Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

my theory why we have such short lifespans


  • Please log in to reply
174 replies to this topic

#106    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,702 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:46 PM

"Modem of Operandi"  :w00t:

The only definition i could think of is

Modem (of) Operandi -  The Armchair Pseudo-Whatever-ianTM's way of posting garbage on forums.

from The Spartan's Cynic Phrases & idioms

Edited by The Spartan, 08 February 2011 - 12:47 PM.

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#107    PAPA PITBULL63

PAPA PITBULL63

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 62 posts
  • Joined:02 Feb 2011

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:53 PM

we live such short life cycles because that is the way nature sets a natural balance between life and death.if we all lived 2 times our normal age,there would be no food to eat,no place to live,and would increases the carbon footprint like a billion times higher!

"When a true genius appears,you may know him by this sign,
when the dunces are all in confideracy against him"

{johnathan swift}

#108    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 08 February 2011 - 03:21 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 08 February 2011 - 02:07 AM, said:

The remark about credentials was mine, Abramelin. I was just stating that physicsolved wasn't aware of the experience and background of some of the people he's been disputing. I was annoyed that physicsolved, like some other UM posters with whom we're familiar, tends toward the practice of just dismissing evidence to bolster their own ideas. Or egos. Or whatever.

In any case I for one appreciate your joining the fray. I know it's more or less fruitless to try to spread some light into the dim murkiness of the extreme fringe, but when absurd claims are made, a response is appropriate. Case in point:



The kinds of things you claim to have familiarity with are exactly the kinds of things we're trying to get you to rise to, physicsolved. If you truly understood the methodologies and research principles that have gone into these fields for more than a century, you would not be arguing against us at all. You would be agreeing with us.

On an aside, I've decided not to expound on the earlier post (I suggested I might, back in post 83). I mean, what would be the point? Folks like Abramelin and cormac have seen me do it countless times before and probably already knew the information as well as I, so the only immediate benefit would be yours. And you don't like real research and corroboration of evidence, so I'm going to give myself a break.

And on a final note, earlier you wrote: "I would encourage Abrameline to visit my thread in this forum discussing language and anatomy." I know it's probably not evident to you, physicsolved, but there's a reason that thread of yours is a digital ghost town.


Thanks for the many conVOLUted EVOLuted EVALuations of the room. ( evaluations of, but not confined to: history/language/anthropology/archeology/science/geneology/geology.

Many posts in the room represent   “numerous coils”. Many posts are redundantly tangential (“thought disorder”..?) .  The many scenarios expressed in the room represent the facts according to the “we in us.” (  convoluted pedestals beginning with we and running along the same lines as… we).

Many maintain the  character of “ rolling longitudinally along themselves” relative to their  convenient self-estimations of “facts”(“grain of salt”). That’s how “they roll”. “They” are a  “highly complex or intricate and occasionally devious….mass(guild) of diverse customs”………… verses laws and principles.


Namely: “I do not know how to debate you.”

Many are a victim of “fate”( evolutionary dogma distorting their ability to reason on things correctly). As a result of this inferior mindset  many view  “ape” actions( or fish; microorganisms)  as a “major factor” in what happens to them. With such disposition these ones will remain “powerless to effect change” on both the course of their  reasoning(s) as well the occasional evolution VS creation …debates.

Evolutionary dogma results necessarily in “low self-esteem.” This usually is as a result of seeing the world as “random without any guiding rules.” Those who maintain this “world view” are “likely to get frustrated.” People with an external locus of control may be superstitious- it was the “lucky rat” that enabled the Israelites to overthrow Senachrib, not the mighty hand of an extra terrestrial entity. ( Note: Principle of physics: Invisible power ( energy)and force can act upon visible “mass” either in a favorable or destructive way.) A little bit of “invisible organism” can go a long way…186,000 miles a sec( 185,000 Assyrians)  

Many people view “change” ( from religious views; not dissimilar to evolutionary ideology) with fear, since people with external locus of control robs the individual ( evolution robs humans of dignity and feelings of self-worth) of his expectations of making things better.( evolution: no hope, no justice, no purpose…what’s the use). These ones feel “powerless and uncertain as to what did happen and may happen, or where they may fit into the system.” These ones..” individually may not actually like the current situation ( of human thought), but because life is random and the consequences of actions cannot be predicted, they resist change.” This occurs equally when this view is taken…”collectively.”

Better to suffer with what they have now ( evolutionary interpretation of.. everything) than to risk it getting worse(better= Intelligent design relative to a benevolent creator who always upholds principles of love, hope, justice …thus a world wide retribution for those who reject such noble and beneficial …principles and laws.


#109    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 08 February 2011 - 03:24 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 08 February 2011 - 03:39 AM, said:

My bad, Abramelin. I guess Post 97 was his way of showing his "credentials." But as I pondered in my previous post, you'd think that someone who's studied so many disciplines would have some idea of how research is performed. :rolleyes:


According to "you"...define for me "how research is performed.


#110    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 08 February 2011 - 03:25 PM

View Postdigitalartist, on 08 February 2011 - 04:56 AM, said:

As I said in my last post, the flood could not happen as accounted in the bible.  I never said there was no flood.  I proved the bible wrong in one respect that either the waters covered Mt Everest or the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat, but with the vast difference in heights between the two mountains, both can not be true though the bible erroneously indicates they both were.  If there can be an error there, other errors can also exist.  Though the bible says the mountains of Ararat, the only option, if one reads carefully, is Mt Ararat itself.  The Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, but the tops of the mountains were not visible for another 74 days, so the only mountain that the Ark could have come to rest on would have been the highest mountain which is Mt Ararat.

It is not the distance they would have to travel down the mountain that proves the difficulty but the conditions they would have encountered in that trek.  To quote my own research paper concerning the conditions on Mt Ararat.



It would not have been the simple descent and ascent as you would like to believe but far more perilous.  Deep snows, ice, invisible trails and lack of sufficient oxygen would all have played their parts in the difficulties encountered.

I find that some of your posting is lacking in the research department, for example your assertion that the ark was bigger than the titanic.  This is untrue the ark was 450 L x 75 W x 45 H  the titanic was 882 L x 92 W x 60 H.  You may wish to make quick searches on the internet before posting comparisons to be sure of the accuracy of the facts.

No one on here, except you, in your flawed observation above, has ever referred to or believes Noah to be "a grunting ape with a small brain who cannot even master how to get termites out of a termite mound".  

I have approached this subject with logic and common sense, while others, mostly believers in the bible,  look at the facts like the conflict between a landing at Ararat and the covering of Everest or the effects the environmental hazards at the summit of Ararat would have on the passengers of the ark, as well as other facts, and choose either to ignore them completely or make rush judgments that they in no way invalidate anything, without ever looking into it more thoroughly.


I suppose you would equally assert ( rather than prove) that evolution is NOT riddled with "errors"


#111    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,432 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 08 February 2011 - 03:38 PM

View Postphysicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 03:21 PM, said:

Many posts are redundantly tangential

Bloody hell, you're not wrong there love.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#112    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 08 February 2011 - 03:42 PM

View Postdigitalartist, on 08 February 2011 - 04:56 AM, said:

As I said in my last post, the flood could not happen as accounted in the bible.  I never said there was no flood.  I proved the bible wrong in one respect that either the waters covered Mt Everest or the Ark came to rest on Mt Ararat, but with the vast difference in heights between the two mountains, both can not be true though the bible erroneously indicates they both were.  If there can be an error there, other errors can also exist.  Though the bible says the mountains of Ararat, the only option, if one reads carefully, is Mt Ararat itself.  The Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, but the tops of the mountains were not visible for another 74 days, so the only mountain that the Ark could have come to rest on would have been the highest mountain which is Mt Ararat.

It is not the distance they would have to travel down the mountain that proves the difficulty but the conditions they would have encountered in that trek.  To quote my own research paper concerning the conditions on Mt Ararat.



It would not have been the simple descent and ascent as you would like to believe but far more perilous.  Deep snows, ice, invisible trails and lack of sufficient oxygen would all have played their parts in the difficulties encountered.

I find that some of your posting is lacking in the research department, for example your assertion that the ark was bigger than the titanic.  This is untrue the ark was 450 L x 75 W x 45 H  the titanic was 882 L x 92 W x 60 H.  You may wish to make quick searches on the internet before posting comparisons to be sure of the accuracy of the facts.

No one on here, except you, in your flawed observation above, has ever referred to or believes Noah to be "a grunting ape with a small brain who cannot even master how to get termites out of a termite mound".  

I have approached this subject with logic and common sense, while others, mostly believers in the bible,  look at the facts like the conflict between a landing at Ararat and the covering of Everest or the effects the environmental hazards at the summit of Ararat would have on the passengers of the ark, as well as other facts, and choose either to ignore them completely or make rush judgments that they in no way invalidate anything, without ever looking into it more thoroughly.


I stand corrected: With regard to size of the ark. Rather I meant to say: Noah’s ark would "have a displacement nearly equal to that of the Titanic.
This was merely representative of the sentiments of a former poster who stated he would have to "wait before he gets to his computer" to post references. I spoke relative to "rote" based upon VAST research I have did with regard to both the size and relevance of the Ark. If you would care to speak on these relevancies I would certainly be involved in the discussion. The difference may be that what I would post with regard to the conversation would represent all the information you would post and cut along with other things you would not find in your "surfing the web". Determinations that could be proven as sound and would certainly "weigh heavily" on the conversation. You know " unique fresh perspectives" verses the unyielding parroting of books ( many it would seem confined to evolutionary "references"

Sigh you basically repeated yourself....and in no way did this serve to invalidate the "surety" as well "simple task" of 8 humans going down a mountain with the aid of human intellect and animal power.

I can admit mistakes...so long as the mistakes are defined relative to facts. You presented the facts as to the size of the ark thus you got appropriate acknowledgment from me. As it is true and related to the conversations of the room your correction of my post certainly ( in harmony with presented stats verses interpretations of "data") represents "isolated occasion."


#113    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 08 February 2011 - 03:53 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 08 February 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

So you're assuming, against all reason, that the ark did actually exist then?? Wow. I mean, sure. If 8 people could build a boat bigger than the titanic, out of wood, defy the laws of physics to make it sail, get animals from all over the globe, keep each of the millions of species alive (and separate), feed them and deal with the staggering amount of crap produced, desalinate the land once the waters had gone and return all the animals to their prospective places around the globe (marsupials in Australasia etc), then sure - they could build a carriage with wheels.




What on earth does this have to do with "evolutionists"?? Modern humans emerged about 50,000 years ago. 4,000 years ago humans were, culturally aside, exactly the same as we are now.




No, most of the responses don't believe in biblical truths. Creationists have a particularly scathing view on what rational peop - sorry - "evolutionists" believe (ie - know to be true).





What on earth is a "modem" of operandi???


Sigh. The ark was not designed to sail it was designed to FLOAT. It needed no ( nor had any) rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut rapidly through the water. Further: The ark did NOT require steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat. The ark’s shape was very stable, could not be easily capsized, and contained about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design. ( check to validate these physics indicatives).

Sigh. “Nothing” on earth has to do with “Evolutionists.” I agree: Thus: Everything on earth has to do with intelligent design whether intelligent design of superhuman entities or intelligent designs of humans seeking to imitate this design as observed in all flora and fauna.
Indeed: You put it well: “most responses of the room DON’T BELIEVE in biblical TRUTH. This belief in “truth” represents a “scathing view” to those who choose to believe in things less than “truthful.”


#114    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 08 February 2011 - 04:00 PM

View PostMayak Datat, on 08 February 2011 - 12:53 PM, said:

we live such short life cycles because that is the way nature sets a natural balance between life and death.if we all lived 2 times our normal age,there would be no food to eat,no place to live,and would increases the carbon footprint like a billion times higher!


Indeed the "present plight" ( verses the former pre flood..situation) represents a "short life cycle". What did MAN do to change the former state in to the later? Indeed due to MANS decisions; trying to live long, eat well, and live somewhere is difficult due to many environmental decisions made by man.

"...pave paradise and put up a parking lot" ( Genesis...Garden of eden= "paradise")

Indeed the "carbon footprint" ( decisions and structures) of man....stomping out pardisiac conditions.

Note: "When a true GENESIS appears,you may know IT by this sign,
when the dunces are all in confideracy against IT"
{johnathan swift}

Edited by physicsolved, 08 February 2011 - 04:01 PM.


#115    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,368 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 February 2011 - 01:04 AM

View Postphysicsolved, on 07 February 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

Succinct! Respectful

1) Please provide "scientific" proof that "fresh clean water" is a modern phenomenon. Please provide scientific evidence that "microbes/parasites" are NOT a product of creation.

Note: As for when these "living organisms" were created the bible does not define the exact length of time nor the exact time theses creative events transpired .  However the bible does state that these creatures ( Genesis 1:20: " let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living things") were created on the 5th "day". This day came after the 1st through 4th day. Thus living organisms dependent on processes of light and photosynthesis( 1-4 day)  naturally and scientifically proceeded the "coming to be " of light and luminary.  The word "day" has many meanings in the Hebrew language. Thus the "day" when these "microbes/parasites" were created could have represented thousands of years BEFORE the 6th day( when man was created).  As it is the term "day" has a broader meaning than just a 24 hour period. One thing for sure it took more than "144" literal hours to accomplish all the works of creation. Thus when these "aqua-swarms" were created and how long the process took is not specifically stated in the bible. However the bible does indicate that the extra terrestrial that is God certainly predates the creation of the heavens and earth. As well the bible indicates that "one day to Jehovah is 1000 years"( to man). Thus if each creative day represented a complete 1,000 years( inferential verses any defined methodology of chrono) then this could "indicate" that the "microbes/parasites" could have came into existence about 12,000 years ago. However this is not definitive. What we do know is that the earth is billions of years old. Take into consideration the broad use of the Hebrew word "day" then from the strictest standpoint all time preceding the 6th day could have been used in the creative processes.

2) Many geological, anthropological, cultural, and geographical "qualifications". Equally as feasible as the "lack of proof" you would seek to "prop up" relegating this possibility.

3) Not interested in your "interpretive references." Been there, saw the movie, have done the research ( open mindedly)…not convinced. Moved on!


4)  Correction: Human! ( verses "hominoid"= a witty preposterous evolutionary "term"). "current state" of evolutionary dogma is inferior to the "current state" of creation(ary) evaluations. ( save evolutionary "peer review")
"..lack of understanding.." No! Rather: A better ability of perceiving the principles of creation as demonstrative relative to what you call 'indicatives."

Equally indifferent to your references. Many if not most of which I have entertained.

5) Rhetoric! "..more in depth references.."= selectively choosing ones ideals and subsequently framing a RELIGIOUS belief system around them. Religion in the particular being…."chance."

6) I will choose logical over "illogical chance fallacy" at all times. ( Note: Where the word "fallacy is necessarily removed from the "logical" equations)

You will admit: History/science/anthropology/geology...all of these human endeavors represent actualities "orchestrated" to conform to mans ideologies. I know it is a travesty of historic justice but it is a phenomenon that cannot be denied. Thus true history is only obscured or distorted relative to mans way of thinking.

History= orchestra (aich+ eye+es+te+owe+are+y)....akestory....."orchestra"

Humans "playing the keys of history" in a way that appeals to themselves.

orchestrate ( defined): to arrange or manipulate, especially by means of clever or thorough planning or maneuvering: to arrange, organize, or build up for special or maximum effect.

Some of those who "arrange, manipulate," history do so with the purpose of "stretching the strings", "warping the sounds" ..so as to produce "distorted, false" histories. Others "play the instruments" by closely adhering to the "true" sounds" and do not deviate into "wantonness" of historical musicality.

Re: (1) -  The name Protista means "the very first", and some of the 80-odd groups  of organisms that we classify as protists may well have had long,  independent evolutionary histories stretching as far back as 2 billion  years.

http://users.rcn.com...P/Protists.html

http://evolution.ber...ginoflife.shtml

This, and similar documentation would not appear to be consistent with your proposed time-line. As a note on the time-line factor, you would appear to vacillate in this regard. What relatively precise date do you regard as the beginning point of your speculation?

Re: (2, 3) - In blithely dismissing this research you are effectively disavowing the existence of geologic formations (and the knowledge that can be obtained from them), biological organisms (and the knowledge that can be obtained from them), the existence of lasers, and the existence of geo-stationary satellites, to name but a few. By the way, is your computer functioning? How?

Re: The rest. Speaking of rhetoric. Not to mention lack of cohesive or relevant presentation.

Re: Credentials - There is much more to becoming credentialed in a field than reading a few books (were they actually books?) without the background to fully interpret and understand their meaning. You have listed a number of fields. You would appear to be quite confident and assertive in regards to your knowledge and understanding of these fields. What are your degrees in these fields and how much experience do you have working in these fields?

Re: Dating -  Yet again, your knowledge of this topic would not appear to be comprehensive. Within just a few years of the introduction of radiocarbon dating by Libby in 1949, it was recognized that fluctuations in the levels of atmospheric C14 could affect the accuracy of the method. This has led to extensive application of cross-dating methods in order to calibrate radiocarbon dates. Amongst the cross-references are (as previously mentioned by Abe) dendrochronology, foraminifera from varved sediments (sea bed coring), and Uranium series coral dating. See Reimer et. al. (2004) for the period 0 - 26 CALKYRBP. See J. van der Plicht et. al. (2004) for the period 26-50 CALRCYBP.

In addition there a number of other methods that are utilized, depending on the age and material. For a brief overview:

http://www.mnsu.edu/...aeology/dating/

Please take the time to explore the listed topics.

As is readily apparent to all the readers, you have yet to provide qualified corroborative substantiation for you position. Until such time as you can accomplish this, you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support.

Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away, just as closing your eyes as you stand at the edge of a canyon will not make the canyon go away. Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this.

.






#116    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,355 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 09 February 2011 - 10:41 AM

View Postphysicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:

The difference may be that what I would post with regard to the conversation would represent all the information you would post and cut along with other things you would not find in your "surfing the web". Determinations that could be proven as sound and would certainly "weigh heavily" on the conversation. You know " unique fresh perspectives" verses the unyielding parroting of books ( many it would seem confined to evolutionary "references"

OK, you're claiming the facts you would present would not be found online and would not come from books...

Umm, talking about something that may or may not have happened a few thousand years ago, the only thing that leaves is studying an actual artifact or "paranormal knowledge".

You are either claiming to have Noah's ark in your garage or to be able to remote view events lost in the fog of time. Just want to get that clear since it's a pretty big deal as relates to the information you post.

While I can't say you don't have knowledge the rest of humanity does not, it does tend to be a fall-back position of those who know they have a weak argument.


#117    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,824 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 09 February 2011 - 10:56 AM

View Postphysicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 12:40 AM, said:

Yes i have heard of it along with acid racemization. Both of which are demonstratively unreliable. As well always relative to the predispositions of those utilizing these unreliable systems used to "date"...things,times and events.

One evolutionist to another:

1)"hey  what did you "come up with" when you dated that object"
2)"A million billion years."
1)" Well i "came up with" a billion million years."

(1$2...colussion/colaboration/credentials:

" Well it "proves" the creationits wrong, so does it really matter." ( Mowahahahahah)
Can you support these accusations, or are you just making up nonsense again?


#118    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,824 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 09 February 2011 - 11:09 AM

View Postphysicsolved, on 08 February 2011 - 03:21 PM, said:

Many are a victim of "fate"( evolutionary dogma distorting their ability to reason on things correctly). As a result of this inferior mindset  many view  "ape" actions( or fish; microorganisms)  as a "major factor" in what happens to them. With such disposition these ones will remain "powerless to effect change" on both the course of their  reasoning(s) as well the occasional evolution VS creation …debates.

Evolutionary dogma results necessarily in "low self-esteem." This usually is as a result of seeing the world as "random without any guiding rules." Those who maintain this "world view" are "likely to get frustrated." People with an external locus of control may be superstitious- it was the "lucky rat" that enabled the Israelites to overthrow Senachrib, not the mighty hand of an extra terrestrial entity. ( Note: Principle of physics: Invisible power ( energy)and force can act upon visible "mass" either in a favorable or destructive way.) A little bit of "invisible organism" can go a long way…186,000 miles a sec( 185,000 Assyrians)  

Many people view "change" ( from religious views; not dissimilar to evolutionary ideology) with fear, since people with external locus of control robs the individual ( evolution robs humans of dignity and feelings of self-worth) of his expectations of making things better.( evolution: no hope, no justice, no purpose…what's the use). These ones feel "powerless and uncertain as to what did happen and may happen, or where they may fit into the system." These ones.." individually may not actually like the current situation ( of human thought), but because life is random and the consequences of actions cannot be predicted, they resist change." This occurs equally when this view is taken…"collectively."

Better to suffer with what they have now ( evolutionary interpretation of.. everything) than to risk it getting worse(better= Intelligent design relative to a benevolent creator who always upholds principles of love, hope, justice …thus a world wide retribution for those who reject such noble and beneficial …principles and laws.
Wow. You have a very uneducated interpretation of evolution and biology. It seems like you found a new boogeyman to blame everything on.
However if the evolutionists are so inferior, why are you the one dragging your knuckles?


#119    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 09 February 2011 - 02:08 PM

View PostSwede, on 09 February 2011 - 01:04 AM, said:

Re: (1) -  The name Protista means "the very first", and some of the 80-odd groups  of organisms that we classify as protists may well have had long,  independent evolutionary histories stretching as far back as 2 billion  years.

http://users.rcn.com...P/Protists.html

http://evolution.ber...ginoflife.shtml

This, and similar documentation would not appear to be consistent with your proposed time-line. As a note on the time-line factor, you would appear to vacillate in this regard. What relatively precise date do you regard as the beginning point of your speculation?

Re: (2, 3) - In blithely dismissing this research you are effectively disavowing the existence of geologic formations (and the knowledge that can be obtained from them), biological organisms (and the knowledge that can be obtained from them), the existence of lasers, and the existence of geo-stationary satellites, to name but a few. By the way, is your computer functioning? How?

Re: The rest. Speaking of rhetoric. Not to mention lack of cohesive or relevant presentation.

Re: Credentials - There is much more to becoming credentialed in a field than reading a few books (were they actually books?) without the background to fully interpret and understand their meaning. You have listed a number of fields. You would appear to be quite confident and assertive in regards to your knowledge and understanding of these fields. What are your degrees in these fields and how much experience do you have working in these fields?

Re: Dating -  Yet again, your knowledge of this topic would not appear to be comprehensive. Within just a few years of the introduction of radiocarbon dating by Libby in 1949, it was recognized that fluctuations in the levels of atmospheric C14 could affect the accuracy of the method. This has led to extensive application of cross-dating methods in order to calibrate radiocarbon dates. Amongst the cross-references are (as previously mentioned by Abe) dendrochronology, foraminifera from varved sediments (sea bed coring), and Uranium series coral dating. See Reimer et. al. (2004) for the period 0 - 26 CALKYRBP. See J. van der Plicht et. al. (2004) for the period 26-50 CALRCYBP.

In addition there a number of other methods that are utilized, depending on the age and material. For a brief overview:

http://www.mnsu.edu/...aeology/dating/

Please take the time to explore the listed topics.

As is readily apparent to all the readers, you have yet to provide qualified corroborative substantiation for you position. Until such time as you can accomplish this, you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support.

Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away, just as closing your eyes as you stand at the edge of a canyon will not make the canyon go away. Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this.

.






“MAY …. well have had long, independent evolutionary histories stretching as far back as 2 billion years. “

(note: definition of the word “may.”: to indicate possibility
to express a strong wish:
Conclusion: just because you wish possibilities…doesn’t make it so.)

http://idiom.wishfull thinking : (believing that something is true or that something will happen just because one wishes that it were true or would happen)

“Not appear to be”= they way “I” see it…doesn’t appear to be the way you see it. Yet there is no “appearance” of facts to the contrary.


“This research” ( I assume yours)…proves nothing. Conjectures many things.

‘..Knowledge obtained.”…Then knowledge interpreted based on predisposition.

“..computer functioning.” As a direct result of the functionality of the HUMAN brain. Brain= intelligently designed computer. Question: Does the apes brain work? Rhetorical. Does the ape know how to use the equally designed computer. A computer designed relative to the HUMAN brain? This explains “how” the computer works as well as the human brain. Reiteration: Intelligent design verses chance. The chance that an ape or a fish or a microscopic organism will ever “use” much less “design” a computer.

Chance mentality= “lack of cohesive or relevant”…mental resolve or intellectual fortitude.



“there is MUCH more to becoming credentialed‘..than self-delusion and wishful thinking.

Credentials= “interpret…the meaning.” You said it.

I am not being so “confident and assertive” rather logical, reasonable. Using the power of my computer brain and the functionality of the “observational” eye in processing knowledge so as to deduce reasonable, logical and observational “conclusions.” However I do not relegate others “interpretations” so long as these deductions are in harmony with ..logic, reasonableness and observation.

My “degrees” naturally necessitates my “digress”(degrees) away from the myriad interpretations of “data” that are extant today. Those degrees naturally represent “deviation” from the ability to logically, reasonably and coherently( consistently and accurately) process knowledge and then logically, reasonably and coherently form appropriate conclusions. My posts will stand on there own merits as both “degree of knowledge” as well as “ability to reasonably , logically and coherently” form conclusions relative to such “degree of knowledge”.

This part of your post represents one thing: evolutionary condescension.

“Dating.”…: “As a consequence, the radiocarbon method shows limitations on dating of materials that are younger than the industrial era.

“"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." …
Not only is carbon 14 dating limited in its theorectical usefulness any farther back in time than 50,000 years,3 but its dating accuracy seems to be in question for anything greater 4 or 5 thousand years. This is possibly do to the fact that the 14C atmospheric concentration (relative to 12C) is rising and is not the same as it was only a few thousand years ago. ( If man had any “chance” of using this “farce dating system” ………..man has went and screwed it up again.)

Your calibration “theory” does not alter these facts to any significant degree.

Question? How does your calibration answer the following questions:

When did the world begin. What date. When did man arrive? What date? How old is the “attique yomin.” How intelligent is he? What was the date of human speech? What was the date when humans realized that fire was hot? What was the date when humans climbed out of the cave into the light? What was the date when a fish meandered to the seashore? What was the duration of time that it took this fish to evolve to higher life form? What time period would have allowed this fish to live that long without rotting( so as to evolve)? What date was it that proteins and amino acids simultaneously/spontaneously “came to be” ( one without the other precludes “one or the other”) etc…

Does your “dating methods” (utterly deficient) ..answer these questions?

You are correct: “there are a number of other methods that are utilized.” to vainly attempt to “crutch up” evolutionary dogma. A dogma that could not be appropriately validated even if a great sequoia tree were the crutch.

You have provided no, “corroborative substantiated” proofs for your position. Thus until you do so it would be quite unusual for you to ask for such from me as if you have already validated yourself and your own positions. This lack of substantiation should (verses is) also be “apparent to all the readers..” Thus it would seem, due to this reality that , “ you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support.”

Sweat ( oops…swede: “Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away..”


I have presented some facts. However, as is  predominately the case most things presented as facts are not FACTS at all. Thus due to that reality most of my posts represent “observation, logic, reasonableness” relative to potentialities verses real proven facts.

Can you be so modest? If not then , “Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this.”


.


CALIBRATION..........C A LIBERATION. cALIBRATION= THE SELF ASSURED OPINION THAT THIS WITTY TWEEKING OF "LAUGHABLE DATING PROCESS" SOMEHOW "LIBERATES" MAN FROM THE BELIEF IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.


#120    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 09 February 2011 - 02:29 PM

View Postsam12six, on 09 February 2011 - 10:41 AM, said:

OK, you're claiming the facts you would present would not be found online and would not come from books...

Umm, talking about something that may or may not have happened a few thousand years ago, the only thing that leaves is studying an actual artifact or "paranormal knowledge".

You are either claiming to have Noah's ark in your garage or to be able to remote view events lost in the fog of time. Just want to get that clear since it's a pretty big deal as relates to the information you post.

While I can't say you don't have knowledge the rest of humanity does not, it does tend to be a fall-back position of those who know they have a weak argument.


I  am not claiming that what I present are facts. Rather the ability of reasoning on those things that can be demonstrated as fact while being cautiously ( and intelligently) logical and reasonable with the things that are less proven as …fact.

Paranormal? If you mean this as providing information that would aid one in being logical and reasonable I would agree. However I do not ascribe to the “occult practice” of paranormal research. Save this. The word “para” means : “alongside.” Normal means…”normal.” Thus if this is the way you were applying the term then I would agree that considering “entities” as relative to us ( alongside ) and that these entities are above our “normal experiences as terrestrials” then I agree that examining any and all information  coming from these “alongside normal humans” may be appropriate to understanding many things. Understanding them in a way that does not represent “normal human thinking.” Thus why I have and do consider the Bible as the sole way of understanding this “above normal human thinking and experience” …information.

This “extra earthly” information indeed discusses Noah as well as the Ark. This information is relegated due to “normal deviant ideologies” and is “remotely” the mental disposition of most. Note: Indeed! Before this deluge the earth was “watered” by a “mist” or fog if you will. That fog ( a product of an expanse above) represented a very pleasurable experience for those before the flood. After the expanse was removed this pleasant “fog” experience ( steady pleasurable temperature) was lost. Can this “life experience” of extreme protection from radiation be returned? Can man accomplish this?


Yes many present “week arguments” as well call interpretations of “data” ..facts. This type of fanciful approach to processing information has resulted in the delugions of the past world and the present delusions.

Note: There ARE many things to be discovered on the sphere earth if one knows the principles of how to look. This thread as well as others will continue to define this relevant principles. OBSERVATION is a fundamental principle of science.

Edited by physicsolved, 09 February 2011 - 02:30 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users