It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationist Quackery, Part 150, 001 : Creationists Say Aliens Don't Exist, So Let's Stop Looking!

page: 20
10
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge


Because that can only happen if the entity is invited into a home or person. Gods Angels can rid it but not by yourself, You have to say the right things and beg the Gods Angels to help you if you did not have the proper protection before hand that let it happen.

How interesting to have a conversation with someone like yourself. In real life, I rarely meet people like you.


edit on 1/1/15 by Astyanax because: you, me, what's the difference?




posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I'll put together a response later on today. Briefly, "halos", and other geometric phenomena, usually are formed by replacement processes. Going back to chemical diffusion mentioned above, a wide variety of elements and minerals probably form "halos". I doubt that Polonium is the only element to form them. But I need to review the literature.

I'll get back to you later today with a more detailed answer.



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Prezbo369

Since you don't know who Vallee and Hynek are (for the 30th time, not Christians) then you surely won't know what they concluded.

1. That the UFO/alien phenomena is inter-dimensional and not extra-terrestrial.
2. That it appears demonic. (only because abductions seem to always be ended immediately by the person being abducted invoking the Name of Jesus and the aliens and UFOs operated with a certain degree of deception)

I myself don't think they are demons, I think the aliens are hybrids of human and animal DNA created by fallen angels, which are not demons.


So these two guys came to the conclusion that apparent alien visitors are biblical demons......despite neither of them actually being christians (as you claim). This makes no sense.

In order for someone to come to the conclusion that biblical demons actually exist, surely they then have already come to the conclusion that the bible is true? and i'm sure there's a name for people that have come to such a conclusion.....

You didn't source this information (as requested) so I find the whole story highly dubious (along with hilarious), and your attempts to have your wacky christian belief sound more credible, by claiming 'highly respected' (lol) non-christians also hold the same beliefs, have face-planted.

'abductions seem to always be ended immediately by the person being abducted invoking the Name of Jesus and the aliens and UFOs operated with a certain degree of deception'

Sneaky Aliens = demons........LOL

I recently stubbed my little toe and 'invoked' the name of jesus christ.......as i'm sure most English speaking people do in such circumstances.....does this mean toes are demons?

I honestly have no idea how anyone could believe the above as true, or even conclude that the people making such claims were of sound body and mind......



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Just to add a vid dealing with food for thought in the real world as to how some might interpret how the geological record is laid down . Small lab models or studies serve a purpose but they may not paint a perfect picture as to the how and why's especially dealing with time series . Mt St.Helens gave a real time series and a much bigger experiment than could ever be conducted in a lab . Origins - Mount St. Helens - Explosive Evidence for Creation with Dr. Steve Austin
Compare what is pointed out in the vid that has a time stamp that can be confirmed to other geologic formations that have similar characteristics but are told millions of years or even billions of years that can not be confirmed but can be believed .



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Do you have any fact based research papers that confirm this guy's claims? Sorry don't have 30 minutes to watch an old man talk about St Helens, I gave it 5 minutes and he didn't get to the point. I prefer to read studies not listen to people talk on youtube. Youtube videos can easily lie.
edit on 2-1-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Yea sure . I myself rather listen to a speaker personality but will also do some reading as well OK here is his scoop

B.S. (Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano creation.com...

Summary

The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar ‘age’ of 0.35 ± 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from the dacite which formed in 1986 give K-Ar ‘ages’ from 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (feldspar-glass concentrate) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma (pyroxene concentrate). These ‘ages’ are, of course, preposterous. The fundamental dating assumption (‘no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed’) is questioned by these data. Instead, data from this Mount St Helens dacite argue that significant ‘excess argon’ was present when the lava solidified in 1986. Phenocrysts of orthopyroxene, hornblende and plagioclase are interpreted to have occluded argon within their mineral structures deep in the magma chamber and to have retained this argon after emplacement and solidification of the dacite. The amount of argon occluded is probably a function of the argon pressure when mineral crystallization occurred at depth and/or the tightness of the mineral structure. Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase. The lava dome at Mount St Helens dates very much older than its true age because phenocryst minerals inherit argon from the magma. The study of this Mount St Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar ‘ages’ from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide? a reply to: Barcs

This is another piece where he looks at the formations in the Grand Canyon and shows some of the similar formations to Mount St. Helens creation.com...


edit on 2-1-2015 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

After going through the literature, I found that your question has already been answered in detail by several geologists.

This paper is probably the most thorough: www.csun.edu...

The following comments come from the talkorigins website:
Even if we assume that concentric ring haloes actually are due to alpha radiation damage, an immediate problem arises with the short half-life of the polonium isotopes themselves. In order to leave a visible radiation damage halo, the affected mica or fluorite grains would have to crystallize before the polonium decayed away to background levels - about 10 half lives. For polonium isotopes, this correlates to between a fraction of a second (Po-212, Po-214, Po-215) and 138.4 days (Po-210). Gentry's hypothesis calls for pure, concentrated polonium at the center of each ring. The model makes no distinction between which polonium isotopes should be present - thus, there should be equal likelihood for all. He points out that there is no known geochemical process by which such concentrations can occur during crystallization of a magma, concluding therefore that polonium haloes are indicative of some non-natural or supernatural occurrence.

Gentry (1970, 1974), himself, notes a number of aspects about concentric haloes which cannot be explained by the alpha decay hypothesis. Dwarf and giant haloes cannot be reconciled with any known alpha decay energies. Gentry postulates that these anomalous size haloes represent new elements or new forms of alpha decay. Neither explanation seems likely given the current state of knowledge of radioactive elements (ICRP, 1983; Parrington, et al., 1996). Other haloes show "ghost" rings which don't correspond to any measured alpha decay energy, and which remain unexplained. Finally, there are "reversed coloration" haloes, supposed uranium haloes in which the gradation of color intensity in the circular band is opposite to, and the ring diameters offset from, those in a "normal" uranium pattern. Other exceptions to Gentry's energy vs. ring diameter model have been noted by Odom and Rink (1989) and Moazed et al. (1973). Gentry speculates on the cause(s) of some of these anomalous features, but provides no empirical data to support any explanation. Indeed, Gentry appears to be more willing to question the evidence provided by the physical samples than to question the validity of his model.

____________________________

My own assessment is that Gentry relied on research that was done in 1917 and 1939 without a mention of new analytical techniques that might alter those results.

Gentry tends to make broad speculative statements in his work, none of which have any associated empirical evidence. In other words, he explains his interpretation of the data by "guessing" that an instantaneous, supernatural occurrence is the only possible explanation for the halos.

Just imagine for a moment that cancer researchers made the same speculative statements about the disease. There would be no cancer research because a "supernatural being" created it, we don't know how or why, and there's nothing we can do about it. So shut down research and die from the disease because that's why the Creator designed cancer.

Neither Gentry nor any of his associates have ever responded to any direct refutation of their work. The paper I posted above cites a number of very valid questions. A critique of an article in American Laboratory by Mark Armitage, an associate of Gentry, was sent to the editor of that publication: www.csun.edu... Armitage never responded - and I suspect that none of these Creation "scientists" ever will.

That alone tells you that:
1. They are not real scientists. A real scientist answers questions regarding their work. They accept challenges and are willing to debate their results. These guys engage in incestuous conversations only - they never respond to outside professionals in the field.
2. The number of errors in their work is overwhelming - from the origin of sampling to their conclusions.
3. A real scientist doesn't give up the ship! These guys attribute everything they can't explain to a supernatural force. Once again, if other scientific fields adopted the same attitude, we would be further back than a Stone Age culture, offering sacrifices to the gods to "fix" whatever it is we didn't understand.








edit on 3-1-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
"Gentry tends to make broad speculative statements in his work, none of which have any associated empirical evidence. In other words, he explains his interpretation of the data by "guessing" that an instantaneous, supernatural occurrence is the only possible explanation for the halos." Particle physicist make same types of speculation without empirical evidence and claim that the particle is now every where at all times .

" Just imagine for a moment that cancer researchers made the same speculative statements about the disease. There would be no cancer research because a "supernatural being" created it, we don't know how or why, and there's nothing we can do about it. So shut down research and die from the disease because that's why the Creator designed cancer." I disagree because there was something that should not to have happened that did that we now have to live with but can seek our best sources for reprieve from the effects .Weather physical or metaphysical . There are grounds to believe that either can bot work or fail . No need to stop praying or searching for a cure .

From your link " Whereas most geologists have long accepted a "magmatic" origin for large
granite plutons, "batholiths" in which crystallization is imagined to have been
attenuated over millions of years (Leake 1990), their magmatic view was
technically challenged by Robert Gentry, a physicist with a yen to confirm the
biblical tale of Genesis (Gentry 1965, 1970, 1974, 1983, 1988). He suggested that
the Po halos, which are found in the minerals biotite and fluorite in granites and
associated pegmatites, prove that the host rocks were created, not from magma, but
almost instantaneously during Day 1 of the Genesis Week. " I will also draw your attention to another scientific study I made a few posts back only to show that accepted ways of determining ways of age in the past have now to be reconsidered because of the study of the effects of Mt. St. Helens and the geological foot print left behind recorded and with a empirical time stamp and the standard methods that could not accurately measure the time signal in the events . creation.com...

The February 3, 1997 article you linked to I will take into consideration and do some studying on it . I wont say if what I have read thus far is either true or false or that it may be a misrepresentation to the questions or question that Gentury had asked .

"That alone tells you that:
1. They are not real scientists. A real scientist answers questions regarding their work. They accept challenges and are willing to debate their results. These guys engage in incestuous conversations only - they never respond to outside professionals in the field.
2. The number of errors in their work is overwhelming - from the origin of sampling to their conclusions.
3. A real scientist doesn't give up the ship! These guys attribute everything they can't explain to a supernatural force. Once again, if other scientific fields adopted the same attitude, we would be further back than a Stone Age culture, offering sacrifices to the gods to "fix" whatever it is we didn't understand. " taking your same 3 reasons and applying them to the paper dated Feb.3 1997 you would have to make the same conclusions from 1982 (gentry) until 1997 (Kurt Hollocher) = 15 years 1997 to 2015 =18 years . To be a little fair here to both sides one might expect a reply as a counter . Time will tell or it may end up being a funding issue in the end . Some sciences like the collider research have very deep pockets and resources to factor in to the ability of responses to questions that might come about which if answered correctly will only move scientific discovery further down the road . Thanks for the reply :>) a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Regarding the quote: “which are found in the minerals biotite and fluorite in granites and
associated pegmatites, prove that the host rocks were created, not from magma, but
almost instantaneously during Day 1 of the Genesis Week”

How do pegmatites prove anything? Is it reproducible? Is there empirical evidence? Who else in the world of science agrees with him? This is a wild statement for a so-called scientist to make. He no doubt understands that the audience to whom he is addressing doesn’t understand zip about scientific methodology. It’s inexcusable in my opinion.

The video on Mt. St. Helens is another example of complete incompetence. Potassium/Argon dating can only date materials older than 100,000 years. It cannot date anything younger than 100,000. Geochron, the company that did the analysis doesn’t do K-Ar testing any more. When they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y.") So why did Austin even use that lab when he knew that the method wasn’t suitable for his sample?

The most reliable method to date that type of sample is ESR (electron spin resonance). This is a method that I am very familiar with as it is similar to NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). ESR is the most accurate way to date samples from the last 300,000 years. Why didn’t Austin use ESR rather than a technique that he knew would give false results? He could easily repeat his experiment utilizing ESR to confirm his prior results. Why doesn't he do that? The answer is obvious. It's another fraudulent claim with malintent.

This is an excellent article written by a Christian scientist. It explains various dating methods and how they are used. There’s also a series of typical questions and answers about dating at the end of the article.
Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens

941 Estates Drive, Los Alamos, NM 87544
RCWiens@MSN.Com

www.asa3.org...

My opinion of Creationism, Ken Ham, Armitage, Austin et al remains the same. They are cultists who are intentionally perpetrating a fraud. I don’t believe for one minute that ANY of them, particularly the ones who call themselves scientists, believe the garbage they spread. They target a specific group of people who are ripe for a cult because their personalities are easy to imprint with anything that smacks of the supernatural. I also don’t doubt that there’s an ulterior motive behind the fraud – money. Ham is a junk bond specialist who claims citizenship in Australia. His finances and that of his organization are hidden from view. Maybe not for long though……..



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




In order for someone to come to the conclusion that biblical demons actually exist, surely they then have already come to the conclusion that the bible is true?


The Bible isn't the only book that speaks of demons. My daughter isn't religious whatsoever and believes in demons.




or even conclude that the people making such claims were of sound body and mind......


You have no clue who Vallee and Hynek are do you? Just admit it.


edit on 3-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   
As to the why he didn't use ESR (electron spin resonance) I don't know . In Gentry's case I noticed a term in the discussion ,(pristine sample) ....This had a lot to do with the possibly for radon accounting for the halos and I agree that that could have been the case .If so the the sample's ,"pristine" status is valid . I am guessing that the objections to Gentry's and Austin's peer reviewed published papers will if possible be dealt with in future papers by either them or someone else . Had Gentry addressed the sample with a radon test ,that question would not have arrived . In Austins peer reviewed published paper the follow up would be a good one . One thing about Austins works aside from the dating is the natural formations that followed . In one place he shows a pic of the small canyon that was formed and I notices the Dendritic pattern .Standard geology says many years ,Electric universe types say quickly but through electrical discharge . So although both may be correct ,it can happen another way and so saying empirically on way or another is not correct .

The SI (scientific institute ) scientist ,reviewers ,and journals that make up the process has a pox . If your claim that the Gentry's of the world of science is the problem then the ones responsible to make sure they don't make it into the literature has failed and the claim of it being able to produce empirical prof is questionable and leaves lot's of room for doubt . One case is the Cook et al on the 97% consensus .Climate audit's look at PAGES2K and the history surrounding it as well reveals the underbelly of the beast . climateaudit.org... Seeing that a group can conspire and usurp the SI processes and do, only shows that even questioning science is a very healthy approach to the subject .What and how the SI will do to address that pox is something I suspect will be a future endeavor .In the mean time ,papers that are being produced will suffer from the same past ills which cant stand up to the new procedures ,equipment ,and requirements . It's not a one model can fit all and probably never will . Like a sample that may be less pristine then another similar one could be ,the word empirical can be less or more so depending on the situation produced at any one time in history .

" My opinion of Creationism, Ken Ham, Armitage, Austin et al remains the same. They are cultists who are intentionally perpetrating a fraud. I don’t believe for one minute that ANY of them, particularly the ones who call themselves scientists, believe the garbage they spread. They target a specific group of people who are ripe for a cult because their personalities are easy to imprint with anything that smacks of the supernatural. I also don’t doubt that there’s an ulterior motive behind the fraud – money. Ham is a junk bond specialist who claims citizenship in Australia. His finances and that of his organization are hidden from view. Maybe not for long though…….." I will say that you could be correct in your opinion but opinion is not a prof of fraud .Like many of the discussions at climate audit ,the word fraud can mean different things . The Mann v Steyn case that is making it's way through the courts looks at the terms .Who made them when where why and how's and even brings in the EPA's definition of the word that says it doesn't really mean fraud . At the end of the day it can be a discussion about two subjects that will not be conclusively to either side of the debate . Science works on what it believes and moves it's believe accordingly ,and religion works in a similar fashion .Some of my earlier thoughts on both science and religion has changed but where I don't use a scientific method by a spiritual one .

I find dot's and see if they can be connected .I find pieces of the puzzle I call a spiritual one and see where that piece might fit in order to get a bigger picture . I leave the science to the scientist to debate .It has it's own picture that has different pieces ,but not all of them yet .Like my spiritual picture I am collecting science also has to from time to time throw out pieces to there puzzle . Thanks for the link . :>) a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I want to bring to your attention a few points . 1 Dr. Roger C. Wiens seems to be a real scientist because he has the credentials similarly so does Gentry . 2 Your claim that he is a christian I only bring up because no where did I find the prof that I would need to make that judgement .Now you have to understand that like someone claiming to be a scientist requires more evidence then just the claim so too does the "Christian" . How to determine that is not found in the scientific literature but in the Bible . All the instructions are in there and that is what a Christian needs to determine spiritual things .

In the links from your link I find this . www.reasons.org... 1 We believe the bible is 100% without error 2 that include all 66 books of the old and new testament .3 scripture is our supreme and final authority in all matters it addresses . I would also agree with those 3 statements . Now I also understand that like in science you can have a body of believers that may have different opinions on what the data or the words actual can or may mean you can also disagree on what they don't mean . Given the divisions in both camps (science and creation) it would seem likely that we might both agree to disagree . You have your world view and I have mine .You choose the scientific path and I the spiritual one ..Until a time comes that science brings into the fold the metaphysics of the world these two separated lines of discovery will never agree on a empirical truth . My only suggestion where the two can resolve the issue is with the who and what am I of conscientiousness . It's the starting point for the individual and does not use circular reasoning but has a lineal line to follow that requires you to take one step back after the first problem is resolved a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

A good scientist uses the right equipment. If he didn't use the right equipment initially, he most certainly had/has the opportunity to do it later. Mt. St. Helens is a stratovolcano, or a composite, that typically forms layers. There are several of these around the world including the famous Krakatoa volcano in Indonesia. Do the other stratovolcanoes exhibit the same features? That would be an important part of this research. "Pristine" Polonium, or single isotope Polonium, can only be isolated and stabilized in the laboratory. In nature, other isotopes will be mixed in depending on the origin of the Polonium. That really makes it a poor model for the experiment because "pristine" Polonium can only exist for seconds in nature before it degrades. Gentry's best Polonium halos were found in calcite, not in granite as he represented in his paper. That changes the whole process of crystallization and formation of the halos. In any given sample, apparently there are thousands of halos of all sizes. He wasn't very thorough nor did he make any attempt to address concerns of other scientists in the field who called him out on many issues in his paper.

The "Gentry's of the world" are not scientists. They may have studied science and may have some credentials. But that doesn't mean they adhere to best practices in science. Gentry's work clearly is lacking in planning, procedure and interpretation of outcome. That his paper passed a peer-review committee doesn't really mean too much if letters to the editor regarding the paper go unanswered. Those questions remain unanswered. There's no requirement on Gentry's part to answer the questions. But to anyone who knows that he is avoiding answering the questions, it looks very unprofessional.

You are correct about Ham and fraud. I remains to be proven. But my comment on his cult mentality and organization stand. Ham's reconstruction of science, nature and the Bible are really a new religion that has very little to do with Christianity. In fact, I wouldn't even call them Christian. But that's just my opinion.

Religion and science have no conflict. These pseudo conflicts are simply false. Religion involves faith and science involves facts. One person's literal translation of the Bible may be entirely different than another one's. There's over 50 translations and interpretations of the Bible in English alone! So take your pick. It doesn't invalidate religion and it doesn't invalidate science.




edit on 5-1-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I want to consider the following numbered statements with just my opinions

1 Calibration The cross-checking of one measurement with another, usually more certain measurement. Essentially every method of measurement, whether a thermometer, a ruler, or a more complicated instrument, relies on calibration for accuracy. this method is useful for considerations but has some tiny cracks as well .It has been noticed within the climate community that data gets adjusted from time to time and anomalies arise when the new adjusted data is plotted .Some scientist have tried to point out the anomaly and get a explanation but with little success . The fact that this can and does happen brings #1 into question for me

2 Dendrochronology The counting of yearly growth rings on trees. A continuous record of growth rings has been used to calibrate radiocarbon ages back as far as 10,000 years ago. "Floating" dendrochronologies (non-continuous records) go back farther in time. Like other fields of science this process of using tree rings can be misused in scientific papers to further a political claim and would need tests similar to the issue of pristine samples . As was shown in Austins geological layering at Mount St Helens ,the Grand Canyons tree ring type of layers does not account for the possibility of a singular catastrophic event (the flood) to explain the different layers .

3 Deposit Mineral or sandy matter settled out of water or accumulated in a vein. This one is also like #2 as the different sorting of minerals in water currents can isolate different sizes and weights and spread or concentrate them .

4 Extinct Once in existence, but no longer existing in nature. This is where the discovery of species once thought to have become extinct millions of years ago are found in present day . Unless if you were to take the thing a bit further and reason that they didn't go extinct but changed into something other then what they were recorded in the fossil record at that time .

5 Radiocarbon Carbon-14, which is used to date dead plant and animal matter. Radiocarbon is generally not used for dating rocks ....this method can also be shown to not be consistent across different labs and within the same labs .The woolly mammoths in Siberia have good examples of the inconstancy but can be addressed with a better sampling method by better equiped scientest to do so .

6 Stalactite A cylindrical or conical deposit of minerals, generally calcite or aragonite (forms of calcium carbonate), hanging from the roof of a cavern, and generally formed by precipitation (or crystallization) of carbonates from water dripping from the roof. 6a Stalagmite Columns or ridges of carbonate rising from a limestone cave floor, and formed by water charged with carbonate dripping from the stalactites above. only if it can be shown to have maintained a consistency of the elements involved in the process over the time periods .The mere facts that crustal movements can change suggest that the atmosphere inside the caves as well as the magma flows beneath can change the temperature of the environment . Like tree rings have shown that it is very hard to impossible to extract a temperature signal that is consistent with actual temperature records or other types of proxies .

7 Thermoluminescence (TL) dating A method of dating minerals and pottery. Rather than relying on a half-life, this method relies instead on the total amount of radiation experienced by the mineral since the time it was formed. This radiation causes disorder in the crystals, resulting in electrons dwelling in higher orbits than they originally did. When the sample is heated in the laboratory in the presence of a sensitive light detector, these electrons return to their original orbits, emitting light and allowing an age to be determined by comparison of the amount of light to the radioactivity rate experienced by the mineral. Variations on this method include optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL) and infrared-stimulated luminescence (IRSL) dating. The only aspect of this investigation that is not quite settled for me is the speed of light itself .The scientific historic literature and the evidence showing that it possibly has changed raises a red flag . The fact also that the tools and methods over the years may be able to show a more consistent answer to that fact does not or has not as far as I have found answer to differences in the different values of the speed .

8 Varve A sedimentary layer showing distinct texture or color for different seasons within a single year. Varve layers can be counted like tree rings....This one I will let the investigation speak for it's self with climateaudit.org...

above #'s from www.asa3.org... 31 Just because you can get a group of people to agree and sing a song to that agreement does not make is so on either side of the debate .Christianity has never been about a consensus and I suspect science works the same way despite the pressure in both camps to do so .



posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
" Religion and science have no conflict. These pseudo conflicts are simply false. Religion involves faith and science involves facts. One person's literal translation of the Bible may be entirely different than another one's. There's over 50 translations and interpretations of the Bible in English alone! So take your pick. It doesn't invalidate religion and it doesn't invalidate science. "
I disagree that there is no conflict between religion and science in that there is disagreement within bot camps among themselves as well as disagreement across the different camps .

A interesting look as to some of the whys of the differing translations of the bible brings up a very important distinguishing element . Like you or any other scientist would probably agree ,not all scientific text books are created equal and it falls upon the individual to work that out .While scientific text books may be considered getting better ,there exist the fact that you cant say that about the differing bible versions . The vid is nearly a hour long but is a good one for anyone that may have a inquiring mind toward the subject .
a reply to: Phantom423 eta I would also like to submit this vid lecture as well .



edit on 5-1-2015 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Prezbo369
The Bible isn't the only book that speaks of demons.


Shockingly, you seem to have forgotten when you said:



1. That the UFO/alien phenomena is inter-dimensional and not extra-terrestrial.
2. That it appears demonic. (only because abductions seem to always be ended immediately by the person being abducted invoking the Name of Jesus and the aliens and UFOs operated with a certain degree of deception)


So according to them (or you) it's obviously biblical demons..........speaking of a certain degree of deception, does this mean you're also a demon?

And you still haven't provided a source for these claims, this will be the third time it's been requested...


My daughter isn't religious whatsoever and believes in demons.


Lol ok sure, that seems likely......




You have no clue who Vallee and Hynek are do you? Just admit it.


Nope and I've already said as much. After looking into them I find nothing about either man to be particularly noteworthy, neither of them discovered anything worthwhile during their time as Ufologists. I can understand your tendency towards hero worship, but these two men do not give you an 'out' when it comes to extraterrestrial life or UFOs.
edit on 6-1-2015 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
8 Varve A sedimentary layer showing distinct texture or color for different seasons within a single year. Varve layers can be counted like tree rings....This one I will let the investigation speak for it's self with climateaudit.org...


this is what happens when the scientifically illiterate attempt to quote-mine .

the problem is that climate change deniers are in agreement that varves form yearly - thier counterclaim is that varve SIZE cannot be used to extrapolate climate data .

so congrats on demolishing your own " argument "



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   


so congrats on demolishing your own " argument "
a reply to: ignorant_ape And what is my argument again ? I provided a link to a discussion on that one subject that you or anyone else can add your own 2 cents worth there if you dare .I am quite comfortable with the people that discuss things there .



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Well we can agree to disagree on that. The Bible was written by many people. Who knows if the translations are correct? Who knows what the people actually witnessed or if it's second hand information? No way to take any of the to the laboratory.

On the age of dinosaurs, once again, there are very accurate dating methods to date dinosaur bones. To my knowledge, there are no human bones which date to the time of the dinosaurs. The shifting of tectonic plates, the rise and fall of land and oceans probably accounts for the phenomena on the video. In any case, this is something you can take to the lab - which has been done - and there's no scientific evidence that dinosaurs and humans ever occupied the same place at the same time.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
The bible can be relied on with differing evidences to substantiate it .There is very good professors dealing with textual criticism in dealing with dates and types of text . The discovery of the dead sea scrolls being one 2000 years old time capsule as just one . If you disallow the physical evidence in artwork of the past you wont have the evidence to say that it could have been possible . You then would have to concede that man knew nearly 2000 years ago what modern man has only figured out in the past 100 years .These are not proofs in one sense but evidence that could suggest it. Much like the tracks in the vid .It's has been suggested that they were carved but they show with cross sections that it wasn't so . A artifact that has suggestions and cant be just dismissed so easily . a reply to: Phantom423 Micheal Heisser is someone who knows his stuff pretty good



edit on 6-1-2015 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join