the truth is between the two opposing sides

topics: age of the rocks and homosexual men

a, age of the rocks on earth. obviously we cannot use c14 to carbon date rocks here on earth. if so can we know the age of the rocks on our planet? the truth is often between the two opposing sides... but where between?

when we have opposing opinions describing the same thing probably part of each opinion is true but both are wrong.

when we consider the vast contrast between the claim of geology that the earth is 4x10^9 called 4 billion years, that is many magnitudes more than the christian and rabbi 5800 or 6x10^3. if we consider the two extremes, one by literalists of biblical years counting from nebucadnezer in 600 bc back 3100 years to adam... perhaps too literal due to bias while the bias of science as dawkins revealed is to "make religion seem bizarre" they chose to interpret using "billions" for that purpose. we cannot simply average because the bias of scientists was to interpret by magnitudes. instead the balance between magnitude 9 and magnitude 3 is 6 ergo i estimate between the positions 5x10^6 or five million years. however soon after publishing my estimate someone claimed spring water has salt. this shocked me as i thought the difference between sea water and lake water from rain is that rain lacks salt.

***i checked bottled spring water and saw that it contains salt indicting that salt enters the rainwater and flows to sea. despite the sea depth changing, deeper water, since the ice age still the salinity "is increasing" thereffore, if the rivers poured into the sea for five million years i estimated much more salt than we find indicating less time to explain the reality. salt cannot "leave the sea by drying on the coast" as the old earth liars wrote due to the sea depth deepening. even if we assume for a moment "coastal evaporation leaving salt" lessening the salinity in the sea still that would now dissolve into the higher seas! the fact that they used such deception reveals their awareness that they need to use deception and cannot support their lies with truth.

i was compelled to estimate based on the 3% salinity much less time, only 1x10^5 to explain the reality "despite" the lack of salt on the coasts and sandy beaches which "returned" to the sea still less salinity than predicted.

when i published 100,000 years, i got a reply, from a witness before humans wrote. visitors with space flight told me i had let the bias of science pull me "too far" toward billions. they had observed the cooling of the rocks 95 thousand years ago which was the entire religious era less than 100,000. they observed and preserved that fact.

in conclusion, both sides science and religion are both wrong descriptions, but they both tried to describe the truth of 95,000 years each pulling away from the truth due to bad bias. the literalists pulled toward their book and the mockers pulled way from the book in a way that they hoped would mke the book seem "bizarre" by billions as above.

similarly on the issue of homosexuals, the "truth" is between the two opposing sides on that issue.

the religious books say the "correct punishment" for a pair of homosexual men is the death penalty they deserve death according to bible and religion... which i only quote to condemn. the opposing side wants a pair of homosexual men to have parades and emphasize their intimacy PUBLICLY showing a desite to ANNOY and insult the religious.

as usual the truth is between the two extremes and both are wrong both religin is wrong they do not deserve any punishment due to harmless activity no pain and even in jew religion is an idea the punishment must match the crime hined in "eye for n eye" a parable to show the punishment must match the crime not a literl eye just the lesson to punish with physical pain when the "sin" is not physical harm nor pain.

similarly in the jew oral tradition the idea a punishment must be "measured" to the crime not physical pain nor phyical death for a sin that was not physical pain nor death of the victim.

still the other side is also wrong to make parades as above showing their vile intent and indeed to justify an "unnnatural" act. we can easily define nature by the purpose of those body parts and recognize their misuse for pleasure as "sex pleasure that strayed from the natural use" which is precisely the definition of "pervert".

the deceivers try to make a pair of alterations: firstly trying to make it "acceptable" and changing the dictionary so pervert is "not acceptable" together, if hom is now "acceptable" therefore not pervert and even so... still... does not change the fact of nature, objectively not due to religion but due to nature that "sexual pleasue strayed from nature" therefore unnatural, therefore we must punish perverts including the unnatural pleasure of a pair of men using the "sewage exit" as unnatural perversion but not the death penalty as religion wrongly said. again we see the truth is between the two extremes.

#homosexual