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.


- - - - -

I found it, now read it please


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
117 replies to this topic

#46    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 15 May 2004 - 11:04 PM

That sentence doesnt mention creationism, all it mentions is the bible. Genesis is part of the bible, you know that.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#47    saucy

saucy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

Posted 15 May 2004 - 11:08 PM

what I'm saying is that I never SAID that CREATIONISM is 100% accurate.  Wether or not I believe it is a different story, you know I do, but I never said it.  


#48    snuffypuffer

snuffypuffer

    Dandy Fop

  • Member
  • 11,038 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

  • Let's get happy!

Posted 15 May 2004 - 11:09 PM

QUOTE (saucy @ May 16 2004, 12:08 AM)
what I'm saying is that I never SAID that CREATIONISM is 100% accurate.  Wether or not I believe it is a different story, you know I do, but I never said it.

I thought that was exactly what you'd just said. blink.gif  

Nothing to see here.

#49    saucy

saucy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

Posted 15 May 2004 - 11:21 PM

When I meant 100% accurate, I was refering to the Jesus prophecies being 100% right about everything.  I never said creationism was 100% accurate


#50    Scorpius

Scorpius

    Universal Researcher

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,821 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winnipeg, Manitoba

  • Harness the energies around you and you'll be able to do wondrous things.

Posted 15 May 2004 - 11:52 PM

I read every last post up to date on this thread, and this is one thought inducing thread.

I've been leaning to both sides of this little "debate" we've got here, and on a neutral stance, I wouldn't know who to turn to.   whistling2.gif

Anyways, both are correct based on the most persuasive posts.  There's a fine line between reality and spirituality (including religion), we must try and connect these two in order to understand the world.  There is no scientist that cannot deny that there are certain phenomenons that are hard to explain experimentally.

I've researched and looked into topics such as OBE's (out-of-body-experiences), Poltergeists, Ghosts, Telekinesis, Psychics, Life After Death experiences, and possibly everything considered paranormal.  The topics covered within this spectrum of science is one known without great considerable knowledge.  Scientists and researchers alike delve into these matters looking for answers while others are suddenly experience them unexpectedly.

There are many phenomenons that seem highly far-fetched and unbelievable and yet they exist within reality, such as Ball Lightning, which seems to defy the laws of physics.

I'm sure there's no one who can offer solid evidence to whether or not God exists.  Coincidentally, can anyone offer solid evidence to the existance of Ball Lightning?
This is a rare phenomenon, and yet it has been witnessed.  Has God not been witnessed as well, or Jesus himself?  Jesus did exist, which some researchers and scientists believe as well in accordance to the scientific expirements done on the Shroud of Turin; also known as the cloth that wrapped Jesus before he had risen from the dead.


I'm sure some Grand Creator created the universe and is doodling and retouching certain events and creatures, yet allows nature to take its toll.

Albert Einstein believed in some sort of Higher Power, did he not?  He was proclaimed as a genius, and if he believed in this, how hard is it for others of less "stature" to do so?  There will be more revelations to come, time is on our side.
alien.gif  whistling2.gif  

Posted Image
Avatar and Signature designed and animated by me.  
Do not speak for those who can speak, but speak for those who cannot.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience."  - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955)

#51    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 15 May 2004 - 11:59 PM

I dont have time to comment on all ur post right now B-S, but actually, dating identified the shround of Turin to be 600 years old. Theres supposed to be another test on it though to veryfy the age though because the first was done on the edge of the shroud were many many many people would have touched it and some people are crying "mistake!"

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#52    chico del nacho

chico del nacho

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined:18 Apr 2004
  • Location:Cranbrook, BC, Canada

  • First and Foremost Member of The Doomsday Bananas

Posted 16 May 2004 - 12:06 AM

QUOTE
Albert Einstein believed in some sort of Higher Power, did he not? He was proclaimed as a genius, and if he believed in this, how hard is it for others of less "stature" to do so?


i personally don't think intelligence has any bearing on one's belief. smart or stupid, a person will believe whatever they want.

QUOTE
time is on our side.


is it now?

i still vote for social democracy. it's like communism lite! only 1/3 the calories of normal communism!
whoever said "money can't buy happiness" was never poor.
I think there's something innately wrong about most people to inspire alien curiousity.
i'm so proud of this post...
Seriousness is stupidity sent to college. -P. J. O'Rourke
Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow. -Oscar Wilde

#53    saucy

saucy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

Posted 16 May 2004 - 10:23 AM

I agree with Blue Scorpion on this one.  Besides, I've proved, though because you said something otherwise it must be true, that all forms of dating are inaccurate.  They've used all the dating methods to test things such as rocks, fruit, people, meteors, fossils and a bunch of other objects that are young and old and it just turns out that none of the methods are reliable.  Sorry about that.  You can go into another long speal about how I'm wrong on so many levels if you want, but I just don't care.  There's just too much proof of the supernatural out there for me to hang up my boots because Stellar calls me ingnorant, so I'm done.  Peace to you all, have a good day  tongue.gif  


#54    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,903 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 16 May 2004 - 12:26 PM

Proof. Proof that all of the dating methodes were proven to be inaccurate 100% of the time. Oh thats right, you have none!

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#55    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 May 2004 - 04:11 PM

Saucy, do you have references or cites for these unreliable dates?  I mean, from scientific journals with peer-review.

No offense, but I would need something a bit more official than your say-so before I consider something as 'proof'.  We need to see the methods, equations, and data used so that we can see wether the proper methodology was followed.  Merely saying that it happened is not proof.  Even in a court of law, personal testimony would be considered circumstancial at best.

I have no problem with your beliefs, but your methodology is lacking.

Also, just to be clear, are you stating that creationism should be considered to be a scientific theory?


#56    saucy

saucy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

Posted 16 May 2004 - 05:20 PM

I'll try, but it won't matter.

Dr. Henry Morris presents a formula for human population.
Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, professor of physics at the University of Texas and consultant to Globe Universal Sciences points out that the earth's magnetic field was a half-life; or loses half of its strength every 1,400 years.  From the magnetic field ab electric current flows through the core of the earth.  It has energy and produces heat.  The present energy loss is 8.13 million watts.  The rate of decay is so rapid that the earth cannot be more than 15,000 years old.  
Dr. Robert L. Whitlaw, professor of nuclear and mechanical engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute says that the most commonly used methods of dating objects, Uranium decay and Potassium-Argon methods are faulty and unreliable in cases where the actual age of rock formations is known from history.  He said, "The scientific "proofs" formerly used to establish an immense age for the earth, including Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon and Rubidum-Strontium are showing many flaws and weaknesses, while proofs for a young age are increasing.  
Dr. Maurice Dametz agrees with Dr. Henry Morris about the human population
"Analysis of Historical Data Suggest the Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, Vol. 32, September 1979
August 18, 1986 U.S. News and World Report stated that MIT's Edmond found that action of hot vents was turning te dead plankton in the sediment into petroleum-a process that normally takes at least 10 million years squeezed into an instant.  Obvously, it does not take at least 10 million years to form oil.
Dr. Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics at M.I.T. writes, "The time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem."  This concerns the receding moon.
National Geographic, Time, and local newspapers test the Paluxy tracks in Texas.  They are prints of humans and dinosaurs in the same layer of fossilized limestone.  Just because this was found in the bible belt doesn't give it any less credibility.  These tracks show that dinosaurs and humans walked during the same era.  I have an article from the Detroit news, clear across the country about this.  

Quotes from Evolutionists:  Dr. D. Watson: "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur...or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.  
L.T. More: "The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone;exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion...The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.  

I have articles from USA Today, New York Times, National Geographic, Physics Review, Science and Detroit Free Press.  As you can see, all of my evidence comes from professors of geophysics, psysics, nuclear and mechanical engineering and none of them are creationists.  I know, they're all bull crap because they found evidence against all of your beliefs, but hey, they're scienctists and professors of science.  Another argument I can see coming is that some of the articles are outdated.  Okay then, show me an article that is dated recently that is oppose to those ideas and I'll disregard them.  


#57    Venomshocker

Venomshocker

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Edmonton, Alberta

  • "Everything you are for strengthens you, everything you are against weakens you."

Posted 16 May 2004 - 06:01 PM

QUOTE
Also, just to be clear, are you stating that creationism should be considered to be a scientific theory?

Yes, Creationism can be considered a sceintific theory. Check out :
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...=30#entry172231

Also anyone interested in Creationism Vs. Evouloution should check out the link above.

Edited by Venomshocker, 16 May 2004 - 06:17 PM.

Gestalt Reality
"Ultimately there is no such thing as meaning, only experience and creativity."  ~ Pleiadians

#58    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 May 2004 - 08:58 PM

[QUOTE]Dr. Henry Morris presents a formula for human population. [/QUOTE]

Since you did not give me a specific reference, I will assume that you are referring to his article in Scientific Creationism magazine, which is, incidentaly, neither a scientific journal, nor peer-reviewed.  Here is a specific refutation of both his growth formula, and population assumption mistakes, with references, from Talk Origins:
Henry Morris Population Calculation

Earth's magnetic field:  Here is a specific refutation of Thomas G. Barnes lecture concerning a spherical dynamo model of the Earth:
Earth's Magnetic Field Fading

I was unable to find Robert L. Whitlaw at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute's faculty web page.  Since I cannot read his research, I will simply give this source:
[QUOTE]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html[/QUOTE]

Since I already gave you a source concerning population, this source will deal specifically with Maurice Dametz letter:
Maurice Dametz's Letter

The 'Young Oil' argument:  Yes, oil can be made quickly.  So can stalactites, crystals, and heck, I can make ice in my fridge in about 2 hours.  I hope you don't think this makes the glaciers less than 24 hours old.  But, again, don't take my word for it:Rapid formation of oil and coal

Here's a paper concerning not only Slichter's data, but also that of the other ICR scientists that had a hand in that particular lecture.Recession of the moon

As a change of pace, here is a link from Answers in Genesis, Creationism's Flagship webpage:  You'll find references to both the Paluxy tracks, and to a few other arguments you have posted in the past. Arguments you shouldn't use.

[QUOTE]Dr. D. Watson: "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur...or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.[/QUOTE]

Quote#80:  Please note that this quote is from 1929, is not from a biologist, and is most definitely not complete.  What he is saying is that Evolution is going to become the leading theory simply due to the lack of evidence causing creationism to collapse:[/QUOTE]Quote Mining:  Out of Context quotes
[QUOTE]The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment. If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.[/QUOTE]

Quote#61, same link as above.  This one is even older, from 1925.  These are pretty old cources to be using for modern day arguments, don't you think?
[QUOTE]The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone;exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion...The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.[QUOTE]

Saucy, news journals, pop science magazines, and even National Geographic, are not scientific journals.  They are entertainment magazines that, more often than not, do contain true facts, but always put a entertainment spin on it and are rarely, if ever, peer-reviewed.  A scientific journal exists for the sole purpose of disseminating information to the scientific community, and an article cannot be published without a set of experts in the field reading the paper and agreeing that it does meet the criteria for scientifc methodology, regardless of how controversial it is.  All the above links give full references to modern studies, which are peer-reviewed.  All the authors's credentials are checked as part of the peer review process, and anybody claiming credentials that they do not have, such as Dr. Slichter, are rejected.  The first tenet is in publishing is credibility.  If you don't have it because you lied, you won't have anyone touch your work.

Now then, I just spent about three hours putting together these links.  If you would, could you give me the answers to the studies that refuted these claims?  Also, please note that the majority come from the same site.  Why is this?  Because every single argument that you pasted is the exact same one that has been presented by the creationist camp for DECADES.  Even the quotes are so commonly, an libelously, used that they have been numbered!

Please reference any of the studies that rebukes these studies.  A link would be appreciated, so that I don't have to search all over the net for it.  Also, please justify misusing a quote intentionaly out of context.


#59    saucy

saucy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,534 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • Peter Piper picked a pack of pickled peppers.

Posted 16 May 2004 - 11:40 PM

Thanks for your hard work trying to prove me wrong.  It's good for the 'ole ego.  I don't know what to say.  You have a point?  You're right?  My arguements have been successfully debunked?  Well, that would be the truth.  I don't have anything else.  I'm all dried up; washed out.  I'm truly glad that everyone here works together to try and flush someone's faith down the toilet.  I will now leave with my head bowed in defeat... crying.gif  


#60    Scorpius

Scorpius

    Universal Researcher

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,821 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winnipeg, Manitoba

  • Harness the energies around you and you'll be able to do wondrous things.

Posted 17 May 2004 - 12:01 AM

I'm a little slow...  tongue.gif  laugh.gif

So does that mean evolution scientifically more plausible than that of creationism?

QUOTE
The 'Young Oil' argument: Yes, oil can be made quickly. So can stalactites, crystals, and heck, I can make ice in my fridge in about 2 hours. I hope you don't think this makes the glaciers less than 24 hours old. But, again, don't take my word for it:Rapid formation of oil and coal


Huh? I'm confused.  So you contradicted yourself?
So you agree with Saucy with the Young Oil arguement?


It's possible a bit of creationism is a possible along side evolution, and not everything about it is creationism are  100% accurate.

Anything is possible, or can it?  whistling2.gif  

Posted Image
Avatar and Signature designed and animated by me.  
Do not speak for those who can speak, but speak for those who cannot.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience."  - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users