It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Do they also consider aliens to be 'demonic'? ....whatever that means.... Are they Muslim or something like that?
Well it's either that or you regurgitated something that someone else pulled out of their ass.....so....
Crafty? it was a direct quote
originally posted by: vasaga
If there are aliens out there, the chance that they'll find us is larger than us finding them. Not saying we should stop looking, but it should not be a priority when we can't even solve our local problems, or we don't even know what's lurking beneath the oceans.
That is ignoring the likely possibility that they are already here, or that we ourselves are aliens with a forgotten past.
Therefor, every act against a believer is against Heaven itself.
Free Will has to do with choosing God, or the other guy, not anything else.
If you don't feel the data that I bring to the debate is objective, then you are free to say so and to challenge it.
a reply to: Phantom423 I was transparent from the start . You were challenging anyone to engage you with debate .We are many pages into this thread and no one has challenged you . We have been discussing a few aspects of science . I didn't come here to debate you but to try and engage in a conversation about a debate . We have both left things on and off the table . I know as many should that both sides of a this subject are going to share things that will over lap and will not really be a issue of debate . Maybe you should lay it out in a scientific manner without assumption but make yourself a hypothesis that can be proven false . For something to be proven as fact should also have the ability to be proven false .have at it and see where it goes because I am sure you will get some takers that will challenge you ...peace
You're finding every excuse in the book not to engage in a debate. You're very transparent
The challenge is very simple and straight forward. Pick a topic in Ham's Creationist science and debate it.
What data are you referring to that I don't understand?
And how were you misled?
I also haven't presented any hard data in this thread to my knowledge so not sure what you're talking about.
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Ok op this is not Ham's challenge but seeing you are a scientist and verify of falsify this science ,it is the best I could find . " Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation. " www.halos.com... The lecture or some of his presentation is on YT a reply to: Phantom423
I am not a scientist and from what I can find ,neither is Thomas A Baillieau
If his argument had weight to it I would have suspected to find a discussion with Dr.Gentry and his work.
Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three “singularities” — one-time divine interventions — over the past 6000 years. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the halos based on current scientific theory? Indeed, this is where most creationist arguments break down: when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science.
Some times it is so easy to misrepresent what someone else has said or is saying .
I will leave the debate up to the scientist that discuss such things