Originally posted by RJHindsActually, it is our minds that give us free will. Free to be blinded by religious fear and to live your life that way, always trying to preach to the multitudes, and BTW, get a great job with lifetime benefits, for the leaders always eat very well indeed, much better than their fearful flock.
God gave us all the free will to love Him or reject Him.
Originally posted by sonhouseI think you may be referring to false teaches like this:
Actually, it is our minds that give us free will. Free to be blinded by religious fear and to live your life that way, always trying to preach to the multitudes, and BTW, get a great job with lifetime benefits, for the leaders always eat very well indeed, much better than their fearful flock.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are limiting reality to the constraints of your own conceptions. That is flawed, even in your own perverse world, so you should not use your ignorance as an argument in favour of your superstitious belief.
That is the only way I can conceive of it happening. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
An example:
My dog believes her food comes rom the microwave, its the only way she can conceive of it happening. The thought that I am defrosting frozen meat for her is beyond her.
Like my bitch, accept your limitations.
Originally posted by wolfgang59You edited out the first part of my post and here is is:
You are limiting reality to the constraints of your own conceptions. That is flawed, even in your own perverse world, so you should not use your ignorance as an argument in favour of your superstitious belief.
An example:
My dog believes her food comes rom the microwave, its the only way she can conceive of it happening. The thought that I am defrosting frozen meat for her is beyond her.
Like my bitch, accept your limitations.
Yes, I can't conceive of it happening by accidental chance, because I was not designed by God to be able to conceive how God brought life into the world. He had to tell us in simple language so all could conceive of it. So now we know that it did not happen by chance. God designed the universe and fine-tuned it to support life before he brought life into the world.
You are criticizing me for my limited conceptional ability and ignoring your own. How can you know what is in your dog's mind? Is that becasue you can't conceive of him thinking anything else?
Originally posted by RJHindsAll you have to do is make the big step from the preposterous notion of biblical creation to saying god made the whole universe the way it is, seemingly fine tuned for life, which happens to be true on at least one planet in the universe. Saying god created the universe as it is seen right now is just as valid as any scientific argument or theory since we have very little evidence (there is some thin evidence of what came before our universe started but not a whole lot) so your god idea is just as valid AT THIS POINT IN TIME at least, than science.
You edited out the first part of my post and here is is:
Yes, I can't conceive of it happening by accidental chance, because I was not designed by God to be able to conceive how God brought life into the world. He had to tell us in simple language so all could conceive of it. So now we know that it did not happen by chance. God designed the universe and f ...[text shortened]... hat is in your dog's mind? Is that becasue you can't conceive of him thinking anything else?
It is after the big bang or whacking membranes or whatever it was that started off our universe that you start getting profoundly deluded in your "thinking".
Originally posted by RJHindsAnother winner RJH! Keep 'me rolling! You just crack me up every time! How I look forward to your moronic gibberish, the flummery and gobbledygook!
In the following lecture and slide show, Spike Psarris presents the problems evolutionists have with our solar system. Spike Psarris was an engineer in the U.S. military space program. He went into the U.S. military space program as an atheist and committed evolutionist, and came out of it as a young-earth creationist and Christian.
Our Solar System: Ev ...[text shortened]... m: Evidence for Creation, Part 9 of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPsGSKHhzOM&feature=relmfu
Originally posted by sonhouseI think it is the evolutionists that are deluded in their thinking.
All you have to do is make the big step from the preposterous notion of biblical creation to saying god made the whole universe the way it is, seemingly fine tuned for life, which happens to be true on at least one planet in the universe. Saying god created the universe as it is seen right now is just as valid as any scientific argument or theory since we h ...[text shortened]... as that started off our universe that you start getting profoundly deluded in your "thinking".
Originally posted by RJHindsThere are about 8 generations of such deluded thinking then. Since to a man they would be more intelligent than you, it is their story that holds together rather well, yours is getting a bit long in the tooth. Also you cannot change, but new evidence can change the direction of evolutionary research.
I think it is the evolutionists that are deluded in their thinking.
Originally posted by sonhouseThere is a way that seems right to a man,
There are about 8 generations of such deluded thinking then. Since to a man they would be more intelligent than you, it is their story that holds together rather well, yours is getting a bit long in the tooth. Also you cannot change, but new evidence can change the direction of evolutionary research.
But its end is the way of death
(Proverbs 14:12 NKJV)
Originally posted by sonhouseThis was new evidence about fifty years ago that has never been refuted and still it has not changed the direction of evolutionary reasearch.
There are about 8 generations of such deluded thinking then. Since to a man they would be more intelligent than you, it is their story that holds together rather well, yours is getting a bit long in the tooth. Also you cannot change, but new evidence can change the direction of evolutionary research.
Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation Part 1 of 3
Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation Part 2 of 3
&feature=relmfu
Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation Part 3 of 3
&feature=relmfu
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsOne problem is Gentry has only an MS and not a Phd in physics and is not an expert of geological formations. He claims the rocks he examined are primordial rocks but they are not, and some of them are not even granite as he claims. He never verified the origin or type of rock he was given, just assuming they were primordial.
This was new evidence about fifty years ago that has never been refuted and still it has not changed the direction of evolutionary reasearch.
Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation Part 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDRGp-VcBJI
Evolution Theory Proven False by Scientific Observation Part 2 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch ...[text shortened]... y Scientific Observation Part 3 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLvWcVtbtB0&feature=relmfu
The problem of the MS V Phd is the MS does not have to do as much in the way of original work to get that MS. The Phd level has to have real originality shown which Gentry has not. You can't call him Dr Gentry because he didn't finish his education in physics.
Here is a refutation of his work and they note at the end that some people have included his works in geological texts without doing the background work on his analysis.
One small note: no such halo's have been observed in any of the rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts. Why would that be if the moon was created at the same time Earth was?
Try reading through this: One thing I am familiar with is ion beams and what they say in this refutation is right on, from my own observations during my 20 years in the ion implantation field:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm
Here is just the conclusion of a large work refuting his claims:
&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Sorry, nice try but no cigar.
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI noticed this reference:
One problem is Gentry has only an MS and not a Phd in physics and is not an expert of geological formations. He claims the rocks he examined are primordial rocks but they are not, and some of them are not even granite as he claims. He never verified the origin or type of rock he was given, just assuming they were primordial.
The problem of the MS V Phd i org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm
Sorry, nice try but no cigar.
Wakefield, J. Richard , 1988, Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", Journal of Geological Education, May, 1988.
The video mentoned that some were calling it a "tiny mystery" or "a riddle" to be solved. But have they really solved it with solid proof or is this just more conjecture based on assumption that may or may not be true. I went over the material hurriedly, but it appears that is what it is to me. He claims no one has published a refutation of his work as a peer review work in the magazines that he published his work. Maybe someone has done it since the video was made, but I haven't seen anything on it. It certainly looks like a lot of people are trying. Can you stir me to a video that shows the refutation in a clear and understandable way?
P.S.
http://www.halos.com/
Originally posted by RJHindsNot trying, already tried and done.
I noticed this reference:
Wakefield, J. Richard , 1988, Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery", Journal of Geological Education, May, 1988.
The video mentoned that some were calling it a "tiny mystery" or "a riddle" to be solved. But have they really solved it with solid proof or is this just more conjecture based on assumption that may or may not be true. ...[text shortened]... Can you stir me to a video that shows the refutation in a clear and understandable way?
One of the things I know from personal experience about Phd's:
I have a son in law who has the same Phd as that scientist in Jerusalem, which is described as a 'bio physicist'. The real name for that branch of science is Statistical Physics.
Not that that name change means anything but I thought I would point that out.
I work with two Phd's directly in my job and unlike a guy with only an MS, they leave no stone unturned in the quest for knowledge.
Let me tell one incident that happened just a couple of days ago:
We use plasma sputtering machines, targets of a substance, which can by just about any solid, like aluminum or silicon carbide (we use both of those in our systems). Anyway, we had just installed an aluminum target, which is a solid block of extremely pure aluminum about 1/4 inch thick, 14 inches long, 5 inches wide, where a plasma of an ionized argon beam which has been excited by an RF field of several hundred watts so this ionized beam attacks the surface of the aluminum and creates a cloud of aluminum atoms which fly about inside the vacuum system, the idea being a nearby platen with some kind of wafer, alumina or silicon, whatever, will be coated with a very thin layer of whatever the target is made of, in this case aluminum.
So when we got the aluminum target installed, and pumped down and started the process of coating said aluminum on an alumina substrate, it is supposed to come out as reflective as a mirror.
In this case it did not. The coating was cloudy, not a good thing.
Keith (one of our resident Phd's) made this hypothesis: the clouding came from contamination of the vacuum system with a water leak.
We proceeded to actually find evidence of water in the vacuum system using a residual gas analyzer, a variation of a spectrum analyzer which samples the gas of the vacuum and separates out the various components.
So we find water in the spectrum.
Ergo sum, problem solved.
I wasn't convinced. I told him I observed a pattern in the cloudy nature of the aluminum coating, a kind of shadowy half circle that was different from the rest of the coating.
He had trouble seeing that pattern and for a couple of days was convinced the problem came from the water leak which we both agreed was there.
But subsequent pumping of the system made the water leak get better, less water in the vacuum. Then the pattern I originally noticed was more pronounced, obvious and a lot smaller.
He then noticed that he had been including a measurement monitor with the alumina substrate being coated and saw now that the pattern of cloudiness was confined to the space directly around the monitor.
He then realized the cloudiness came from the fact he was using Kapton tape on the monitor wafer which was situated very close to the alumina substrate.
It turned out the reason for the cloudiness was not so much due to the water leak inside the vacuum chamber but instead was due to the fact that Kapton tape (a tape like scotch tape but made for use inside a vacuum chamber) can outgas if heated up inside a vacuum.
Our process which I previously described, does in fact heat up the substrate, whatever is put in proximity to the ionized argon and target interacting with the RF energy, anything in there will in fact heat up several hundred degrees.
So what he figured out was the Kapton tape was outgassing and spreading that crap onto the alumina substrate, causing both the pattern I saw in the cloudiness and the cloudiness itself.
The gist of this little story is in this case, he ran with a hypothesis that water was the cause, something I doubted when I saw the hard to see pattern of the cloudiness, but later when the pattern got clearer, he did not stick with the water hypothesis, but modified it to account for the new data.
A guy with just an MS does not have that kind of vigorous training to look for alternative causes for whatever data he is trying to interpret. The point being here, the Phd did not have an agenda and readily admitted his error with further data.
Your MS Gentry came into it with a basic agenda, to try to prove his idea that the Earth was created only a few thousand years ago.
Then bend the data to fit his hypothesis.
That is the difference between a real scientist and a charlatan.