Do You Think It's Possible,The Universe Is Only 6000 Years Old

a reply to: sapien82

so there are definitely ways for geologists to identify what type of rock or meteorite they are looking at.

True. But the All seeing one does not understand the science so it can't be right and anyway as science is "corruption, mind control, and manipulation for dubious reasons" - especially Geology, apparently - it seems a bit pointless arguing with a poster with such a closed mind set.

a reply to: Phantom423I think Ill first discuss the subject of "Argument".

Arguing, is part of the learning process, both pro and con of any subject. Without argument its impossible to learn, or, change ones point of view. Argument is a healthy and normal way, of learning.

Without argument, we would all be religious zombies, wearing our binders, being herded on the flat earth... "Do as I tell you, and don't argue."!!

In doing research one must first be aware that such studies exist, in order to interrogate the findings or conclusions. If you noticed, I asked how it was done. Thank you for your reply.

In as far as the research, which I have not done in the area of Martian Chemistry, and the sample you point out, in my opinion is very limited in scope. But none the less, good science. It does not take into account other environments that may have been present on Mars in the deep past. Or "Other" atmospheres that may have been present. And the only way to study the chemistry is by "Boots on the ground". Going 6 foot down to retrieve a sample may give entirely different results.

This forum is a platform to bring knowledge, research, to the table to be debated, argued, so that the ultimate truth may be discovered, if I'm not mistaken. My problem isn't that I don't research. I have been researching, reading, taking eye witness accounts, for over 40 years. My problem is that I am a human being, not a computer that can spit a answer out in seconds. It takes time to become proficient in ALL disciplines. And I am running out, of time! So please forgive me if it appears, I ldon't do research.

Thank you for your input.

This forum is a platform to bring knowledge, research, to the table to be debated, argued, so that the ultimate truth may be discovered, if I'm not mistaken

If that is the case, then why do you try to tell us that a vast body of established scientific knowledge - eg Geology - is wrong and you are right? Then you offer your un-researched opinions on Martian chemistry to dismiss these findings by specialist and qualified Scientists as:

in my opinion is very limited in scope.

.

Does that not sound just a tad arrogant and full of self importance, no?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Its all about the observation. Not, the theory! Its about facts, not assumptions. But, they all have their proper place, and proper time. Subduction is a theory, not a fact.

Indeed. But subduction is a theory supported by lots and lots of observations, measurements and a huge amount of data from all those observations, studies and measurements which tend to support that theory.

Whereas you have: your beliefs. Which, if you don't mind me saying so, are a little....odd.

I am not closed minded. Except to say I believe Dr S Warren Carey was, is, on the right tack.

I also believe those "Observations" you mentioned being supportive of "Subduction" are actually misidentified and being misapplied.

I have agreed to limited, partial subduction, that can be seen in, for instance, coal deposits, veins, where the crust was pushed in a manner as an accordion, and the crust folded over itself, trapping organic matter and compressing it into coal, while forming mountain ranges. But to "Assume" the crust is forced under itself to be recycled in massive lava pits on a global scale, is as Dr Carey stated, is a myth! Besides, if the type of subduction you claim to exist actually existed, there would be no mountains, for the pressure required to create the mountains, would have subducted itself...into, itself. Do we see mountain ranges?? Its a obvious choice...

Odd? Certainly, when all you have to see, is what is taught. Try and enter Dr Carey's mind and it might not be so odd, after-all.

Samuel Warren Carey

The Subduction Myth*

I would give more links but they lead to pay to view articles. And I don't want to do that. That in itself is quite telling.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Does that not sound just a tad arrogant and full of self importance, no?

It is not I who is the arrogant "Ones". I simply call it like I see it.

In as far as my personal importance, get real. Your opinion holds as much water as mine. The difference is, I allow for viewpoints outside of the main stream, or underground stream, as you prefer.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Besides, if the type of subduction you claim to exist actually existed, there would be no mountains, for the pressure required to create the mountains, would have subducted itself...into, itself. Do we see mountain ranges?? Its a obvious choice.

No, that does not follow at all. I don't think that you understand the theory but as you admit to not doing research I am not surprised. You just seem to like reading stuff that confirms your beliefs - confirmation bias, in other words.

I have come across Carey and the Expanding Earth theory. Science has moved on since then but sadly you have not. Clearly, you have your beliefs and that is all well and good but if you cannot come up with some actual data and evidence to support them then beliefs are all you have.

Feel free to try to convert people to your beliefs and best of luck with that.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

The difference is, I allow for viewpoints outside of the main stream, or underground stream, as you prefer.

Yes, but due to your confirmation bias you only seem to allow for viewpoints that happen to agree with yours.

I am not talking about my opinion as having any particular weight, I am just going with the vast bulk of scientific knowledge whereas you claim it is wrong. Not only do you claim it is wrong, you also claim some vast and nefarious cover up.

So, there you go. As you are All Seeing I expect you probably know best, dear.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I also believe those "Observations" you mentioned being supportive of "Subduction" are actually misidentified and being misapplied.

Apart from your belief about that would you care to explain what observations you are referring to (I was referring to them generally and not specifically) and how they might be "misidentified" and/or "misapplied"?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

The difference is, I allow for viewpoints outside of the main stream, or underground stream, as you prefer.

Yes, but due to your confirmation bias you only seem to allow for viewpoints that happen to agree with yours.

I am not talking about my opinion as having any particular weight, I am just going with the vast bulk of scientific knowledge whereas you claim it is wrong. Not only do you claim it is wrong, you also claim some vast and nefarious cover up.

So, there you go. As you are All Seeing I expect you probably know best, dear.

What I know in my heart of hearts, is honesty, is the best policy! Dear.

How does one enlighten, awaken, inform a population that everything they thought was true and right are nothing more than fiction, myths, and mind games? Do you use the same format that was used to control the population, to deprogram them? Or, do you just, lay the truth on the line. As the NSA says, let the chips fall where they may.

How long does it take to deprogram a generation? Well, that would depend on their life span. Short answer, 1. Well, that is, if, you intend on disclosing ALL the truth.

John Nash and his beautiful mind! He did not let anything interfere with his mindset. He deducted much corruption via his mathematical abilities. He wasn't a fluke of nature, he was a divine gift. A divine gift to show us when we believe we are right to stick to our guns!

I'm no John Nash, for if I were, I would have already been subdued. But, just as John saw things that didn't "Add" up, so too, do I.

There actually is a coverup of not only history, but of our physical world as well. And I see it just as clearly as John did.

Knowing best? Full, absolute disclosure,ASAP! We don't have anymore generations to waist.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

So, you just have your beliefs. Nothing more.

John Nash? You think he was "subdued"? Rather than suffering in his later years from....erm....paranoid schizophrenia?

And you think that everything we have ever been told about everything is a lie and a cover up? That they are all in on it?

I think I will just stop there and wish you all the best.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Do you use the same format that was used to control the population, to deprogram them?

Yes,

you claim the science is wrong then show it is wrong using the same format, the format that shows it works or is right via the scientific method is used often to update information and knowledge and show previous theories were incomplete.

How long does it take to deprogram a generation?

it takes a few seconds to learn 1+1 = 2.

If you have math that shows its not it would take just as long to learn the new math showing 1 +1 = 3.

Same goes for the science of geology that you claim is corrupt or what you said, show you understand its method and use the same method to prove it wrong.

Its how the sciences have worked and have evolved for 1000s of years.



Funny you mention John Nash,

I'm no John Nash, for if I were, I would have already been subdued. But, just as John saw things that didn't "Add" up, so too, do I.

I though John Nash revised an already existing theory to make it better fit

There actually is a coverup of not only history, but of our physical world as well. And I see it just as clearly as John did.

John Nash saw a cover up in history?

Knowing best? Full, absolute disclosure,ASAP! We don't have anymore generations to waist.

what are saying here?

that humanity knows all the secret's of the universe but its being covered up?

Seriously, full absolute disclosure of what?

Geology being corrupt? History being manipulated?

History is written by the victors, always has and is known and debated by many historians.

I love science that is free of corruption, mind control, and manipulation for dubious reasons. Do I really need to prove corruption exists within the scientific community? Especially, when it comes to Geology (Geodeology)!

Yes, if you claim it is then please show you understand it and prove it wrong instead of asking questions that show you don't understand how geology works and then claim its corrupt.

I am ignorant to how my phone is put together and works, yeah I know the basics but the technical specs of how and why it works the way it does is beyond me,

It must be the devils work, its all a deception to control my mind.

This is basically the avenue you have taken, its great to listen to your intuition but its hard for some to discern their intuition from their delusions and they end up making ridiculous claims and statements.

So to finish yes please prove Geology is corrupt and what is taught is some sort of mind control.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

I am ignorant to how my phone is put together and works, yeah I know the basics but the technical specs of how and why it works the way it does is beyond me, It must be the devils work, its all a deception to control my mind.

I am with you there. Witchcraft and electrickery.

The fall of man spilled a catalyst, time has been hardening ever since. Not a constant. Counting time is a sin. The root of all evil.