Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The UFO phenomenon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Right, I get that that's what people who reject Genesis interpret the CMB as.
    More accurately, those people who reject your new revision of Genesis. The cosmic expansion was first proposed by a Christian who accepted the traditional Christian view of Genesis, and was opposed by an atheist who rejected Genesis. (he also gave it the intended pejorative of "Big Bang" but that kind of backfired on him. He was offended, because the idea of an origin of the universe implied a creator.

    However, Christians accept the Big Bang precisely because of the many confirmed predictions of the theory, including the microwave background.

    In other words, The person who wrote that assumed that the evidence is evidence for the Big Bang, and by doing so, assumed the truth of the position.
    You're wrong, again. The Christian who proposed the idea predicted that there would be radiation left over from that initial expansion. Penzias and Wilson accidentally discovered that radiation, confirming the theory.

    In other words, you were misled about how it worked.

    But that's not all that's being addressed here. It's not JUST the CMB we're talking about.
    You might be wrong about other things; I'm just showing you that you're wrong about this.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      More accurately, those people who reject your new revision of Genesis.
      Sorry, but there's no revision of Genesis.

      This is your go-to straw man.

      Genesis says what it says. It says that God created in six days.

      It does not say God used a big bang to create the universe.

      The cosmic expansion was first proposed by a Christian who accepted the traditional Christian view of Genesis, and was opposed by an atheist who rejected Genesis.
      So what?

      It doesn't change the fact that Genesis says six days, and the fact that Jesus stated that man was created at the beginning.

      [he also gave it the intended pejorative of "Big Bang" but that kind of backfired on him. He was offended, because the idea of an origin of the universe implied a creator.


      However, Christians accept the Big Bang precisely because of the many confirmed predictions of the theory,
      Sorry, but just in the past month or so, there have been so many findings that have not only challenged the secular view of the origins of the universe, but they've BAFFLED the scientists who made those findings.

      including the microwave background.
      Again, from the Planck website:

      "Planck data reveals the presence of subtle anomalies in the CMB pattern that might challenge the very foundations of cosmology."

      The very FOUNDATIONS, Barb.

      They're talking about the Axis of Evil, the fact that the very structure of the CMB correlates with the ecliptic, the plane of the earth around the sun, which indicates that we are at the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.

      You're wrong, again.
      Saying it doesn't make it so.

      The Christian who proposed the idea predicted that there would be radiation left over from that initial expansion. Penzias and Wilson accidentally discovered that radiation, confirming the theory.

      In other words, you were misled about how it worked.
      Sorry, but the evidence cannot point to both the universe being infinite AND the earth being at the center of the universe.

      The Axis of Evil, the structure of the CMBr, cannot inherently contradict itself. Which means that either the CMBr is the result of the big bang, and it's just a coincidence that roughly half the universe is slightly warmer on one side than it is on the other, and that the dividing line just so happens to line up with the ecliptic, the plane of the earth's orbit around the sun, OR the CMBr is NOT evidence of a big bang, but is the result of some other unknown cause, and the earth really is near the center of the universe, as shown by the structure of the CMBr, with one half of the universe being slightly warmer than the other.

      The latter lines up with Genesis, with God specially creating the earth, it being the center of his attention.

      You might be wrong about other things; I'm just showing you that you're wrong about this.
      In order to show that I'm wrong about this, you have to show that the CMBr does NOT indicate that we are at the center of the universe. The ONLY way to reject that claim fully is via a philosophical argument, because the evidence indicates that we are.

      Therefore, your claim that I'm wrong is just posturing.

      PROVE ME WRONG.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Sorry, but there's no revision of Genesis.
        Yours is new. There's no point in denying it. Most Christians don't accept your revision. It doesn't mean you aren't a Christian, it just means you don't agree with the traditional view of it.

        Genesis says what it says. It says that God created in six days.
        St. Augustine pointed out that the text itself shows that the "days" (actually "yom") aren't literal days. No Christian at the time was williing to argue that finding with him. As late as the 1920s, even evangelicals were OE creationists.

        It does not say God used a big bang to create the universe.
        It doesn't say that the world is made of protons, electrons and neutrons, either. There area lot of things that are true,that aren't in Genesis.

        Sorry, but just in the past month or so, there have been so many findings that have not only challenged the secular view of the origins of the universe, but they've BAFFLED the scientists who made those findings.
        (Barbarian checks)

        Nope. In fact many puzzling things have been cleared up lately. This one just explained another puzzle:

        Following the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago, the universe gradually cooled down, allowing electrons and protons to fuse together to form hydrogen atoms. This was the beginning of the Dark Ages of the universe, which lasted until the first stars were formed. These stars must have emitted large quantities of ultraviolet radiation that was capable of ionizing the hydrogen atoms, because astronomers observed that electrons and protons separated again a billion years after the Big Bang. This is what we call the cosmic reionization period.

        Successful new measurement technique

        For a long time, astronomers could not explain where the powerful UV radiation needed for reionization had come from. The majority of observed galaxies do not emit ionizing photons and the few known exceptions emit too little to keep the universe ionized.

        Anne Verhamme, professor of astronomy at the University of Geneva, proposed that green pea galaxies—a new type of galaxy discovered ten years ago—probably emit large quantities of ionizing photons. This assumption was based on the highly specific properties of rays emitted by the hydrogen atoms in these galaxies, known as Lyman-alpha radiation. Astronomers believe that green pea galaxies resemble primordial galaxies as they are extremely compact, are creating their first generations of stars, and are still rich in gas.

        Using data from the Hubble Space Telescope, Anne Verhamme and a international team of collaborators were able to demonstrate that green pea galaxies do indeed emit large quantities of ionizing photons. If green peas are analogous to primordial galaxies, it seems very likely that it was galaxies that triggered the reionization of the universe more than 13 billion years ago.

        https://phys.org/news/2019-08-green-...arly-days.html

        Again, from the Planck website:

        "Planck data reveals the presence of subtle anomalies in the CMB pattern that might challenge the very foundations of cosmology."
        "Might?" There's a very clear signal, WRT anisotropies, that indicate why they exist:

        Tiny residual variations in the glow show a very specific pattern, as would be expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance contains small anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today. Although many different processes might produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMB.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic...ave_background

        They're talking about the Axis of Evil, the fact that the very structure of the CMB correlates with the ecliptic, the plane of the earth around the sun, which indicates that we are at the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.
        In precisely the same way that an observer in China, would find observations to indicate that China is in the very center of the world. Hence, the "Middle Kingdom."

        How does this make sense? It turns out that there are a couple of possibilities. First, the Universe could be much, much bigger than the part which we actually observe. If the Universe has the geometry of a "flat sheet" that we assume everyday on Earth, then the Cosmological Principle implies that the Universe must be infinite, since every observer at every "Universe edge" must observe the same global parameters. On the other hand, it is possible that the Universe's geometry is not flat, but curved like a sphere or a saddle. In this case, the Universe would "wrap" around at the edges: just as on the surface of the Earth, you would come back to where you started if you walked in one direction for long enough. Recent observations indicate that the first scenario is most likely true - we see a piece of the infinite, flat Universe that is 15 billion light-years in radius.How does this make sense? It turns out that there are a couple of possibilities. First, the Universe could be much, much bigger than the part which we actually observe. If the Universe has the geometry of a "flat sheet" that we assume everyday on Earth, then the Cosmological Principle implies that the Universe must be infinite, since every observer at every "Universe edge" must observe the same global parameters. On the other hand, it is possible that the Universe's geometry is not flat, but curved like a sphere or a saddle. In this case, the Universe would "wrap" around at the edges: just as on the surface of the Earth, you would come back to where you started if you walked in one direction for long enough. Recent observations indicate that the first scenario is most likely true - we see a piece of the infinite, flat Universe that is 15 billion light-years in radius.
        http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/peo...e-intermediate

        Saying it doesn't make it so.
        Evidence shows that it's so.

        In order to show that I'm wrong about this, you have to show that the CMBr does NOT indicate that we are at the center of the universe.
        See above. You've just assumed all sorts of things that you can't show any evidence for. Your philosophical assumptions are just untestable conjectures.

        There is no consensus on the nature of this and other observed anomalies[19] and their statistical significance is unclear. For example, a study that includes the Planck mission results shows how masking techniques could introduce errors that when taken into account can render several anomalies, including the Axis of Evil, not statistically significant.[20] A 2016 study compared isotropic and anisotropic cosmological models against WMAP and Planck data and found no evidence for anisotropy.[21]

        Cosmologist Edmund Schluessel has suggested that gravitational waves with extremely long wavelengths could explain the Axis of Evil.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

        What we don't yet know, isn't proof of anything.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
          Most Christians don't accept your revision.
          Darwinists have a great affinity with arguments from popularity. Without them, they'd have nothing.

          It doesn't mean you aren't a Christian, it just means you aren't rational.

          St. Augustine pointed out that the text itself shows that the "days" (actually "yom") aren't literal days.
          And he was wrong.

          Don't worry. It even happens to great thinkers, so it's too be expected from the likes of you and whoever the moron you're quoting is.

          No Christian at the time was williing to argue that finding with him. As late as the 1920s, even evangelicals were OE creationists.
          Darwinists love logical fallacies. Without them, they'd have nothing.

          It doesn't say that the world is made of protons, electrons and neutrons.
          But it is explicit: "Six days."

          Sorry. You got lied to.
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            But it is explicit: "Six days."
            The Bible also validates that those are six literal days.

            Exo 31:12-18 KJV And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (13) Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. (14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. (15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. (17) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (18) And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

            The literal seventh day sabbath is modeled on the literal six day creation.

            It's so simple that a child can understand it.
            All of my ancestors are human.
            Originally posted by Squeaky
            That explains why your an idiot.
            Originally posted by God's Truth
            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
              It's so simple that a child can understand it.
              It takes years of exposure to the government schools to be able to boldly deny the facts the way Barbarian does.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                You assume them folk are honest? I, for one, don't assume they are.
                I don't simply assume they are honest either, but they do have one thing going for them: evidence, in the form of videotape. On the evening of their abduction experience, the fellow happened to record two UFOs on video, hovering silently above the lake next to their camp. Here is a link to that section of video:

                https://youtu.be/KXVAIZdTbZc?t=354

                Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                What would you say that lady's saying, "...and soon, I was moving through the wall!", is evidence for? That she was moving through the wall?
                Perhaps they did move her through the wall using some technology far in advance of our own, or it might have been a spiritual/out-of-body experience.

                According to Christian theology, there is an angelic hierarchy including Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Powers (Virtues), Authorities, Rulers (Principalities), Archangels and Angels. And then there are the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, who were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men." Many commentators believe that these "sons of God" were fallen angels who "came down" from the heavens and produced offspring with human women. These fallen angels were then "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" because they "kept not their first estate," according to Jude 6.

                Some of the beings called "extraterrestrials" may not necessarily be physical beings from other planets. They may be angels of one kind or another, whether good and/or bad.
                Last edited by User Name; August 29th, 2019, 12:57 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                  Yours is new.
                  No, Barbarian, it's not new.

                  You've been lied to:

                  https://creation.com/josephus-says-g...s-what-it-says

                  There's no point in denying it.
                  Don't be a revisionist historian, Barb.

                  Most Christians don't accept your revision.
                  An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy, Barbarian.

                  It doesn't mean you aren't a Christian, it just means you don't agree with the traditional view of it.
                  You keep bringing this up, yet no one has said anything about salvation but you.

                  High horse, come off it.

                  St. Augustine
                  Augustine, as smart as he was, was wrong on his interpretation of the text.

                  pointed out that the text itself shows that the "days" (actually "yom") aren't literal days.
                  Sorry, but special pleading (that's another logical fallacy, by the way) doesn't help you, Barb. Yom does in fact mean a literal day.

                  It also, in addition to that, has other meanings.

                  But the meaning of yom is ALWAYS determined by the context.

                  And the context of Genesis 1 does NOT allow for it to be anything other than literal days.

                  No Christian at the time was williing to argue that finding with him.
                  So what?

                  As late as the 1920s, even evangelicals were OE creationists.
                  Josephus came before the 1920s, dontcha know? (He believed the earth was YOUNG, and that Genesis was literal.)

                  It doesn't say that the world is made of protons, electrons and neutrons, either. There area lot of things that are true,that aren't in Genesis.
                  Which means nothing in the context of this discussion.

                  What the Bible DOES say is that God created the universe and everything in it in SIX DAYS. Not billions of years.

                  (Barbarian checks)
                  We wish He would think for himself.

                  Nope. In fact many puzzling things have been cleared up lately.
                  I can't tell you how many Chrome tabs I have open in my browser currently that say otherwise, Barb, but It's a lot.

                  This one just explained another puzzle:

                  Following the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago, the universe gradually cooled down, allowing electrons and protons to fuse together to form hydrogen atoms. This was the beginning of the Dark Ages of the universe, which lasted until the first stars were formed. These stars must have emitted large quantities of ultraviolet radiation that was capable of ionizing the hydrogen atoms, because astronomers observed that electrons and protons separated again a billion years after the Big Bang. This is what we call the cosmic reionization period.

                  Successful new measurement technique

                  For a long time, astronomers could not explain where the powerful UV radiation needed for reionization had come from. The majority of observed galaxies do not emit ionizing photons and the few known exceptions emit too little to keep the universe ionized.

                  Anne Verhamme, professor of astronomy at the University of Geneva, proposed that green pea galaxies—a new type of galaxy discovered ten years ago—probably emit large quantities of ionizing photons. This assumption was based on the highly specific properties of rays emitted by the hydrogen atoms in these galaxies, known as Lyman-alpha radiation. Astronomers believe that green pea galaxies resemble primordial galaxies as they are extremely compact, are creating their first generations of stars, and are still rich in gas.

                  Using data from the Hubble Space Telescope, Anne Verhamme and a international team of collaborators were able to demonstrate that green pea galaxies do indeed emit large quantities of ionizing photons. If green peas are analogous to primordial galaxies, it seems very likely that it was galaxies that triggered the reionization of the universe more than 13 billion years ago.

                  https://phys.org/news/2019-08-green-...arly-days.html
                  For example:

                  https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world...-universe.html

                  Astronomers are baffled by new measurements of the age of the universe which appear to suggest it's younger than some of the stars it contains.



                  https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a9045951.html

                  Some researchers had long thought that such hidden galaxies might be out in the universe, waiting to be found. But now they have finally been discovered and cosmologists will have to rethink their understanding of how the universe works.



                  https://www.livescience.com/hubble-c...explained.html

                  There's a puzzling mystery going on in the universe. Measurements of the rate of cosmic expansion using different methods keep turning up disagreeing results. The situation has been called a "crisis."



                  Astonomers "baffled"?
                  Scientists having to "rethink their understanding"?
                  A "crisis"?

                  You generally don't use these terms if your proposed theory is any good at explaining the evidence.

                  And that's just three recent articles.

                  "Might?"
                  Take it up with the Planck website creators.

                  In precisely the same way that an observer in China, would find observations to indicate that China is in the very center of the world. Hence, the "Middle Kingdom."
                  Sorry, but someone claiming that they're at the center of the world doesn't make it so.

                  The evidence, namely, the CMB, and the Bible, when put together, indicates that the earth is at the center of the universe.

                  How does this make sense? It turns out that there are a couple of possibilities. First, the Universe could be much, much bigger than the part which we actually observe. If the Universe has the geometry of a "flat sheet" that we assume everyday on Earth, then the Cosmological Principle implies that the Universe must be infinite, since every observer at every "Universe edge" must observe the same global parameters. On the other hand, it is possible that the Universe's geometry is not flat, but curved like a sphere or a saddle. In this case, the Universe would "wrap" around at the edges: just as on the surface of the Earth, you would come back to where you started if you walked in one direction for long enough. Recent observations indicate that the first scenario is most likely true - we see a piece of the infinite, flat Universe that is 15 billion light-years in radius.How does this make sense? It turns out that there are a couple of possibilities. First, the Universe could be much, much bigger than the part which we actually observe. If the Universe has the geometry of a "flat sheet" that we assume everyday on Earth, then the Cosmological Principle implies that the Universe must be infinite, since every observer at every "Universe edge" must observe the same global parameters. On the other hand, it is possible that the Universe's geometry is not flat, but curved like a sphere or a saddle. In this case, the Universe would "wrap" around at the edges: just as on the surface of the Earth, you would come back to where you started if you walked in one direction for long enough. Recent observations indicate that the first scenario is most likely true - we see a piece of the infinite, flat Universe that is 15 billion light-years in radius.
                  http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/peo...e-intermediate
                  I give you, Lawrence Krauss (again, because you missed it; emphasis added):


                  "But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales."



                  Evidence shows that it's so.
                  The only thing the evidence shows is that there likely IS a center, and that we're at or near it.

                  Which is consistent with the Bible, which says that the earth is at the center of God's attention.

                  See above. You've just assumed all sorts of things that you can't show any evidence for. Your philosophical assumptions are just untestable conjectures.
                  My assumptions are that the Bible is true, all of it, and that it describes how God made the universe, not in full detail, but in enough detail that it can be confirmed through study of the universe.

                  There is no consensus on the nature of this and other observed anomalies[19] and their statistical significance is unclear. For example, a study that includes the Planck mission results shows how masking techniques could introduce errors that when taken into account can render several anomalies, including the Axis of Evil, not statistically significant.[20] A 2016 study compared isotropic and anisotropic cosmological models against WMAP and Planck data and found no evidence for anisotropy.[21]

                  Cosmologist Edmund Schluessel has suggested that gravitational waves with extremely long wavelengths could explain the Axis of Evil.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)


                  Darwinists love it when truth is a matter of popularity.

                  What we don't yet know, isn't proof of anything.
                  What we DO know is that the CMBr indicates that the universe has a center, and that the solar system is aligned to it.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    (Barbarian notes that most Christians don't accept JudgeRightly's new revision of scripture)

                    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                    An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy, Barbarian.
                    Christianity is what Christians believe. The argument that you're the only one who isn't out of step, is your fallacy.

                    (Barbarian points out that even YE creationsts can be saved)

                    You keep bringing this up, yet no one has said anything about salvation but you.
                    That's actually what scripture is for. You've lost sight of the reason for it.

                    Augustine, as smart as he was, was wrong on his interpretation of the text.
                    He's quite right. It's absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them. He's a better theologian and either of us.

                    St. Augustine pointed out that the text itself shows that the "days" (actually "yom") aren't literal days.

                    Yom does in fact mean a literal day.
                    Well, let's take a look...

                    Although yom is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom has several literal definitions:[1]

                    Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
                    General term for time
                    Point of time
                    Sunrise to sunset
                    Sunset to next sunset
                    A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)
                    Time period of unspecified length.
                    A long, but finite span of time - age - epoch - season.
                    ...
                    Thus "yom", in its context, is sometimes translated as: "time" (Gen 4:3, Is. 30:8); "year" (I Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19, Amos 4:4); "age" (Gen 18:11, 24:1 and 47:28; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2); "always" (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24 and 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7); "season" (Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3); epoch or 24-hour day (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31) – see "Creationism", below.

                    Yom relates to the concept of time. Yom is not just for day, days, but for time in general.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom

                    Sorry, but special pleading (that's another logical fallacy, by the way) doesn't help you, Barb.
                    Perhaps you don't know what "special pleading" means:

                    Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception).
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

                    Showing you that the most influential ancient Christian theologian showed how Genesis rules out literal days, is not citing an exception. As you know, his interpretation is the one commonly held by Christians.

                    Yom does in fact mean a literal day.
                    See above. It basically means "time" but can mean all sorts of time, including "always" and "forever."

                    But the meaning of yom is ALWAYS determined by the context.
                    Which is how Augustine showed that it could not mean literal days in Genesis.

                    As late as the 1920s, even evangelicals were OE creationists.

                    Josephus came before the 1920s, dontcha know? (He believed the earth was YOUNG, and that Genesis was literal.)
                    He also believed that Jews should abandon their adherence to the Law and become Roman citizens, as he did. So not a very good authority, I think.

                    It does not say God used a big bang to create the universe.
                    It doesn't say that the world is made of protons, electrons and neutrons, either. There area lot of things that are true,that aren't in Genesis.

                    Which means nothing in the context of this discussion.
                    Just pointing out your fallacy of supposing things that aren't mentioned in Genesis, can't be true.

                    What the Bible DOES say is that God created the universe and everything in it in SIX DAYS. Not billions of years.
                    I know you assume that it's literal history, but as you see, St. Augustine demonstrated that it couldn't be.

                    I can't tell you how many Chrome tabs I have open in my browser currently that say otherwise, Barb, but It's a lot.
                    "It's on the internet; it has to be true!" isn't a very convincing argument.

                    Sorry, but someone claiming that they're at the center of the world doesn't make it so.
                    Nor does someone claiming that they're at the center of the universe. It's true that if one looks out from China, it appears that China is the central land of Earth, just as it does if you look out into the universe from Earth. But these are fallacies, for the same reason.

                    I give you, Lawrence Krauss (again, because you missed it; emphasis added):


                    "But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe. The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales."
                    Unfortunately for that belief, there is evidence:

                    There is no consensus on the nature of this and other observed anomalies[19] and their statistical significance is unclear. For example, a study that includes the Planck mission results shows how masking techniques could introduce errors that when taken into account can render several anomalies, including the Axis of Evil, not statistically significant.[20] A 2016 study compared isotropic and anisotropic cosmological models against WMAP and Planck data and found no evidence for anisotropy.[21]

                    Cosmologist Edmund Schluessel has suggested that gravitational waves with extremely long wavelengths could explain the Axis of Evil.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)

                    I realize that these recent discoveries don't fit in your belief system. Ignoring them won't make your beliefs true.
                    Last edited by The Barbarian; August 29th, 2019, 08:14 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by User Name View Post
                      I don't simply assume they are honest either, but they do have one thing going for them: evidence, in the form of videotape. On the evening of their abduction experience, the fellow happened to record two UFOs on video, hovering silently above the lake next to their camp. Here is a link to that section of video:

                      https://youtu.be/KXVAIZdTbZc?t=354
                      Obviously you do assume they are honest when they tell you that their video tape is evidence that they saw/experienced this and that: you take their word for it that their video tape is evidence that they saw/experienced this and that.

                      Originally posted by User Name View Post
                      Perhaps they did move her through the wall using some technology far in advance of our own, or it might have been a spiritual/out-of-body experience.
                      I, for one, am moved through numerous walls, daily; it's really no big deal. Walking with my own feet, I move myself through walls by means of our own, tried and true technology called "doorways": an in-body experience.

                      Originally posted by User Name View Post
                      According to Christian theology, there is an angelic hierarchy including Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Powers (Virtues), Authorities, Rulers (Principalities), Archangels and Angels. And then there are the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, who were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men."
                      Where is it said that the nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men?

                      Originally posted by User Name View Post
                      Many commentators believe that these "sons of God" were fallen angels who "came down" from the heavens and produced offspring with human women.
                      And many commentators do not believe that.

                      Originally posted by User Name View Post
                      Some of the beings called "extraterrestrials" may not necessarily be physical beings from other planets. They may be angels of one kind or another, whether good and/or bad.
                      I do not call any beings "extraterrestrials". What (if any) beings do you call "extraterrestrials"?
                      All my ancestors are human.
                      PS: All your ancestors are human.
                      PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                        Obviously you do assume they are honest when they tell you that their video tape is evidence that they saw/experienced this and that: you take their word for it that their video tape is evidence that they saw/experienced this and that.
                        Without video evidence, their story would strictly be hearsay, and I wouldn't have bothered to post it. With the videotape evidence they presented, their story becomes much more persuasive, at least to me.

                        Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                        I, for one, am moved through numerous walls, daily; it's really no big deal. Walking with my own feet, I move myself through walls by means of our own, tried and true technology called "doorways": an in-body experience.
                        Yes, that's normally how it works.

                        Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                        Where is it said that the nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men?
                        Genesis 6:4.

                        Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                        And many commentators do not believe that.
                        And many commentators do believe it.

                        Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                        I do not call any beings "extraterrestrials". What (if any) beings do you call "extraterrestrials"?
                        I would call any being who is not native to this planet an "extraterrestrial." By that definition, angels could be considered extraterrestrials -- Hebrews 13:2.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                          Christianity is what Christians believe.
                          Nope.

                          That's one of the most anti-Christian things you could believe.

                          The argument that you're the only one who isn't out of step, is your fallacy.


                          Barbarian.

                          It's absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.
                          No, it's not.

                          Read the Bible. That what it teaches.

                          Yom relates to the concept of time. Yom is not just for day, days, but for time in general.
                          Luckily, the Bible is explicit. It says: "Six days."

                          Difficult to argue with that, although we're sure you'll keep trying.

                          Perhaps you don't know what "special pleading" means.

                          His interpretation is the one commonly held by Christians.
                          Darwinists love to pretend that their ideas are popular. It helps them sleep at night.

                          I realize that the evidence doesn't fit your belief system, but ignoring it won't make your beliefs true.
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by User Name View Post
                            Without video evidence, their story would strictly be hearsay, and I wouldn't have bothered to post it. With the videotape evidence they presented, their story becomes much more persuasive, at least to me.
                            Your story--that their video is evidence--is strictly hearsay. You heard them say that their video is evidence, and you take their word for it that their video is evidence.

                            Originally posted by User Name View Post
                            Yes, that's normally how it works.
                            What's normally how what works?

                            Originally posted by User Name View Post
                            Genesis 6:4.
                            What are you referring to as "Genesis 6:4"? I'm referring to the Genesis 6:4 found in the Bible. In the Genesis 6:4 that we can read in the Bible, it is nowhere said that any nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. Here's the verse:

                            There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
                            Notice that we read that "they bare children to them", and that we do not read that "they bare nephilim to them".

                            Originally posted by User Name View Post
                            And many commentators do believe it.
                            You already said that, and what was your point in saying it the first time? And what was your point in saying it a second time?

                            Originally posted by User Name View Post
                            I would call any being who is not native to this planet an "extraterrestrial."
                            How do you decide when to say that a particular being is native to this planet, and when to say that a particular being is not native to this planet?

                            Would you say that the video tape you have been calling "evidence" is evidence that some being(s) is/are not native to this planet? If so, which being(s) do you mean? If not, then what would you say that video tape is evidence for?

                            Originally posted by User Name View Post
                            By that definition, angels could be considered extraterrestrials -- Hebrews 13:2.
                            So you call angels "extraterrestrials"? What (if anything) besides angels do you call "extraterrestrials"?
                            All my ancestors are human.
                            PS: All your ancestors are human.
                            PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Quotes from the Washington Examiner regarding the reality of UFOs:

                              [T]he now-established data on unexplained aerial phenomena is undeniable. Since at least 2004, numerous U.S. Navy aircrews have seen hypersonic- and anti-gravity-capable unidentified aerial phenomena with their eyes and on their gun cameras. This phenomena evidences technical performance capabilities far in advance of any national military. In some cases, that data is matched by satellite tracking, sonar, and radar data sets. This issue is real and significant. (Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ple-about-ufos )

                              UFOs have repeatedly shown what seems to be intelligence in their operation and behavior-response to manned aircraft and monitoring systems in their vicinity. I am led to believe that the Russians (including in the Soviet era) have repeatedly tried and failed to shoot down UFOs, which have practiced evasive techniques.

                              In addition, UFOs have shown an ability to travel at hypersonic speeds with anti-gravity characteristics. Some underwater phenomena are also capable of supercavitation speeds of hundreds of miles per hour underwater. Note that when it comes to underwater objects, the recorded size indicates they are not torpedoes or vessels of any known type.

                              Third, UFOs manifest a continuing and special interest in military-nuclear technology (I believe it is notable that credible sightings began following the first use of atomic weapons). Former nuclear forces officers have testified that UFOs have, on occasion, even deactivated U.S. nuclear missiles during test operations.

                              Fourth, UFOs often show evidence of plasma manipulation, possibly in relation to manifested cloaking capabilities.

                              I am also extraordinarily confident these UFOs are not the creation of any current government or private interest. They are definitely not U.S. in origin, and they are far in advance of Chinese and Russian capabilities — including in the field of hypersonic capabilities (which the Russians lead in).

                              So where does this leave us?

                              With many questions and the need to do more research. Fortunately, albeit secretly, the U.S. government continues to do just that, as do private interests.

                              Source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...than-you-think

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                From Popular Mechanics:

                                "The U.S. Navy has confirmed that three online videos purportedly showing UFOs are genuine...In each case, the objects in the videos undertook aerial maneuvers that aren't possible with current aviation technology. In the 2004 incident, according to The New York Times, the objects "appeared suddenly at 80,000 feet, and then hurtled toward the sea, eventually stopping at 20,000 feet and hovering. Then they either dropped out of radar range or shot straight back up."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X