“Cosmic Shittot” and carbon dating lies

climate change

Could this be the reason I got ‘shadow-banned’ from my own Linked-In account?

I haven’t been able to get into my Linked In for two years now…. and I was kind of wondering what it was I’d been writing to cause that, when I started looking up stuff on carbon dating as part of the discussion with Simon here, about ‘cosmic shittot’.

Long story short, R Ephraim Palvanov recently put something out HERE, where he was discussing the idea that some kabbalists hold that the world was created according to a cycle of ‘cosmic shittot’, of 7 x 7,000 years (i.e. we’re back in the storyline of the Matrix….)

The article contains a lot of solid sources and information, and for me personally, I have no problem dealing with a reality where some kabbalists believe the world was organised according to a cycle of 7 x 7,000 years, while others don’t hold by that.

Tachlis, it doesn’t really matter either way, to you and me.

We are in the cycle we are in right now, year 5783 according to the Jewish calendar, and there is a lot of spiritual work still to be done, for us to rectify our own bad middot and lack of emuna in Hashem.

Who cares if there’s another one after this, or if other ‘cycles’ came before?

I still have to do what I need to do down here, and to yearn for geula and for this world to be rectified enough for Moshiach to come, whatever else is going on.


So far so good: 7,000 years, or 7 x 7,000 years – take your pick, you have solid Jewish sources for both approaches.

But, as soon as someone starts using kabbalah to try to justify and ‘explain’ the lies the atheists and the scientists tell about the nature of the world – that’s when you have a problem.

A big problem.

Let’s quote some of that article by R’ Palvanov:

[T]he reality is, recent scientific and archaeological findings strongly support the notion of Cosmic Shemittot, too.

The Physical Evidence

Archaeologists have found many structures around the world that date far older than previously thought. The most famous example might be the Great Pyramids of Giza and the nearby Sphinx. Though typically dated to about 4000 years old, evidence suggests that they are much older. The Sphinx, in particular, has many layers of water erosion at its base, suggesting that it has lived through years of rainy weather. In recent millennia, Egypt does not have rain, of course. However, meteorological analysis and satellite scans suggest that Egypt was once part of a massive rainforest that spanned what is now the Sahara Desert.

Based on new data, some have suggested the Sphinx is something like 12,000 years old, having been built at a time when Egypt’s weather was rainy and wet. Another well-known example is that of Göbekli Tepe, an ancient city unearthed in Turkey that has been dated back some 11,500 years, and sports the world’s oldest known temple. Similarly, the Tel es-Sultan site in Israel, near today’s Jericho, has been dated back to around the same time. And there are many others.


So now, we loop back around to part of why I probably got shadow banned from Linked In, in this global dictatorship that likes to pretend it’s all for ‘education’ and ‘sharing information’.

Just nothing that shows that the world of modern science is literally built on one big lie, one unproven assumption, after another.

Long story short: carbon dating is a total crock.

I will cut and paste the detailed article I wrote on Linked In about that subject, in 2018, below.

But all that ‘new data’ that suggests ‘the Sphinx is something like 12,000 years old” is a crock, and based on all the same sort of faulty, deceptive computer models and politicised, propaganda-‘science’ that are telling us ‘man-made climate change’ is the biggest threat currently facing humanity.

As if.

(I wrote about that on Linked In too …. before I got banned.)


So, keep asking questions!

Keep challenging all these fallacious assumptions we are told are ‘factual and proven’ – when nothing could be further from the truth.

And when you see someone trying to use the holy Torah to justify modern science’s lies – think very carefully before accepting the premises being stated, and the conclusions being drawn.

The Torah is God’s seal, it’s truth.

And ‘science’ is the domain of the freemasons and the atheist philosophers, who are obsessed with pulling people away from God, and ‘truth’.

And sadly, even after the ‘safe and effective’ Covid shots, so many people in the frum Jewish community STILL haven’t realised that…



The official, mainstream scientific few of things, as embodied by government institutions including the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website, is that:

“Radiometric dating is accurate for rocks from 1,000 to billions of years old, and can provide an approximate age in number of years, including rocks from the Cambrian Period.”

But what is not well-understood (or often even mentioned) is that when science claims that it can date rock stratas radiometrically, what is actually being dated is the volcanic rock that sits on either side of a particular ‘slab’ or strata of sedimentary rock.

Sedimentary rocks are formed by sediment that’s usually deposited by water, ice and wind, and then solidified, and they often contain fossils.

You can’t normally directly date things like limestone, or sandstone, unless you find something embedded within the rock – like an artefact, or piece of petrified wood, for example – that you can try to date directly with radiometric methods. So instead, geochronologists try to use the rock that’s formed from hardened lava, often referred to as ‘ignaceous rock’, which can be found sandwiching these layers of sedimentary rock.



Before the concept of radioactivity was first discovered in 1896, by a man named Antoine Becquerel, Victorian geologists basically guessed at the ages of the different sedimentary rocks, and the fossils they contained, and went on the logical notion that the older stratas would clearly be found lower down.

Even though terminology like the ‘Quarternary Period’ and the ‘Devonian Period’ was being used long before the discovery of radioactivity, no fixed dates had been assigned for any of these periods of time.

Then from the beginning of the 20th century, scientists started trying to use radioactive elements to try to date rocks and minerals directly, in an apparently objective fashion, that would decide once and for all how old a particular layer of rock was.

They called this new branch of geology ‘geochronology’, and referred to the different ‘geologic clocks’ they could theoretically use to date the earth’s different levels.

When the first radiometric techniques started to be applied to rock ages, initially many geologists rejected the ages being returned by the method as being far too old. But by 1925, the evolutionary view of the world – and the enormous swathes of time it requires to be a workable thesis – had captured the imagination of most of the scientific establishment, and the very old dates returned by radiometric testing were heartily welcomed as proof that the underlying assumption about the world being billions of years old was in fact true.



The basic idea is this: Every rock and mineral on planet earth contains traces of unstable radioactive elements that breakdown over time, in a process that’s called ‘radioactive decay’.

In accordance with the ‘Principles of Uniformity’ that were first laid down by Charles Lyell, mainstream science believes that these rates of radioactive decay are stable and constant, i.e. that each radioactive isotope has been ‘decaying’ at the same rate since the solar system was first formed.

While most people have heard of ‘carbon 14 dating’, and assume that this is the main dating technique that scientists use for things like fossils and rocks, that’s actually not true for a number of different reasons.

Firstly, carbon dating can only be used on things that actually contain carbon, like bone and wood. While fossils take the shape of a dead animal’s bones, the bone itself has actually been replaced by minerals, so ‘fossilised bones’ are actually bone-shaped rocks, and cannot be dated using carbon 14.

In fact, fossils can generally not be dated directly by any ‘radiometric’ dating methods, for reasons that we’ll discuss more in a moment.


Another problem with carbon 14 is that it’s only accurate up to around 30,000 (sic) years in the past. At dates beyond that, the amounts of radioactive carbon isotopes that remain are too small to actually register or be measured. So while scientists will use Carbon 14 dating to try to ascertain the age of things like bone combs, ancient papyrus or wood, they can’t use it to date fossils or rocks.

So instead, the age of nearly all strata, rocks and fossil deposits is measured with the K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating method that was developed after World War II. 

It was only when K-Ar dating came onto the scene that the standard ‘Geologic Time Scale’ was adopted in 1964.

But here’s the rub: the Geologic Time Scale was created based on the ages of 380 radioisotope ages that were chose because they seemed to best fit the timescales that had already been assumed in Victorian times, for the fossils and geological sequences that had been found.

If a radioisotope returned dates that didn’t ‘fit’ the assumptions that had already been made about the age of the earth, it was rejected as being an unreliable indicator of real time. 

(Take a moment to really think about what I’m telling you here… it’s all just one huge, enormous loop of circular reasoning.)


So, that meant around 85% of the Geological Time Scale was dated via selections made using K-Ar dating, while 8% of the ages were determined using rubidium-strontium, and 4% were dated using uranium-lead radiometric methods.

As we said a little earlier, sedimentary rock contains very few radioactive elements, or ‘isotopes’, so instead geochronologists use K-Ar dating to try to date the volcanic, or ‘igneous’ rocks that has somehow penetrated into sedentary rock, or which can be found sandwiching it on either side.



Before we take a look at why K-Ar dating is far more complicated and controversial than it’s routinely made out to be by scientists, let’s first try to understand a bit more about it.

Potassium makes up around 2.5% of the earth’s crust, and is commonly found in ‘igneous rock’, which just means rock that is formed from cooled magma, or lava. Radioactive potassium, or ‘Potassium 40’ accounts for about 1/10,000th of the overall potassium on earth.

Over time, potassium 40 breaks down and is transformed into an inert gas called argon, and to calcium. The theory goes that the older a rock is, the more argon gas it should contain. 


Geochronologists believe they can measure the ratio of potassium to argon in a rock, then use that to date the moment the rock first crystallised from magma.

When a lava flow first gushes out of the volcano, or out of a fissure in the ground, it’s so hot that science assumes that any argon gas contained in the boiling hot magma will escape into the environment, and won’t be present in the rock formed when the lava cools.

As the lava cools, different minerals crystallize out at different temperatures, which continues to change the actual composition of the cooling lava.

Fast-cooling lava is called ‘extrusive’, and usually goes on to form a type of rock called basalt.

Lava that cools more slowly, usually because it’s cooling underground, usually turns in granite or quartz. So scientists believe that they can date a lava flow based on the minerals it contains, and that this date should be consistent across different lava flows and rocks, enabling them to accurately date the geological age of a rock.

Which is where we hit a few enormous problems with K-40 dating, because in order for it to really work, it has to rely on the following unproven assumptions, namely:

1)            There was no argon gas already present within the rock at the time it cooled and crystallised.

2)            No argon gas, and no potassium 40[1] entered or exited the rock since the time it was first formed.

3)           That potassium 40 decays at a constant rate.

4)           The data coming out of radiometric dating can be accurately linked with a specific geological event.


But none of these things are really true.

Firstly, potassium and argon atoms can easily move through rocks if the rock is subsequently heated or deformed in some way – and when you’re dealing with igneous or volcanic rock, that’s really a given.

Also, when water percolates through rock, it can also easily transport potassium and argon atoms, and deposit them in different places.

For example, one group of researchers found that “as much as 80% of the potassium in a small sample of iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours.” All these things ‘reset’ the K-40 clock, and can give false readings.

Another problem with K-40 dating specifically (and radiometric dating generally) is that cosmic radiation is not stable, (just look at all the UVC readings going off the charts the last few months that is meant to be ‘unprecedented’) and a rock’s exposure to the fluctuating energy contained in cosmic rays could also have a big impact on the rate and timescale required for radioactive isotopes to decay.

And lastly, each time igneous or sedimentary rock is ‘metamorphosed’, which means that it’s subjected to some form of heat, or pressure, that causes it to change without returning it back to being molten rock, that resets its potassium-argon ‘clock’.


So, while the USGS website explains that: “Potassium-Argon dating is the only viable technique for dating very old archaeological materials” the USGS itself is seriously qualifying the accuracy of K-Ar dating when it explains that:

“The technique works well for almost any igneous or volcanic rock, provided that the rock gives no evidence of having gone through a heating-recrystallization process after its initial formation.”

But how on earth can that possibly be the case, when the rock being tested was forged in the crucible of massive volcanic activity – and that activity is still ongoing, even today?



The volcanic rock being tested wouldn’t even have to melt or experience anything very drastic in order to completely throw out the dating process.

The results could be skewed radically, if all that happened is that the rock contained some tiny cracks that would let gas in or out, or that would enable some water to percolate through it.

Remember that the very air we breathe contains argon, and that the amounts of argon being measured are minuscule, somewhere in the order of one ten millionth of the mass of a rock.

For a piece of volcanic rock to be dated as being 570 million years old, all it would need to contain is just one hundredth of a millionth of argon. 

A thousand year old rock could easily bring back dates of being 500 million years old if less than one part in a trillion of argon would penetrate that rock every day.


Argon is present in the air, argon is water soluble, lava itself contains a lot of argon which is released into the atmosphere as it cools, and argon gas is mobile in rock. So it really wouldn’t take much at all to bring back those kinds of very old readings from volcanic rock, using K-40 dating methods.

Perhaps the best way to really grasp some of the enormous problems associated with K-40 dating methods is to take a look at a couple of real-life examples where it returned highly controversial results.



A few years’ ago, a team of researchers decided to try to date some of the fossilized wood that had been found embedded in the Marlstone Rock Bed from the Hornton Quarries near Banbury, in England.

This limestone is typically dated as being 189 million years old according to the Geological Column, because it contained a number of ammonite index fossils from the Jurassic period. The limestone itself can’t be dated radiometrically, but the fossilised wood it contained could be dated using Carbon 14.

The researchers collected three separate samples of fossilised wood, taken from right next to the index fossils still embedded in the strata, and sent them off to the Geochron Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also to the Antares Mass Spectometry Lab in Sydney, Australia. They didn’t tell the labs where the wood had come from, nor how old the limestone they’d come from was ‘meant to be’, according to the Geological Column.

The wood samples came back with an average age of between 23,000–23,500 years old, a far cry from the 189 million years that had been assigned to the Jurassic limestone that encased them.



Most people don’t understand this, but when we read reports that something is ‘dated’ by radiometric dating to a particular time, all that means is that a huge range of dates – sometimes spanning even billions of years – came back from the radiometric dating process, and the researchers simply choose the one that best suits their hypothesis and view of the world.

Already in 1979, researcher A. Hayatsu explained that:

 “In conventional interpretation of K-Ar [potassium-argon] age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.”

See? It’s that circular logic thing again. The made-up, Victorian wishful thinking Geological Time Scale says that the strata of Cambrian rock is 570 million years old. So then, if a researcher believes that he’s looking at rock from the Cambrian era, and he’s got a massive range of radiometric readings to pick from, guess which one he’s going to go with?

Exactly. The one that will ‘date’ it to the Cambrian period, which will support his prior assumptions.

Any dates that don’t agree with what the researchers expect to find are usually called ‘anomalous’, and discarded. 


How many times are these anomalous dates being tossed by scientists? Nobody knows. Scientists aren’t compelled to make this information public, so the general public usually only get access to the best, cherry-picked results which most closely reflects the date the scientist is hoping to see.

Before radiometric dating became so highly politicized, some of these ‘anomalous dates’ were still being published and shared in reputable journals.

For example, the Radiocarbon and Science Journal published hundreds of examples of ‘anomalous dates’ for Carbon 14, including:

  • Russian coal from the Pennsylvanian period that was conventionally dated according to the Geological Table as being 300 million years old, but which returned a Carbon 14 date of 1,680 years; and
  • natural gas deposits taken from Alabama that was meant to have been 50 million years old, and from the Cretaceous Period, but which returned a Carbon 14 date of 30,000 years old.


And then there were the one bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits located near Los Angeles, which were meant to be between 100,000-one million years old, but returned a Carbon 14 date of 28,000 years.

But today, it’s very rare for mainstream science to publish or share their ‘anomalous dates’ data, which is making it increasingly difficult to challenge researchers’ own hypotheses about the timescales involved for geological phenomena, fossils and of course, climate change.

Because if the K-Ar dating methods being used to date old lava flows and volcanic tuff aren’t as reliable as the volcanologists like to imply, that could change the whole picture considerably.



In June 1992, researchers collected a 15 lb block of dacite from the lava dome of the St Helen’s volcano in the US, which had erupted 12 years’ earlier, in 1980, killing 51 people. Some of this rock was crushed, sieved and processed into a powder that were then given to the Geochron Lab in Cambridge, MA for K-40 dating.

The lab came back with a number of K-Ar datings for the sample from Mount St Helens, ranging from 350,000 years to 2.8 million years old.

Remember, that lava rock was then just 12 YEARS OLD.


Other volcanic flows have also come back with incorrect dates, showing that this is a widespread and very common problem.

For example, when Sunset Crater in northern Arizona erupted 900 years ago, artefacts from the local Native American tribes were caught up in flow of lava, providing a solid basis for dating the flow, especially when taken together with the Native Indian’s own stories about the eruption.

But when radiometric dating techniques were used with this pyroclastic flow, they dated it to between 210,000 to 230,000 years old.

Then, there was the Kaupelehu pyroclasticflow from the Hualalai Volcano, that erupted in Hawaii around 1800.

A variety of different age estimates came back for these rocks ranging from 140 million to 2.96 billion years old. 

Remember, that lava flow was actually just 200 years old.

Clearly, radiometric dating is not anywhere near as accurate, or consistent as mainstream science likes to insist it is, particularly when it comes to dating artefacts that come from areas with a lot of seismic activity, earthquakes, and volcanic activity – i.e. most of the world.


Ad kan.

They are lying about everything…. and how I wish more people would really start to understand that.


PS: The ‘Tiferet Yisrael’ quoted in R’ Palvani’s article as using the idea of ‘Cosmic Shitot’ to push things like Darwin’s theory of evolution is someone we already covered, here on the blog. Take a look here:

You might also like this article:

8 replies
  1. Chaim
    Chaim says:

    I have a little theory/chiddush that, as history progresses, time accelerates the degradation of matter in an exponential progression, the lower its standing in Creation.

    Sin drains a person’s life-force and weakens him and it’s only natural to expect that the world as a whole, which became polluted with sin, would also be degraded due to that.

    Consider: People used to live 900+ years in the early years of Creation. Now we are down to something like 80-90.

    If humans who are made in the image of Hashem suffered such downgrade, what would that mean for vegetable and inanimate matter? Probably they suffered a lot more, and in an exponential sense, though they wouldn’t show so much to the naked eye.

    So, $cientists might “see” and “conclude” that a certain substances are millions (or thousands) of years old, when in reality time has made it look like it’s older than it actually is. Especially after the mabul, when Hashem “removed his Ruach”.

    It’s worth noting that the 6 days of Creation are definitely not like 6 days as we experience. Maybe they are also millions or billions of years in our perception, since there was no physical reality, Hashem “created and destroyed worlds”, and in the “little hour” Adam had from his birth, he already named all animals, prayed for rain, made vegetation sprout and sinned. He could well have prepared the rocks to look like they are millions of years old.

    But yeah, scientists tend to be arrogant and weaponize their findings for evil, that I agree 100%.

    Feel free to disagree and refute. I’m willing to be corrected.

  2. Rivka Levy
    Rivka Levy says:

    IThe only thing I’d say is that ‘time’ is a meaningless concept outside of human perception. So to say the 6 days of creation equates to any other unit of ‘human time’, even millions, billions of years etc, seems unnecessary for the chiddush, which I otherwise really like a lot. Thanks for sharing it.

  3. Simcha Vsasson
    Simcha Vsasson says:

    Well done. Great piece. This is without even getting into the ridiculousness of dinosaurs. I’m certainly into giants; giant people, giant lizards, beasts, and birds, and giant trees….but dinosaurs…no thanks I’ll pass.

    Maybe they once existed in “outer space”:):)

  4. Simon
    Simon says:

    You mentioned your LinkedIn account, and I went on there and it reminded me of your book “The Spiritual Self Help Guide for Optimal Healing,” and I believe God desired me to become reacquainted with that.
    I’ve been struggling with anxious worries for a while, and then I end up worrying about the worries and it just keeps feeding itself. For example, when I pray to God about it, I feel like “What do I say? How do I ask God about this? How can I ever do it right?” Etc.
    Because it feels like I have to worry about doing everything perfectly (praying, etc.), I’ll try just praying a few sentences instead of a lot (and leave the rest up to God).

    • Rivka Levy
      Rivka Levy says:

      Simon, God just wants the heart – the effort, the yearning. You can’t really do this ‘wrong’. We’re all here just on a learning mission that takes 120 years, and making mistakes is part and parcel of that.

      We don’t have to be ‘perfect’, just to own up to the fact that we aren’t perfect, and often make mistakes and get things wrong.

      Sadly, that’s the bit most people’s egos won’t allow them to do.

      And that’s really all that’s required.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.