faith. Faith in the unknown, in that which is not visible. You subsequently look down on those who are not of the same faith as you."

Now she claims to be agnostic? Trolling for sure.

This anon is a shape-shifter who will say anything to provoke a reaction. She doesn't really believe what she argues for. It's just about being a contrarian.

Byker Bob said...

Yeah. My advice would be that he take these ideas to a forum where science is the main topic. But, that is just me.

I'd also recommend several improvements to the basic presentation, assuming he wants to be taken seriously.

1) Pick a screen name. That way, if several other anonymi jump in with similar views to his own, other bloggers can tell who is saying what, and address the comments appropriately. It would even be preferable to post under a ridiculous throw-away name, such as "Borpie" rather than anonymous.

2) Unless Gary, Dennis, or some of the other headliners create a science related post, don't commandeer or co-opt discussions on other topics, unless there is some sort of at least tangential tie-in.

3) Remember that all of us here were victimized and exploited by an uncredentialed man on the fringe, with his own non-mainstream ideas and theories, who also cast aspersions on various academic disciplines and entities, and guess what! It really didn't work out very well for us. So, yes, expect resistance to untested, non mainstream "research" and tenth rate embarrassing "scholarship".

4) Come here to share, and discuss. Not to "teach" or gain followers. Nobody likes know-it-alls. Most of us have already had far too much exposure to such individuals in the past courtesy of Armstrongism, and can at times be overly sensitive when confronted by narcissists.

I know you're supposed to have 7 points to be spiritual, according to the restored laws of the pseudo-apostle, but in this case, four do quite nicely.

BB (not big bang)

Anonymous said...

He Mrs Head Usher: you are conflating arguments from different people into one person's views. Try to deal with each point on its own merits instead of using ad homenim attacks based on who you assume it is coming from.

Try to over look insignificant things like typos, and don't blame me for other people's typos.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mrs Head Usher: I am not pro-ID but as an agnostic I'm willing to keep an open mind about it. See the difference?

Anonymous said...

"In the COGs they insist that man started 6000 years ago, so they are biased. If you reject the possibility of a creator out of hand, you are also biased."

Usher, that is not an argument for theism, it's an argument for objectivity. See the difference?

And please try to avoid ad homenims, and imputing motives.

Anonymous said...

"Pick a screen name. ... "

When I do that people dismiss and discredit based on something I said long before, which they usually take out of context, or never understood. And they use ad homenims.

But if I pick a temporary screen name to avoid that problem then they condemn for changing my screen name. Can't please them either way. The real issue is they don't like what I said.

"Remember that all of us here were victimized and exploited by an uncredentialed man on the fringe, with his own non-mainstream ideas ..."

We are also exploited by people in the mainstream every day.

"So, yes, expect resistance to untested, non mainstream 'research' and tenth rate embarrassing 'scholarship'."

How do you know it's tenth rate? Have you ever looked into it with an open mind? Is that asking too much?

Byker Bob said...

OK 441, so call yourself "X" or something. How would we even know what you said before, or that you changed your screen name, unless you yourself share that information? I have no idea at this point who you are, your gender, whether you are a member, ex member, believer, non-believer, gay, straight or a bunch of other things that in the long term scheme of things are irrelevant to the discussion. All I know, is that when too many anonymous people post, it creates an indistinguishable collection of white noise where it's hard to tell if you are responding to one person, or several of similar view. Is it one person, or is it the dogpile? How there be intelligent discussion under such conditions?

BB

Head Usher said...

There's a great deal of continuity, not just in voice and tone, but also in content that links all your material together, even including specific details regurgitated from previous threads. You're attempting to restart the same arguments here on this thread that have already been conclusively answered.

"The real issue is they don't like what I said."

True, because all the stuff you spout has the weight of opinion and hearsay. To speak directly to the low quality of your ideas, they are merely unfounded "beliefs" that do not attain to any standards which could put them in the same ballpark as ideas we could term "knowledge." As such, your tabloid-standard ideas are a waste of time.

Moreover, the "mainstream" theories and ideas you're disparaging, you can only do with ad hominems such as allegations of human corruption juvenile insults. For example, you call Stephen Hawking a "retard" and Neil deGrasse Tyson an idiot. Even your allegations of corruption in the establishment fails to address the merit of the ideas. You can't attack the theories directly because they all originate as the most likely explanations of all the observational data. The only way to discredit them is with improved observational data, not silly conspiracy theories.

But then, having people not like what you say is the whole point. You're just using a collection of ninth-rate ideas (I'm feeling generous) to try stir the pot. Do you even believe them yourself, or are they just selected as the appropriate bait? Don't you have something better to do than nipping at other people's ankles? Don't you have, you know, a life?

Byker Bob said...

You nailed it, Ush. Contrarian, yet apparently paranoid about being known, about being misunderstood, about not being listened to, and about receiving ad hominems. What a hair burner!

Problem is, in the case of an anonymous poster, how is a believer even supposed to pray for them? This may be a case in which a sane, rational, functional person has created an anonymous cyber character just to provoke reaction.

BB

Anonymous said...

Something strange has definitely effected our blog. Anyone else notice that with advent of our big bang basher, we've also had long treatises on so-called restored Armstrong doctrine? That's just too much to be considered coincidental. Somebody thinks they are messing with us.

Alf said...

This annoying "Anonymous" person is from the PCG.

Anonymous said...

Apparently neither Usher or Byker Bob have read ANY books that are contrary to mainstream cosmology. Unless they look at both sides they are totally unqualified to comment.

If they even skimmed some of those books they would know that there are plenty of first-rate astronomers that go contrary to the trend, that data is being suppressed, fudged, and erased from sight. Telescope time is denied, people are threatened and fired, and apparatus are dismantled. Papers are rejected before being sent to a referee. These are not my allegations but those of many astronomers. You clowns are simply uninformed and prefer to remain that way.

Instead of pretending I'm making all this up, go read a book. That's where the details are. You expect me to repeat all the details here? I gave you a list of books. Which ones have you read?

Anonymous said...

Yeah right Alf ... and you are Dave Pack.

Anonymous said...

Funny how people on here make dogmatic statements all the time and nobody uses footnotes and cites papers ... until you refute one of their cherished notions. Then they accuse you of being dogmatic and they demand references while refusing to read those you already provided.

LOL!!!

What's really telling is the hostility.

Anonymous said...

Since Usher and Bob have taken it upon themselves to rate the quality of scientific theories, I would like to know their rating for each of the following explanations for redshift.

Doppler effect
Spacetime creation
Lambda CDM Inflation
Lobachevsky effect
Time Flow
Large Cosmological Constant.
Scale expansion
Machian effect
Gravitational potential
Intrinsic
Inertial induction
Photon decay
Half life effect
Heisenberg Effect.
Thompson Scattering
Compton Effect
Rayleigh Scattering
Dispersive Extinction
Plasma Redshift
Raman effect
Wolf effect
Spectral transfer
Thermalization
Eternal Contracting Universe.

Please rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 for the best and 10 for the worst (since you call "my" ideas 9th or 10th rate, presumably 1st rate is at the top).

If you think they all stink, just say so.

Anonymous said...

BB there are 7 billion people on this planet and most of them are not Christians. You appear to be on the fringe! So is the contrarian Usher! Shame on you two. Become a Hindu or Buddhist and you might be in better company.

Stephen Hawking.

Byker Bob said...

Alright! This is getting to be absurd! If data is so widely being suppressed, and if this data totally blows the big bang out of the water, then nobody knows this, and that puts us in the position of being expected to take the word of one person, or a small group of persons who purport to know "the truth". Plain and simply, and I know of no other words to describe this, that is Herbie shit! A construct has been orchestrated outside of the main body of science (or religion and history in Herbie's case) which demands and justifies a guru, the only one you can "really" trust! Casey did a wonderful job of describing the testing and review processes inherent in the scientific method last week, and it is a known fact that doctoral theses are constantly being written to challenge virtually everything that is generally considered to be knowledge, and this happens on a regularly occurring basis. That is the approved method by which change is orchestrated. Under these conditions, think of how difficult it would be to suppress data regarding phenomena which can be observed by virtually anyone.

You accuse me of not reading non-mainstream material? Our "objectivists" here fault me for having read Genesis and the Big Bang. You are correct about one thing, though. I will evaluate and read my own materials, based on my own perception of their worthiness. Recently, they think I've erred reading Ehrman. I've been through all of this secret suppressed knowledge thing before over the flying saucer extraterrestrial thing, and the so-called suppression of the Blue Book, and I've actually been known once in a great great while to listen to (drum roll and gasping sounds) Coast to Coast, mostly just to see what the paranoid set is up to.

Finally, you did not mention your own credentials. You wouldn't happen to hold a doctorate in astro-physics yourself by any chance that we could verify, would you? Are you even qualified to be bringing this topic up in the first place?

BB


Byker Bob said...

Oh, Big Bang denier, here's another little zinger for you. If we are not qualified to discuss, evaluate, or refute your materials, why lower yourself to discuss them with us? And if we are not, then what does that position you as being? Superior? One before whom we should bow and chant "We're not worthy!"? Hate to say this, but I just shook the dust from my shoes in front of my ipad! It's the only Christian way in which I can express myself towards you at this point.

Ohhh.... Go tell it on the mountain! BB's had a relapse!

BB

Anonymous said...

Bob, I gave you a long list of books. Go read some of them. Just do it and all your questions will be answered. That is what you refuse to do. You attack me but you won't actually look at the data. Typical religionist and big banger.

I never said anything about flying saucers, you did. But if I wanted to know I would look at both sides, which you won't do.

Anonymous said...

In theory is it hard to suppress data. In practice it is easy. Big difference.

Anonymous said...

Bob, I come here for something to do. It's a break from my regular routine. A few people will listen to some things I say but I don't expect to "convert" everyone.

S.H.

Anonymous said...

Anon, the books you're recommending are not "data." They're not even information. They're pulp material.

Anonymous said...

Anon, the books you're recommending are not "data." They're not even information. They're pulp material.
-------------------------
And what do you base that on? Mere prejudice? Have you read them?

Byker Bob said...

I don't accept reading assignments unless they are part of an organized class curriculum. If I listened to every Tom, Dick, and Harry and allowed them to bait me into reading their favorite materials on the topics that interest them, then I would not have the time to pursue my own interests. Notice how I handled the Bart Ehrman thing. I asked just once if anyone was interested in a group read, and let it go at that. Corky was already familiar with it, we had some brief exchanges, and then I embarked on my chosen literary journey solo.

I did my Big Bang thingy several years ago, and am satisfied with the results of my own research. Learning how to get more horsepower out of a '51 Mercury Flathead V-8 is way above revisiting that in my reading priorities for the foreseeable future as would be keeping up on all my latest tech manuals, and studying the religious overtones of PeteTownshend's Who songs.

I have no routine, and live life pretty much free-form. I check in here to be aware of the devolution of the Armstrong movement cause I've still got family members attending, and when the final shoe drops, I'd like to be familiar enough with what went down that I can maybe help them out and ease their journey.

BB

Anonymous said...

OK. Bob, fine. You are not interested in learning about both sides of the BB. At least you admit it. I agree that there are more important things in life than the BB. Like hanging out with your wife and kids, if you have any. But if you are going to take that position, all I ask is that you refrain from criticism of those who spend a lot of time investigating these issues.

Refrain from insulting those of us who read books on it. Refrain from taking sides. Refrain from promoting it. Refrain from supporting those who promote it. Just don't condemn what you don't understand. I ask that you keep an open mind about it that's all. If you don't want to know, you don't have to, but then, don't take sides, and don't condemn those of us who have a research-based position on it.

Anonymous said...

Something strange has definitely effected our blog. Anyone else notice that with advent of our big bang basher, we've also had long treatises on so-called restored Armstrong doctrine?
------------
No, I didn't notice that. What the hell is restored Armstrong doctrine?

Stephen Hawking (a.k.a. Big Bang basher).

Byker Bob said...

Sorry Stephen, my research, the research of others, and a long discussion of the big bang took place 2-3 years ago either here or on another blog. We actually had people who had earned doctorates in some of the related sciences participating. It ended with everyone polarized, if I recall, and with varying people claiming victory. Too bad you missed it. It was a fairly animated discussion, but as with many topics, it peaked and the moment is past.

BTW, what is that strange new word you brought up, "family", I believe? You see, I grew up in WCG, and all concept of family was destroyed and distorted.

BB

Ethan said...

You just stepped over the line, buddy. What makes you think you're the only one who could possibly know or understand anything? Just because you read some books by morons? Just because you spent "a lot" of time [wo0o0o!] investigating some crank theories this makes you some kinda expert? And what if your "research" is shot thru with holes? Just because you were convinced by some rhetoric, that automatically makes your crank theories facts? Guess again. How do you know you're not bad at discerning when things add up and when they don't? How do you know you're not easily swayed by a good sales pitch, even when there's nothing to back it up? How do you know that others haven't spent more time than you investigating but rejected these crank theories because they're critical thinkers, and you aren't? What makes you think you're more than just another two-bit uneducated hack with a chip on his shoulder? What qualifies you to appoint yourself as the presiding anonymous authority on anything? Nothing. When you're busy insulting, who are you to tell others that they can't insult you? Nobody. When you're busy taking sides, who are you to tell others they aren't allowed to take sides? Nobody. When you're busy promoting, supporting and condemning, who are you to tell others what they can and can't promote, support and condemn? You're nobody. That's who you are. I'll take whatever side I want, I'll promote what I want, support and condemn who and what I want, I'll criticize your stupid conspiracies, and I'll insult you if I want to. And what are you gonna do about it? Until you learn some respect, do yourself a favor and STFU.

Anonymous said...

I tried to post this before but I did not see it show up, so I'm trying again. This is a list of scientists who believe in research into alternative theories of cosmology is worthwhile.

cosmologystatement.org

Here they complain about the bias in cosmology. So, no, it's not my own crazy ideas.

www.cosmology.info/index.html

SH.

P.S.: "Science is the culture of doubt" Richard Feynmann.

Anonymous said...

...the low quality of your ideas, they are merely unfounded "beliefs" that do not attain to any standards which could put them in the same ballpark as ideas we could term "knowledge." ...
--------------------
That is a dogmatic statement. Unless you research both sides, that claim is without any merit.

Anonymous said...

Ethan, take a pill. You sound hysterical.

SH