BLOOD MOON = BLOOD SPILL?

Saturday's lunar eclipse will be followed by the Leonid meteor shower, a total solar eclipse over the southern hemisphere.
Stargazers will watch the full moon dim into a dark, ruddy orb Saturday night as the moon drifts through Earth's shadow in the latest celestial event this year to pull eyes skyward...............

Isaiah 13:9-10; 24:23
13:9
Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

13:10
For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

13:11
And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

24:23
Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.

Revelation
8:7
The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

8:8
And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;

8:9
And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

What do those quotes have to do with an eclipse exactly??? I know people think it's cool to quote revelations and all but, what's the signifigance? If nothing bad happens you'll find a use for the same quotes, won't you?

Awwww, Us Aussies wont see it

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
What do those quotes have to do with an eclipse exactly??? I know people think it's cool to quote revelations and all but, what's the signifigance? If nothing bad happens you'll find a use for the same quotes, won't you?

for you sure...........Your name says it all.

I don't think it is cool to quote The Book of Revelations.
I tak e it to heart. If you don't get it, you don't get it.


Peace.............

We have had literally *billions* of these "red moons" in the 4 billion year history of Earth.

It's part of having a moon that circles the Earth. Millions of these red moons have also coincided with asteroid showers.

Every time there's a "sign in the sky," Christian hysterics start raving "Apocalypse!" and "Mark of the Beast" and running around, trying to convert everyone to save them from the coming Tribulation. While their intentions may be good, the bare facts are that the Bible was based in an era when comets and other phenomina simply "appeared."

They had no astronomers with mathematical tables and maths such as calculus to help them figure out when the moon and comets would appear and whether or not there would be an eclipse. These things were just magic.

In those superstitious times, a blood-red moon was an Omen Of Something Dreadful. Given that those were dreadful times, something dreadful always occurred after them.

We've known for a very long time that this moon would be red. Astronomers can tell you when the next 200 red moons will occur. These are not unexpected, miraculous phenomina to terrify the superstitious. They're simple acts of physics and nature.

Now, if the moon was supposed to be nice and white and suddenly turned green with orange polkadots, THAT would be some sort of sign.

But red moons are a leftover from the age of superstition. Hopefully we're not entering a new age of superstition when ordinary phenomina are treated like a Great Foretelling.

At this rate, we'll start committing seppuku when our magic markers run out of ink.

[Edited on 7-11-2003 by Byrd]

Everytime there is a lunar eclipse the moon is always red in color. Nothing new.

Originally posted by Byrd
We have had literally *billions* of these "red moons" in the 4 billion year history of Earth.

Now, if the moon was supposed to be nice and white and suddenly turned green with orange polkadots, THAT would be some sort of sign.

At this rate, we'll start committing seppuku when our magic markers run out of ink.

[Edited on 7-11-2003 by Byrd]

How do you measure billions of years?



Like we really know...............

billions.......hmmm...........let me get my calculator.
Opps not enouhg digits. Oh well, I can't take your word for it. Hey the firat soda can was discovered in Colorado
10.87 billon years ago..........look to your future. Not the past.

wouldnt we all # if it happened though? anyway, i dont think anything is going to happen, but its always good to be prepared... well maybe not prepared, but "deny ignorance" is the motto afterall

Didn't a major earthquake follow a total lunar eclipse in Turkey in 1999?

How do you measure billions of years?

Umm, carbon dating?

I'll not step on Byrds toes in what is bound to be a science vs. religion debate, though.

Um, US patriot,

take your happy pills and mellow out.

Byrd was pointing out.....

WE HAVE TWO LUNAR ECLIPSES EVERY YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have seen about 4 blood red moons in my life, and thats only because I was looking at them, how many Ive missed, hard to say. THIS IS A COMMON OCCURANCE! THIS IS NOT A SIGN FOR THE GREAT INVISIBLE GOD SPOOK IN THE SKY THAT THE SKY IS GONNA FALL AND THE WORLD IS GONNA END, FOOLIO!

God, does anyone ever watch the skies at night? if anyone did, they would know there is nothing special about the blood red lunar eclipse comming up!

And for those Christians who still think it is......

PLEASE DONT DRINK THE PUNCH...........

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Um, US patriot,

take your happy pills and mellow out.

Where is the love?

All I pointed out was a point not something I know is going to happen........my kung fu is better than your kung fu.

Ah....the youth. Glad to see you guys keep the board flowing with adreneline, or, testosterone.

BTW...........I like hawaiian PUNCH.



OK back to reality. Nice to see someone is listening!

Originally posted by Fry2

How do you measure billions of years?

Umm, carbon dating?

I'll not step on Byrds toes in what is bound to be a science vs. religion debate, though.

WRONG. carbon dating is only effective for something around 2500 years. well im not positive on that number and a quick google could get me the real one, but i AM positive of the fact that even were there still organic substance around from back then, that we couldnt accuratly carbon date it. carbon-14 has a halflife FAR shorter than a million years, let alone billions

Hi U.S Patriot
TRUTH???
Is that you?
Dont worry what people tell you....

There is quite alot of things happening........and almost every day we can see that....be it in the weather or the atmosphere...changes are coming.
helen.

And I drink no punch!
Guess I could throw some!!!
helen

Originally posted by baked
Didn't a major earthquake follow a total lunar eclipse in Turkey in 1999?

My fault it was a Solar Eclipsewww.eanet.com...

Figure 147: Increasing Amounts of Carbon-14. Radiocarbon dating requires knowing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere when the organic matter being dated was part of a living organism. The assumption (shown in red), which few realize is being made, is that this ratio has always been what it was before the industrial revolution6�about one carbon-14 atom for every trillion carbon-12 atoms. Willard Libby, who received a Nobel Prize for developing this technique, conducted tests in 1950 which showed more carbon-14 forming than decaying. Therefore, the amount of carbon-14 and the ratio must be increasing. He ignored his test results, because he believed the earth must be more than 20,000 �30,000 years old, in which case the amount of carbon-14 must have had time to reach equilibrium and be constant.3 In 1977, Melvin Cook did similar, but more precise, tests which showed that the ratio was definitely increasing, even faster than Libby�s test indicated.

Today, carbon-14 forms in the upper atmosphere at the rate of 21 pounds a year, but in 5,730 years, half of it decays. Therefore, carbon-14 would normally increase from the time of the creation, as shown by the blue line. Before the flood, the blue line levels off as the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere approaches equilibrium�where the amount forming balances the amount decaying. Earth�s lush forests had so much carbon that the equilibrium level was much lower than today. Those forests, ripped up and buried during the flood, became our coal, oil, and methane deposits.

During the flood, carbon-12 released from the subterranean water chamber diluted the carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans even more. (Carbon-14 could not have formed in this chamber, because it was shielded from the cosmic radiation that produces carbon-14.) If one thought the C-14/C-12 ratio had always been what it is today, he would erroneously conclude that the reduced carbon-14 meant much time had passed. Instead, less carbon-14 was in the organism when it died.



Radiocarbon dates less than 3,500 years old are probably accurate. However, before accepting any radiocarbon date, one should know how the technique works, its limitations, and its assumptions. One limitation is that the radiocarbon technique dates only material that was once part of an animal or plant, such as bones, flesh, or wood. It cannot date rocks directly. To understand the other capabilities and limitations of radiocarbon dating, we must understand how it works and consider the flood.

Most carbon atoms weigh 12 atomic mass units. However, roughly one in a trillion carbon atoms weighs 14 atomic units. This carbon is called carbon-14. It is also called radiocarbon because it is radioactive (but not dangerous). Half of it will decay in about 5,730 years to form nitrogen. Half of the remainder will decay in another 5,730 years, and so on.

Cosmic radiation striking the upper atmosphere converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen each year into radiocarbon (carbon-14). Most carbon-14 quickly combines with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which then spreads throughout the atmosphere. Plants take in carbon dioxide, incorporating in their tissues both carbon-14 (unstable) and normal carbon-12 (stable) in the same proportion as they occur in the atmosphere. Carbon-14 then moves up the various food chains to enter animal tissue�again, in about the same ratio carbon-14 has with carbon-12 in the atmosphere.

When a living thing dies, its radiocarbon loss (decay) is no longer balanced by intake, so its radiocarbon steadily decreases with a half-life of 5,730 years. If we knew the amount of carbon-14 in an organism when it died, we could attempt to date the time of death. The key questions then are: �Has the atmospheric ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 changed in the past, and if so, why and how much?� The assumption usually made, but rarely acknowledged, is that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution1 was always the same�about one in a trillion. Actually, that ratio may have been quite different.

For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available from decaying vegetation to cycle between living things and the atmosphere. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere would increase. If the atmosphere�s ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things living soon after the flood would appear to be one half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages. If that ratio quadrupled, organic remains would appear 11,460 (2 x 5,730) years older, etc. Consequently, a �radiocarbon year� would not correspond to an actual year.

Therefore, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has, in general, been building up in the atmosphere since the flood. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio would be extremely slight. As explained in Figure 147, recent measurements show this.3

Radiocarbon dating of vertical sequences of organic-rich layers at 714 locations worldwide has consistently shown a surprising result.4 Radiocarbon ages do not increase steadily with depth, as one might expect. Instead, they increase at an accelerating rate. In other words, the concentration of carbon-14 is unexpectedly low in the lower organic layers. As one moves to higher and higher layers, this concentration increases rapidly, just as we would expect in the centuries after a worldwide flood.

Tree-ring dating allows us to infer how the atmospheric concentration of carbon-14 changed in the past. Some types of trees growing at high elevations with a steady supply of moisture will reliably add only one ring each year. In other environments, multiple rings can be added in a year.5 A tree ring�s thickness depends on the tree�s growing conditions, which vary from year to year. Some rings may even show frost or fire damage. By comparing sequences of ring thicknesses in two different trees, a correspondence can sometimes be shown. Trees of the same species that simultaneously grew within a few hundred miles of each other may have similar patterns. Trees of different species or trees growing in different environments have less similar patterns.

Claims are frequently made that wood growing today can be matched up with some scattered pieces of dead wood so that tree-ring counts can be extended back more than 8,600 years. This may not be correct. These claimed �long chronologies� begin with either living trees or dead wood that can be accurately dated by historical methods.7 This carries the chronology back perhaps 3,500 years. Then the more questionable links are established based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Sometimes �missing� rings are added.8 Each tree ring�s width varies greatly around its circumference. Also, parts of a ring may be dead wood. Standard statistical techniques could establish how well the dozen supposedly overlapping tree-ring sequences fit. However, tree-ring specialists have refused to subject their judgments to these statistical tests and would not release their data, so others can do these statistical tests.9

Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much improved radiocarbon dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, a specimen�s carbon-14 atoms can now be actually counted, giving a more precise radiocarbon date with even smaller samples. The standard, but less accurate, radiocarbon dating technique only estimates the rare disintegrations of carbon-14 atoms, which are sometimes confused with other types of disintegrations.

This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen�even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new �accelerator mass spectrometer� technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! 10

Radiocarbon dating of supposedly very ancient bones should provide valuable information. Why is such testing rare? Researchers naturally do not want to waste money on a technique that destroys their specimen and provides no specific age. Therefore, most researchers do not radiocarbon date any organic specimen they think is older than 100,000 years, even if it still contains carbon. All carbon-14 that was once in anything older than 100,000 radiocarbon years would have decayed; its age could not be determined. So, if a bone an evolutionist thinks is a million years old contains any detectable carbon-14, the bone is probably less than 100,000 radiocarbon years. Furthermore, Figure 147, shows why those �radiocarbon years� correspond to a much younger true age.


PREDICTION 36: Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests. This prediction has now been confirmed.11 (Blind tests are explained on page 81.)



Very precise measurements now show that most fossils�regardless of presumed �geologic age��have roughly the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. (This includes fossil fuels: coal, oil, and methane.) Therefore, this former life must have been living at about the same time�less than 100,000 years ago. Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic flood.12

Radiocarbon dating is becoming increasingly important in interpreting the past. However, one must understand how it works and especially how a flood affected radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years are probably accurate. Ages around 40,000 radiocarbon years, which are typical of coal, probably have much younger true dates near the time of the flood, roughly 5,000 years ago.

that was probably a FAR better explaination that i could have managed. much thanks

Shows to Go ya,,,BLOODY MOON catches more eyes than a RUDDY MOON...

Originally posted by xenongod
Figure 147: Increasing Amounts of Carbon-14. Radiocarbon dating requires knowing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere when the organic matter being dated was part of a living organism.....

and so forth!

As long as that post was, it didn't include EVERYTHING that must be taken into account when discussing carbon-14 dating. See there this liiiittle problem at, oh, the FOUNDATION of carbon-14 dating.

You see, carbon-14 dating is based on how many carbon/carbon-14 isotopes were present at the Big Bang. Once you GUESS that amount, everything else falls into place...plus or minus, oh say a bunch.

The problem is simple: Please PROVE to me that you know how many carbon atoms were present at the very instant of the alledged Big Bang, and how many, if any, Carbon-14 isotopes were there as well.

Just as soon as you prove the answer to those two questions, I'll be glad to give carbon-14 dating consideration.

Oh dear gods,

Christian diagram using science to date superstitions..lmao! As if the flood and creation were actual realities.......

The big Bang, as hard as it is to prove and understand, is far more reasonable and provable than the big spook............