Thanks for stopping by
our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register
link
Topic: Regarding Truth and Lies----UFO's. Whatdoya'll think
stat Member
posted 03-30-2008 12:12 PM
OK, so it's a departure from our usual discussions. And I know many believers will be hesitant to go on record stating their opinion. But the mystery surrounding "manned flying objects" appearing to so many credible witnesses as being legit is undeniable. It goes back to Kenneth Arnold's sighting back in the 40's(?). Of course there are many many hoaxes, but then there was Project Bluebook, headed by J Allen Hyneck, a respected astronomer who was hired to debunk the whole subject, but was left with several cases of "uh, i dunno" and consequently, left him a believer---and even a fierce proponent in his later years. Carl Sagan said it best when he said [paraphrase] "extraodinary claims require extraodinary evidence." Sound familiar fellow examiners? Thought so. I fall into the believer category, however I am very quick to call fraud fraud. Here is a photoshop picture I did of my wife and 2 of my sons from last holloween---along with 2 flying saucer. It was easy enough. So I suppose any modern still pic of a UFO has ZERO credibility unless take by an unimpeachable witness.
Any thoughts? The universe is aweful big, and quantum physics has some really interesting theories of "space folding" that suggests that it is theoretically possible to travel wherever you want to in very short order, given a vehicle has 100 nuclear weapons worth of immediate power source. Extradimmensional or Extraterrestrial visitation. Truth or Lie?
Comments?
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-30-2008).]
posted 03-30-2008 01:07 PM
I recall watching a popular program that featured polygraph exams a couple of years ago. A woman, who for thirty years promoted alien visitations, and abductions. She had authored several books,hosted abduction support groups, and was in great demand on the speaking circuit. For whatever reason, she submitted to a polygraph examination conducted by Ed Gelb. When Ed confronted her with the DI results, she crumbled, and of course her credibility was ruined. I have heard the statistic of 40,000 people in North America that claim to have been abducted. I think many people want to be a part of something to have a sense of belonging. Even street gangs offer that comradeship. The only aliens I've met had green cards, at least some of them did.The scientific approach demands the "show me" attitude. Until then, Area #51 will continue to be the stuff of legends/or not. Knowing the federal workforce, there are very few secrets that remain secrets for very long.
This is like discussing ghosts. I've seen a lot of weird happen-stances in my life (as we all have). But I've never seen any nor have I ever seen an (extraterrestial) alien. Plenty of illegals; but none from another planet.
Now, there are 500 trillion planets out there. I think it would be rather arrogant to believe that we are the only intelligent life, anywhere. I don't see that possibility as violating biblical teachings (yes, Barry, feel free to enter the conversation) and do not believe them to be mutally exclusive.
I think there are some people who believe they have encountered "something" while others simply are geting a free ride of temporary fame by hitchhiking on other's experiences.
Either way, I dunno! But the beer is cold, the cigars are good (Dominican, of course) and my paycheck is regular! LOL
posted 03-30-2008 02:17 PM
Okay, I'll post a link to an article that handles this one. The real answer is that we don't know, but it seems doubtful as man's fall would likely have resulted in their spiritual death as well (the UFO operators' that is), and there appears no means for their redemption, which would make them less than human - not more advanced. http://www.equip.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/DU700.pdf
I can post it too but it's rather lengthy. It's a good article even if one is not of the Christian persuasion.
posted 03-30-2008 05:33 PM
I will tell a true alien story (from Roswell) to anyone that wants to buy me a beer at the next conference. My grandfather was a lithographer for the government!
Also, I have personally seen ghosts, entities, and orbs too!
Funny thing is this years 10 day Harley Road Trip is to go to the extraterrestriatl Highway, LV, Grand Canyon, over to Roswell and back up through Rays country before making it back to UT.
posted 03-30-2008 05:49 PM
Great points. I am a Christian, but I have little personal conflict with the two beliefs, although I try to keep them seperate. The Bible is so filled with things, the reader must in most cases take a great deal of liberties in deciding what is literal and what is allegorical/parable. I agree that a great deal of "Ufology" is cultish, and I am not altogether thrilled with sharing even the most rudimentary belief with people who dress like "grays" and camp at Sedona, ready to be "taken to the mother ship." If forced to choose sides (good or evil aliens) I would be more cautious. However, I wouldn't automatically assume that any other lifeform in the universe is "beneath" or "fallen" from God. That is too arrogant for even me. No doubt ancient peoples have seen discs and craft in the sky-----as contrary to what many believe, ancients were far more used to viewing starry nights than us, and they would have been far more used to falling stars and the like. My Benji (6yr old) still hasn't seen a falling star---whereas a 6yr old from any older era would have seen hundreds if not thousands at his age. Here's a an interesting old painting.
I'm with the Pope (JP) and even Billy Graham in that just because visitors may have fancy tech, does not make them pure or good. I would no sooner worship an ET than I would my own cat----and my cat already feels worthy.
a blown up image of the craft
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-30-2008).]
posted 03-30-2008 06:13 PM
---regarding Mr. Brunswick EXCELLANT point regarding gov secrecy being so bad, I will have to site the recent revalation that Bobby Kennedy's shooting/autopsy was successfully kept secret. Some things are well hidden. The Condone Report (?) was a panel of multidisciplinarians that were to postulate what the public would do if a massive revalition of visitation were to be unveiled. They all (as a whole) concluded that mass hysteria, religious breakdown, and collapse of civil and commercial services would tailspin the economy. That's a scary prospect. I have to agree, if "the big secret" were to be unveiled, I'd probably take a sick day or two. It would make the economical impact (sick days)of the OJ trial look puny in comparison.
quote: The Bible is so filled with things, the reader must in most cases take a great deal of liberties in deciding what is literal and what is allegorical/parable.
That's only if one doesn't understand the principles of interpretation. The conservative view is that you read the Bible like you would the newspaper. That is, the words mean what they meant when the writer said them (with their ordinary meaning) unless doing so wouldn't make sense. For example, if you read that it was raining cats and dogs, you wouldn't take that literally. You know what it means. Two-thousand years from now, that might be meaningless to most, unless they study today's language, as many scholars have done with the original biblical languages. I can imagine some would well try to pour meaning into such an expression, but whatever one determined to render for an interpretation, it would never change the original meaning of the writer. The Ten Commandments are pretty straight forward, but a lot of people have twisted the daylights out of those.
I find that those who take liberties in hermeneutics usually don't have the requisite training or just don't want to accept the literal meaning. The bottom line is that Scripture interprets Scripture.
With all that said, I doubt there are aliens out there, but it's not impossible. The theological reasoning for their existence is a little more complicated.
posted 03-30-2008 07:37 PM
When I am experiencing a fierce emotion like hopelessness or rage, I oftentimes look to the Bible for answers.
When I have curiosity about the age of the universe or whether dinosaurs evolved into chickens, I look to science books and articles, not the Bible (the mighty Tyranasaurus' modern decendent is the chicken---a poetic justice if ever there was one.)
If I wanted to stretch my interpretation of the Bible, I suppose I could site referances (literal and literary) to God (and Satan's) legions of Armies which posess devastating weapons.
Funny thing about Roswell, is that high ranking commanders admitted that they had acrashed flying saucer, until they were told a day later to change the story.
I would say the most compelling video of unidentified flying objects have to be the 90's footages and mass witnesses to the phenom in Mexico City.
It seems that the American Government and the British government are the only governments to deny the phenomenom. Russia, China, Japan, France, Germany----all others are astonishingly frank on the topic.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-30-2008).]
posted 03-30-2008 07:57 PM
"With all that said, I doubt there are aliens out there, but it's not impossible. The theological reasoning for their existence is a little more complicated."
Wow Barry, I am shocked to hear that. I am not criticizing, just shocked. I don't think I, nor any earthling, will ever see an alien, but with all of that space; they have to be out there. It's definitely plausible.
I do think its possible in our lifetime that one of our rovers will find evidence that some sort of micro life form existed on one of our near planets.
I am not well versed enough to understand the theological reasons.
The big question that was briefly touched on. I am a believer, but it is scary that some real intelligent people are non beleivers.
I went to a religious college and two of my first four professors were non beleivers. Kind of makes you think... Then, I went to a Catholic School for my Masters and became interested in the bible again.
I go to a hockey site with boards like this and this sensitive topic came up. I would say ove 80% were non beleivers. I still beleive, but the 2000 era is bringing out the non's.
Back on topic, the movie "Fire in the sky" was a true story. The connected people in that movie all passed polygraphs. Not sure who the examiner was.
Interesting topic, Stat,
[This message has been edited by Buster (edited 03-30-2008).]
quote: When I have curiosity about the age of the universe or whether dinosaurs evolved into chickens, I look to science
Those questions can't be answered by science. They require a look at the evidence, and then one must ask himself which option seems more likely. That is, one must choose to accept - by faith - an explanation.
Remember, the scientific method is based on observation and experimentation. You've got to be able to replicate what you're studying to draw conclusions. Nobody observed how the universe what formed (at least we can't find a witness alive today), so it's beyond science. Both evolution and creation are faith-based. The question one must ask is which is more probable. That's why almost half the US population is on either side of the debate. I am a creationist, because I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution. It's not rational for me.
I think that if aliens exist, it would speak more to creation than evolution. Compute the probability of the evolution of eyes - from different branches of the evolutionary tree. (Don't bother; you're calculator doesn't have that many zeros.) Now calculate the odds of the same thing occurring with a race of "people" from another universe. I think we're well beyond improbable. There are a number of former evolutionary biologists who have abandoned that for creation given the great leap of faith required. Google Roger Oakland, for example. (A nice guys, whose books and articles I recommend.)
We convict people every day based on DNA probabilities; yet, those odds dwarf some of these issues we accept almost blindly.
As far as real intelligent people who are non-believers go, look at C.S. Lewis (or the apostle Paul). Lewis was probably one of the greatest literary minds of all time, and yet he was a non-believer until he investigated Christianity as he did other things. Then (like Paul) became one of the greatest evangelists the world has known.
Did you read the article I linked? I'm stuck on the line that there's not s single nut, bolt, etc that we have for evidence. The absence of evidence speaks volumes. The government can't hide everything.
posted 03-30-2008 08:33 PM
Barry, The jury (Scopes) is NOT still out on evolution. There are a great many details to learn, but that does not damn the whole of evolutionary anthropology.
Incidentally, the human eye is nothing compared to the eye of a mantis shrimp---the most complex eye found on Terra Firma. It's eye is so much more complicated than ours because that animal needs such an eye. The universe is filled with evidence of God, and the world is filled with his creation. There are basically two kinds of biblical scholars.
1. The scholar who takes (for example) Genesis literally---that Adam and Eve (NOT austrolopithicus) were given a specific garden for which they "fell from grace" when they ate of the forbiden fruit. That worldview SOMETIMES views man as being fatally flawed---inherently evil. This I find to be a sort of insult to the human race. Such a world view must be depressing for it's adherents.It's also unduely harsh toward women, virtually blaming the gender for every toil and woe forever. That is of course if you only consider the 1 of 2 versions of the Hebrew Creation Story.
2. Then there is the scholars (including the bulk of Jewish Torah scholars--you know, the people who's book we use)who see the garden episode as allegorical for man's choice. It's like having a room full of nice toys, and my 3 boys are welcome to play with all of the toys, EXCEPT one particular shiney red ball. Well, my kids WILL play with the shiney red ball---not because they are EVIL or "fallen" from God, but because they were given a choice. We all have choices----and we all make wrong choices sometimes. The majority of biblical scholars believe in the parabelic version----and of course they also believe Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, but the story was a metaphor for Jonah being CONSUMED with his anger (a whale of a temper.)
There is nothing in my worldview (see UCC church) that holds any anti-evolution contradictions. Life is easy when it all works together. My 2 cents.
Read any Leakey Anthropology (my college minor btw) and look at the skull record. If one must reject human evolution, they must believe as my grandmother believed--that the bones were planted by the devil---or they must believe that we used to have HIGHLY intelligent monkeys that walked upright, buried their dead, and made spears, axes, and drew rudementary pictures.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-30-2008).]
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-30-2008).]
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-30-2008).]
posted 03-30-2008 08:55 PM
You mean the jury is in and evolution is fact? Let me ask this then. Evolutionary thinking is based on what is known as uniformitarianism. That is, everything happens today as it did in the past. (Funny, Peter predicted people would one day think that way - and he said it 2000 years ago.) Anyhow, we know the rate at which the sun is burning. If we extrapolate back, you quickly find that the sun and earth would have been touching 20 million years ago. Can you say barbecue? To get around that, you've got to come up with all kinds of stories to "fix" that little problem.
If evolution is real (and we don't see it today), then Christ died for nothing. If Genesis is an allegory, then all of Judaism and Christianity are a farce. If evolution is true, then death is important to the life of man, and a good thing. However, the Bible clearly teaches that man sinned and then death came into the world - the exact opposite of evolution's claims. If Adam and Eve weren't real people, then the Bible can't be trusted for anything, and nor can Christ for He believed in the infallibility of Scripture. (When we talk about evolution, we must differentiate between micro and macro. One occurs. One doesn't.)
Coincidentally enough, I preached on Jonah today. Christ, God himself, didn't believe the story of Jonah was an allegory, but that's a longer discussion. (We do have some accounts of people being swallowed by fish and surviving; although, there aren't as many as some claim.)
Whether you believe any given account in the Bible as true or some form of allegory, you must make a decision as to why you hold those views.
Might I suggest a quick read that addresses some of your points well? Paul Little's "Know Why You Believe."
posted 03-30-2008 09:00 PM
You've changed things since I started typing.
Go ahead and question the fossil record. It doesn't take long to learn that these bones were found miles apart and put "together" by a person who was trying to create what he wanted to see.
The upright ape to which you refer is a stretch. The knee bone was crushed, so we have no idea if it walked upright or not. how about the skull that was a hoax? Over 500 people earned PhDs studying that one - until somebody cut it in half and learned the dirty little secret.
Do you know that one of the "races" of people I learned about in high school - with the full-body pictures was based on a single tooth? Yes, a single tooth - that we now know belonged to a pig!
posted 03-30-2008 09:28 PM
Your few data points regarding the neadertalensis' tooth (a pigs tooth later found)falls quiet. We have since found many nendertals---and ironically, the first one we found had sever arthritis and was hunched over---so we thought they were all hunched over. The record is getting clearer with every dig season. Your tooth was definetly unfortunate, but it was a single data point.
We have in fact found entire skeletons of austrolopithicus, homos erectus, and homos habbilis. You must be reading religious books, not anthropology books.
I suppose you want to debate the already accepted Carbon dating (replaced by an even more accurate laser dating)---the very dating that showed the "Iceman" of northern Europe to be 15 thousand years older than what the Fundementalists believe even the earth existed. I loved his jewelry and rudementary clothing.
I never stated that ALL accounts in the Bible were allegorical. Let's face it, the accounts of Jesus were far younger and more historical than the oral traditions of the Torah---by oh, a thousand years or so. To make inductive reasoning as a practice when viewing the great Bible is problematic. To suggest that if the Bible has some allegory, than the whole book and consequentially, the faith in God is undermined is even by Christian Scholars' circles, laughable. This of course does not apply to the Southern Babpist Church, which labeled the following denominations as a cult; Unitarianism Mormonism (LDS) United Church of Christ Congregational Churches Catholocism .....and many others we all attend. I don't know 'bout your church, but we don't talk about other people's churches disparingly. We talk about the Teachings and Life, and Love. The hard stuff. Anyone can burn down a barn, but few can build one.
Those folks believe that Adam and Eve started their mornings off with a tseradactyle egg omelet, and farmed with stegasaur-pulled ox carts. Please.
Just because we don't have an 8x10 glossy of that era, does not mean it's reasonable to consider.
Too often it appears that the opposite of Barry's conclusion is true. Evolutionists do a lot less filling in the blanks than Creationists who seem unable to make midstream adjustments to a changing, and easy to fortify faith in the Creator.
When scientists in recent years found the "dwarf species of man", the 4 ft tiny skulled mini people in the south pacific-not dwarfs, more like elves really-----a human species that seemed to have been extinct/ dead ended a relatively short time ago, I had no doubts that they were God's children----and I marveled at how tricky the human record is and how God sure gave us alot of brilliant puzzles.
I don't need the Bible to green light the existance of talking, artistic, hunter gatherer elves. I need only say "My God!"
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-30-2008).]
posted 03-30-2008 10:26 PM
This is a very popular image in Creationist museums and at Conservpedia, the Christian version of wikipedia, as wiki has been accused of being too "liberal"----for instance its definition of God is written that God is "believed to be...." rather than "God IS...."
If this painting is remotely concievable, than Houston, we have a problem.
BTW, the rider is none other than Jesus Christ on his way to the Sermon on the Mount. I have to keep my kids from seeing this picture as if it were porn or something. I dread explaining it, as they love dinosaurs and they love Jesus----but the picture makes it all look more exciting than the boring old 20-40 million year old extinction record, and Jesus' boring WALK to the Mount.
Incidentally readers, primitive human bones that are indicative of upright walking, versus knuckle -dragging ape motoring is found in the pelvis bones, not the knee bone as earlier suggested.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-30-2008).]
posted 03-30-2008 10:36 PM
I dislike discussing biblical topics on a polygraph board. It appears individuals have the same differing opinions regarding biblical beliefs as they do polygraph beliefs. There appears to be no resolution to the differing views other than argument for arguments sake. Using George's argument, show me your scientific studies.
The post was dealing with UFO's, not the Bible. I had zero intention of steering the discussion onto matters of religion, but some refer to the Good Book over matters of historic record. You are correct. But I will say that I can and will change my mind when offered a better framework of knowledge. It is typically posters such as Barry, Ray, and several others who do in fact change my mind, or really---add to my knowledge for broader consideration.
It's funny how when we discuss any other fabled creature--be it yeti or ghosts--we think of legondary tales realized. But when we discuss ET's and UFO's---folks are compelled to talk God. I don't think the creator would need a ship----so I doubt the subject must entail a theological discussion.
Look at any other private professional message discussion board, and you will find a section called "off topic" posts---since this is a polygraph forum, we could call it "artifacts." A hot rod forum I occasionally post on calls such off-topic subject matter (usually about women) "backfires." Unfortunately, we have yet to receive the upgrade we were assured, so strange topics are thrusted into the single subject column forum---thus appearing to have a certain importance or urgency. Nothing really important or urgent about ufo's in my mind. I just wondered what some of my friends and colleagues thought about the subject. No need for scientific treatise or expert testimony----we've all seen the debunkings and the pro-existence shows alike on cable for years.
If the upgrade were activated, you would refrain from stating what is appropriate and what is not, as "artifacts" would include talk of motorcycles, guns, and yes....even ufo's and the religious implications. And if you didn't like it you could read what subjects you were interested in.
Going back to Bill's point regarding "show me the studies", we have within the Big 4 in ancient earth studies---anthropology, archeology, palientology, and geology, a mountain of scientific studies. A mountain. Like antipolygraph, there is a very vocal crowd of naysayers that tear down research, and offer no real research of their own---other than to correct typo-s made by real scientists.
And lastly, UFO's are relevant, as the study of them have so many variables and beliefs that it ---dare I say----has a lot in common with polygraph. Moreover, UFO's deal with deception. Either thousands of witnesses decided one day to tell one HUGE lie, or our government has told THOUSANDS of lies. And then there are the cases of plain old mistaken identity. Either way, we are Dedicated to Truth, right?
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-30-2008).]
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-30-2008).]
posted 03-31-2008 05:52 AM
Stat, I only have time for one right now, but read the writings of Zuckerman and Oxnard on Australopithecus, now known to be fully ape - not man. They are both evolutionists. There are others who reached the same conclusions. I was going to bring this around to polygraph, but no time know. Suffice it to say that we creationists need do nothing but what GM does: cite all the conflicting statements of the evolutionists themselves.
Carbon dating - when dated by universities not told what they were dating - has shown dinosaur bones to be less then 10,000 years good. When it failed in other areas, evolutionists declared it's only good for items 30,000 years old or less.
posted 03-31-2008 07:02 AM
This thread may be off topic but I have enjoyed it anyway. The distinction between science, ie what we know based on observation, and religion, what we choose to believe, seems pretty clear.
posted 03-31-2008 07:46 AM
Here is a nice, short piece that demonstrates continental drift. Sure, there are plenty of disagreements amongst scientists regarding details, but we certainly know that continents move about 1 ft per year as a result of deep convection currents of magma below the surface. Place a leaf in a pan of very hot water (near boiling) and the heat will turn and drift the leaf as it floats. A nice experiment in convection current and it's effect when underneath non-latent heated matter. Great for the kids. The fossil record---animal and plant fossil records show what parts of the continents were connected---the coastal volcanized fossil record gives us the a wealth of information---and the key is what lies beneath all that disappearing ice in Antarctica---what used to be a tropical jungle HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years ago.
As a Christian, I am not the least bit discouraged from feeling special to God despite the fact that my species has been around far less than 100th of 1 percent of the overall age of the earth---while the dinosaurs had the run of the planet for the lionshare of planetary history. In physics, a million years is only a second to a God who is multidimmensional.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-31-2008).]
posted 03-31-2008 08:09 AM
Yes, that's consistent with the Genesis account. It says in Peleg's lifetime, the earth split. You can look at a globe and see how the continents could very well have fit together nicely.
For all kinds of scientific arguments for a young earth, go to the Institute for Creation Research's website (www.icr.org ?). Beware, it's highly scientific. Also, there are some creationists who believe in an old earth. There are few, but Hugh Ross comes to mind.
If ever you want to have a good time, go to a debate between two real scientists on the topic of evolution verses creation. (You can probably find some on-line, but live is better.) The evolutionists usually end up sounding like Grogan when Jack Trimarco called in. Check you local universities to see if there's a show coming near you.
By the way, I started as an evolutionists. I believed what I was taught in school, and then I began to learn what little evidence evolutionists had, and after much investigation, I was persuaded.
I think it was Piltdown man who I learned about in high school. (It might have been Nebraska man. It's been years since I studied this stuff.) They had a nice, full-body picture of that race in my texts. We now know Piltdown man was not a man, but rather a pig. They had one single tooth and created a race of people (Which I mentioned above). You pointed out already that Neanderthal man is not and was not an intermediary species, but rather fully man (with scurvy and rickets, I think).
Why don't we see evidence of evolution today? We've seen thousands of generations of fruit flies that were subjected to every type of harm we could give them and yet we still have fruit flies. Granted, some were mutated, but radiation will do that to you; however, only bad things happened, and they were still fruit flies.
I don't recall who asked, but when you see UFO in the title, you know this is one of those off-topic discussions Stat wants a separate link for. We have them every so often. They're a fun way of getting to know people. I appreciate how much different our interests are outside of polygraph. Some I know nothing about and just read just to get a flavor of the different personalities here.
posted 03-31-2008 08:40 AM
I think your citing of Zuckerman and Oxnard on Australepithecus was an excellant example Barry----an example of how weak the modern creationist movement is. Both of the theorists were basically throwing around made up facts to reinforce their hatred for human evolution. Both men were proven wrong, and we must remember that they stated that austra-man was an ape----and Leakey hadn't even found the "Lucy" skeleton at that point. The evidence was so revolting to the men, that they stuck to their guns (sans credible evidence) and became both the laughing stock and poster children for bad science, and the 20th century heroine for people starved for a less complicated worldview. Read this article regarding these two painfully wrong theorists and remember that good, thoughtful people see them as heroes--despite the fact that as the years and digs progressed, they were farther and farther from being correct. I believe one of the main problems is that alternative views to religious dogma prevent people from even taking a look at the "inconvenient" science. It's Cappurnicus all over again, only the bulk of scientists are vastly outnumbering the various church's "scientists." Even if Austra-man was hunched over---a fine line between walking upright and knuckle dragging, then what of the other 89 or so upright hominid species found in the world? Creationists repeatedly pull a "maschke" and throw the baby out with perfectly good bathwater sans a dustbunny.
The historic record and observable sciences show over and over again that when we view man as being so alone and precious we are always proven wrong. Every time we think we have the distilled version of facts, they get more complicated. We see ages, planetary neighbors, trillions of stars, millions of galaxies, and we are discovering new planets to the tune of 100 a day using the newer model of hundreds of scanning computerized smaller telescopes versus the older mega telescopes. We are not alone, we are not an old species, and we are not exempt from every other living thing in the universe---in that we are evolving at a super slow rate that won't be evident for 100 thousand years or so.
posted 03-31-2008 09:18 AM
My point was that those two are not creationists. They are evolutionists (just read them), and the evolutionary movement hates them for what they said. That was my point: no real agreement.
But okay, take a look at this one, and you'll see most creationists are honest, and they'll correct their errors. "Lucy" proves nothing in regard to human evolution. http://www.icr.org/article/1072/
posted 03-31-2008 09:28 AM
When I used to read the evolutionists, I came across "spontaneous generation." Have you ever heard of that one? What they said is that the fossil record lacks any transitional life forms, so they theorized that maybe life didn't change slowly, but rather quickly, even spontaneously.
To date, we have yet to find a single set of remains that conclusively reveals and intermediary species, and we should see thousands or millions of them. Instead, we look at a potpourri of bones and come up with the single skeleton we call Lucy, and she's still a monkey. Why don't we see thousands of them?
Also, if dinosaurs are so old, why is it that we have hundreds of their bones on the surface of the desert? Just watch the Discovery Channel. I watched an evolutionists walk around, stepping over visible bones - none of which were dug up - as he made his speech. Should they have been buried by millions of years of earth?
posted 03-31-2008 09:28 AM
...and this single film codifies the whole argument. Every polygraph examiner must be forced to watch this clip in order to understand what Barry, Ray, Skip and many others face when having public debates with antipolygraph foes. It is the core of science. It is simple to understand, and every point against creationist theory transposes PERFECTLY to our understanding of how todebate the sciences. Enjoy and remember every word.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 03-31-2008).]
When an argument is not proven on either side, both sides are basically arguing from the same fallacies.
Because something has not been proven false does not mean the same thing as something is false. In the same token, just because one cannot prove something does not mean that it is not true. However, one should not argue that their idea is true just because it cannot be either proved or disproved, as probability is somewhat tangible.
What scientists have basically hypothesized is that energy is the basis of all things. Energy can exist even after death and in fact become a part of the life. When I heard this I thought of George Lucas and his ideas of the force.
Multiverses/parallel universes have also been calculated, which gives way to the hypothesis that parallel times can exist as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Interestingly enough, a very similar argument that is used by anti-polygraph is also debated by scientists in the aforementioned hypothesis:
quote:
Non-scientific claims
Critics claim that these theories lack empirical correlation and testability, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable; outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove.
Bad science
Some have argued that the job of a scientist is to provide fundamental explanations for observed phenomena, without making reference to observers. Resorting to anthropic principles constitutes a "lazy way out" of accounting for features such as the apparent fine-tuning of parameters in relation to the existence of life.
Leonard Susskind claims, however, that some form of multiverse is unavoidable, given the current state of physics, and that observer effects are inevitable and have to be taken into account in other sciences.
So what does all of this mean when it comes to debate anyway?
Well it boils down to the simple notion that in a non-formal debate (where rules and scores are summed to declare a winner) whoever argues the most logical and evidence driven point in an eloquent way usually wins the debate with the general public. Lawyers do this every day with an utter disregard for the formalities.
[This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 04-01-2008).]
In court and in politics the reasons for, and goals of, argument are to win a contest.
Outside of those contexts, people sometimes argue for other reasons such as the opportunity to learn from one's opponent or learn about one's opponent.
People sometimes argue to be heard, or to solve problems, or for other pathological reasons such as there disagreeable personality structure. Its their nature.
While it's possible that people argue and no-one wins because they are both employing the same fallacies, its also possible that no-one wins because we simply don't know enough about the topic. I hate to sound like a mystic, but this is a rather big topic.
Again, I enjoyed following it all.
So, thanks Barry and stat for a great job taking on a massive and difficult subject.
.02
r
------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
posted 04-01-2008 07:26 AM
Loved the point JB. I like it when examiners ponder the possibilities of life, God, and even the supernatural. Mixing science and the supernatural can be done, but as the video reminded, scientists are cautioned from doing so----but WE can do it in a casual forum. One of the most fascinating devlopments that makes me almost wet myself, is that in a lab---recently, scientists were able to show that a single atom can exist in two places at the same time. Have you wet yourself yet? That's right----the lab has proven that matter can exist simultaneosly in two different places within a particle excellerator (doohickey.) What 's that mean? It suggests that science is scratching the surface of multidimensional existance. String theory, basically---that we all exist on a certain vibratory frequency (like a piano string) while there exists (they calculate) 9 other "channels" of existance. No one has much of a clue as to what vibratory strings the other "nodes" are like, but the theory goes (mathmatical equation) that ouruniverse is expanding in an excellerated pace---like the mid stages of debree from a slowed down explosion---and that our universe's explosion resonated(es) a Node---and all things in it are vibrating to it---the same way molecules vibrate in heated matter when it is pliable---which is why warm water cleans better (the molecules are moving like crazy.)
Most scientists attend religious services or ascribe to a religious affiliation in they're personal time. The good ones seperate the two, but harmlessly wonder amongst each other without dogma that if a species of intelligent people have , say, a dinosaurs' lifetime of existance---and cnsequently a "science age" of a million years or even less, than they have much of this down to scientific practice. I have little doubts that if we had entered our space age 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't be burning oil to make the vehicle go vroom vroom----we'd be too smart for that kind of thing, eh? Instead we are at our 100th year or so---40 something years of a mere space age.
My point is that we are seeing some wonderful laws being added to the universe, and once we learn those laws, we can begin working on magnificent things. Perhaps it could be us some day zipping through space, curing our diseases, loving lifeforms in all shapes and sizes, and getting better exponentially at all of those things and more.
We have learned that everytime a person says "can't"----as in you can't break the sound barrier"---we are dead wrong. Every time a person says "no", "the Bible says something different" about the age of the planet--it's proven wrong. The fault doesn't lie in the Bible, it lies in the way it is interpreted. The Bible, at no time plainly says the planet is 5000 years old, and that that was an arbitrary calculation that every Torah Rabbi knows is a case of "cats and dogs" metaphoric liberty. Anyone who says the Bible, in it's entirety, is to be read like a newspaper---is in a great minority. Too often we Christians have taken THEIR book and turned it into what we want. The true arrogance comes in the form that Christians too often infer that it was Jesus who invented the parable/heuristic teaching through storytelling---but the elder profits and biblical writers were not savvy enough to do so---they merely reported what they saw.
posted 04-01-2008 07:48 AM
Let me say, that it is my opinion that the Bible is flled with Truth, not fact. That's fine to me. Jesus' story of the Prodigal Son is Truth (one of my favorites too.) It is a story. Whether Moses parted the Red Sea, or as the actual translation shows, parted "the Sea of Reeds"--makes no difference. Moses was the instrument of the one God---in my mind. Now if science were to prove that Moses did in fact part the Red Sea, than fine. I am no less affected by that. I am sure that if God wanted to part the Red Sea, he could have. Similarly, I don't care if Jesus walked on water or not, the point is not the miracle, it is that his wisdom rose above all around him and he walked atop the very fearful and ignorant citizenry and left his disciples in awe of his heavenly wisdom. I am of the mind that Jesus was greater than mere magic/miracles---it was his words that resonated 2000 yrs later, not necessarily his mysticism/miracles---although they were fantastic too.
I write this because there are many good people who were told that they must believe the Bible as a newspaper---and so they do not embrace the wisdom due to the above ultimatum. My grandmother (I loved my dear granny) was just such a person----leaving me "unchurched" due to such required belif in the literal Bible----remember, she told me that Dinosaur bones were planted on earth by Satan to confuse us and make us disbelieve in the word for word Genisis. I knew even at 8 yrs old that Granny was delusional. Such a prerequisite may exist in some minority churches, but the majority of seminary schools and denominations do not hold Barry's "Bible as Newspaper" view. I take some pleasure in knowing that my dear grandmother is in heaven being somewhat surprised that her worldview was not quite right---and that dinosaurs did in fact live for millions of years while God watched his very own Jurrasic Park.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-01-2008).]
quote: but the majority of seminary schools and denominations do not hold Barry's "Bible as Newspaper" view.
That is an appeal to authority that presupposes disagreements mean you're right.
The Bible claims to be infallible. Jesus made that same claim. If Jesus was and is both fully God and fully human (as of the time of His incarnation), then He couldn't lie.
When Paul still walked the earth, there were people who denied the resurrection. He told them he was a witness of the risen Lord, and he pointed them to other witnesses that could verify his claim. Just because there were people who claimed to be Christians and claimed no resurrection doesn't make what they claimed true (or factual). The facts were the truth, and one must weigh the evidence and make a personal decision.
The newspaper view muddies the waters. I used an example to make a point of how we normally interpret writings.
If evolution is true, then Christianity is false. They are mutually exclusive. If the Bible can't be trusted in everything, then why trust anything? It's either what Jesus (God) claimed or it wasn't.
Let me address a comment you made earlier as they tie in:
quote: This of course does not apply to the Southern Babpist Church, which labeled the following denominations as a cult; Unitarianism Mormonism (LDS) United Church of Christ Congregational Churches Catholocism
Some define a cult as any non-Christian religious organization. I don't think that really tells us anything about the organization as cultic or not.
Let's address them one by one:
Unitarians: They deny the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the death and resurrection of Christ and the infallibility of Scripture. Whether a cult or not, they don't accept the essentials of the Christian faith. As somebody once said, "You can put kittens in the oven but that don't make'em biscuits."
LDS: They deny the deity of Jesus Christ, and essential of Christianity. (They believe - and there were splits in the LDS church too - Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers. They also believe that Adam was a god and LDS men can go on to become gods themselves someday. They believe the KJV to be the Word of God "insofar as it is accurately interpreted" - by them, of course.
The UCC are all over the place. Every congregation is different. The literature I get from them up here reveals a very liberal group that denies some of the essentials of Christianity.
Catholics: I was raised Catholic. They drew first blood in this one. The official teaching of the Catholic Church is that if one believes salvation is by grace alone, by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, he is to be anathema (eternally cursed). Not all Catholics agree, but the Church hasn't changed its position. That means almost all Protestant churches are outside of the faith and destined for hell, with the exception of the "misplaced brethren" or whatever they call them.
All of their seminaries would disagree with one another. The Christian's final court of arbitration is the Bible, making it an objective standard, not the subjective standard you propose. You're entitled to hold that view. Even Jesus didn't beat people over the head and force them to believe what He said.
I pointed out that there are disagreements among evolutionists as to whether they've found any intermediary species.
quote: Nature 258, 389 - 395 (04 December 1975); doi:10.1038/258389a0
The place of the australopithecines in human evolution: grounds for doubt?
C. E. Oxnard*
*Address: Department of Anatomy, The University of Chicago, 1025 East 57th Street, Illinois 60637.
Although most studies emphasise the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore, that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (Australopithecus africanus—"Homo habilis", "Homo africanus") was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions. Their locomotion may not have been like that of modern man, and may, though including a form or forms of bipedality, have been different enough to allow marked abilities for climbing. Bipedality may have arisen more than once, the Australopithecinae displaying one or more experiments in bipedality that failed. The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to parallel entirely the genus Australopithecus thus denying the latter a direct place in the human lineage.
Nature is no friend to the creationist. He made it through the peer-review process and yet now he's not only been "repudiated" as you say, but he's been labeled as a clown. People get ugly when their worldviews are challenged don't they? (Of course they do, and we're included.)
In the end all you've offered is a couple of "races" of something - something the evolutionists can't even agree on - claimed, by faith, to be half-man and half ape. The problem I have with that is that we shouldn't have to squint to see this "evidence." If life slowly evolved into other life forms, then we should see thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence in the fossil record. We should see ape... ever so slightly different ape.. ever so slightly... different ape... to man. We don't see any of that. That absence of evidence (that Darwin claimed we'd find an vindicate him) is compelling evidence in my mind that the creation model better fits what we see.
Now of course we're way down the road to talk about this issue. We still need to back up and ask how life sprang from non-life. It didn't is the best explanation. Also, where are the intermediary multi-cell organisms that we should see in the fossil record? They are conspicuously absent too. Again, why do we not see evolution today? (Remember there's a difference between micro and macro. Species change, but they don't change species.)
Okay, I must end here for now as duty calls. As I go let me leave you with this link. It was the math that got me, and it's explained here well: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5641
For life out there, we'd need a Creator or a second universe in which the lottery was hit as well. Even evolutionists agree chance doesn't allow for that given the "young" age of their earth.
posted 04-01-2008 09:34 AM
If one wants to see transitional forms, one only need look in the mirror.
I can't for the life of me understand the straw man argument that theistic evolutionists (like me) are accused of thinking that life and it's forms happened by chance. It is a tactic of creationists to project the notion that we think life "just happened" out of mathmatical chance.
Back to transitional lifeforms. Asians are a perfect example of evolution. The grasslands of Asia necessitated that they grow epicanthic folds ("chinese eyes")to protect their eyes from the thick,tall, razor sharp grasses that covered much of the land (on the fossil record). Such grasses are not so common today, but they certainly were from 100,000-10,000BC. Look at the adaptive ability of Northern Caucasions to digest milk enzymes---and that caucasions are far more quick to develope rickets (lack of vitamin D) so that we whitey's require more vitamin D than darker skinned (skin pigment is actually stored vitamin D)people. Consequently, many dark skinned people are lactose intolerant---as they have a lineage that never developed the proper enzymes to digest cows milk, a drink they didn't need to drink much anyway. Now I am not suggesting that races differ in the sense of species---as you stated--macro vs. micro. But evolution and transitional developments are everywhere you care to look.
There are many transitional species---look at the devil fish, a walking fish---much like what evolutists have seen in the fossil record that shows water creatures leaving the water and developing greater capacity to process raw air. rather than just air particles from water.
Probably the creatures that have the quickest transistional evolution are found in the sea. There are creatures that are evolving at the pace of a thousand years---and yes, we see their transition before our eyes. You certainly will be hard pressed to find a real living breathing marine biologist who is a creationist who could pass a sanity test. Denying transitional species is like denying that grass grows because when you sit for an hour and watch it, it doesn't get taller. Take a thousand year nap, and you will see much evolution in the sea. Take a 100,000 year nap, and you will likely find humans without appendix, adnoids and tonsils,and hopefully without wisdom teeth at the very least.
EDIT; Incidentally, when you see starving African children with rickets, you can rest assured that if those children were typical caucasion children, they would have long been dead.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-01-2008).]
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-01-2008).]
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-01-2008).]
posted 04-01-2008 10:03 AM
With all this, I need to stay off this site, I just found out I'm CULTIC. Detector please remove me from the forum site totally.
posted 04-01-2008 10:07 AM
Me too Bill, I am a UCC guy---even play drums on Saturday contemporary worship services. Not exactly Manson Family stuff you know. I still love Barry as a brother though, and he has taught me much about polygraph science.
Then again, half my friends and even some family think I'm going to hell for using recreational profanity. Bill stays detector, we are a typical family.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 04-01-2008).]
posted 04-01-2008 10:23 AM
Asians are the perfect example of micro-evolution, changes in a species. (Or maybe we evolved and they didn't?) Nobody questions that occurs. However, you'll note that Asians are still human. If find one that gives birth to a leopard, give me a shout. That would be macro-evolution: a change from one species to another. You're comparing apples to oranges to make a phony argument. Micro-evolution is well established. Macro-evolution requires a leap of faith I can't make. I don't think it was long ago that medical science believed the pituitary gland was a vestigial organ with no purpose.
Even if we were to lose something as you suggest, it would still be in the DNA code for humans. That's why you see different races of people, but they're still people.
posted 04-01-2008 01:13 PM
Northern Snakehead. It's a menacing fish that clumsily walks out of lakes, breathing air for 2 or 3 days in order to invade other lakes----eventually eating native baby bass and other more saught after (see yummy) fish. It is an evolutionary transitional species. One of many. We don't yet know if it will either become a Frog (amphibean) or a reptile---it depends on so many environmental conditions. We call it a fish to be pragmatic.
posted 04-01-2008 02:26 PM
What do you think Eric and I will part ways? No chance of that - not over this. I say we save it for conversation later though, as it could get too time consuming.
Theistic evolutionist? That's even more lonely, isn't it? The evolutionists won't have you, and the creationists won't have you.
But, as for the fish, Eric made the point I would have: There are lots of them that come on land. We find 200 to 300 new species of fish each year last I knew. And, they are still fish - even those that come out of the water. I and my dog go in the water, so does that mean we devolved? The duck-billed platypus was the old case-closer they used to cite, but now it's fish. Read the evolutionists on that belly walking fish, and you'll see they can't agree on it either. Again, there are no intermediary species leading up to them. They just are, which is more evidence of special creation.
Earlier when I said "spontaneous generation," I meant punctuated equilibrium, which is the (biological)evolutionists way of saying spontaneous generation without a Creator. Look that one up some time. It was then I knew it was time to hang up my belief in evolution.
Ray,
I meant to address your statement earlier. The general view on the fall is that it affected the entire cosmos, and therefore ETs would have been impacted. The Bible speaks of Jesus coming to save humanity - not ETs, which means no (known) means of salvation from the sin of the fall (resulting in death, slow physical and instant spiritual death, which means separation from God). If the ETs out there (if they are out there) were spared from man's sin, then allowing them to come here and be impacted by its effects would be harmful.
Bill,
We're all cultic in somebody's book. That's why I said that label isn't helpful. Let's not give up logic for emotion though. Something can't be A and not A. The Catholic Church says, for example, salvation is by grace plus works. Protestant churches say that if you add works, it's not grace (a true statement logically) and you've missed the boat. Both can't be right, and the end result for some (those stat refers to) is name calling. God can't be Trinity and not Trinity as you will find if you compare most of those stat mentioned and the Unitarians, which means you're talking about different "gods." Which is a "cult"? Again, that's not a helpful label. That's a nice way of avoiding the discussion and resorting to name calling.
I don't consider any of those groups a cult. I think that term too often means something along the line of "believes something other than I do" - by a person who wants to irritate rather than communicate.
Readers with no life outside of our cult,
So are there other life forms out there, and if so were they created or did they evolve?
How about we switch the topic to Rush's Operation Chaos (or whatever he's calling it)? Politics. That's safe isn't it?
Okay, I'm kidding. I had fun with this one, but I've got work to do too.
[This message has been edited by Barry C (edited 04-01-2008).]
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
posted 03-30-2008 12:12 PM
posted 03-30-2008 01:07 PM
posted 03-30-2008 01:35 PM
