UFO's: weather balloons, or mass hysteria?

[fredintoon]

Religion as Science

Pro sez:-
" I won't debate with Creationists.
Logic, reasoning and scientific facts are no match for emotional beliefs and kiddie stories told during "Someday School".
Hi Pro,
I have no beef about religious creation stories being taught as alternatives to Darwin's Theory. But you have to tell them ALL, not just the biblical version. I like the Haida version which goes:-
"The Great Spirit was walking on the beach one day. It was a hot day and the Great Spirit was bored. So to amuse himself He masturbated onto a hot rock then walked on. The sun beat down on the puddle of the Great Spirit's semen and it dried out and it turned into people and here we still are."
I'd like to see Ms Sanctimonium telling that one to the grade II class.

[Erik the Red]

Well, if we're offering alternatives to creationism, here's one that you may or may not have heard of. Click on the Flying Spaghetti Monster to learn more. It's worth the read.

[skipt]

I think you do yourself a great disservice in thinking creation
has no logic to it and that it is all childrens tales. I would
say that there is more lack of logic coming from arguments to
the contrary. Just a thought.

[Pat Kelly]

Just saw a program about the UFO crash in Texas in 1897. Tough to mistake it for an airplane as there weren't airplanes yet. Supposedly there was a short, large-headed occupant of the crashed airship.

[fredintoon]

Skipt's sign-off sez:-
"If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything."
Yeah,
some folks even believe that this world was created about 5,000 years ago by a Supreme Being who planted it full of evidence that it was 8 billion years old.

[Special Ed]

I haven't been in a Church for a sevice of any kind since my Mom died some 10 years ago. I don't belong to any recognized religious organization, so I'm not some kind of religious fundamentalist nut, but neirther am I an athiest.
Since the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven, I find the position of the Athiest to be as much an article of faith as is the absolute certainty of the True Believer that there is a God. I think Agnosticism is a much more realistic and honest position: he either dosn't know, or dosn't care.
Oops, gotta go. More on this later. Stay tuned.
E.Liberty

[skipt]

Creationist

Yes I suppose I am.
"Bright" not really!?
UFO's ..nah
8 millon,billion.trillon years of evidence? Who was here to count.
De-evolve? thats a possibility.
Ability to sit and type out a long reply? None.
Motorcycles..Love to ride.
Got to go..packing up the RV for a two week trip. Ore., Wash. and
back down the coast. See Ya.

[Special Ed]

" I won't debate with Creationists.

Too bad Prom, we could have had fun. It is usually presumed by those of your ilk that a skeptic of evolution or defender of creationism is necessarily defending the literal translation of Genesis. Such is not the case.
Lets take a breath, and review the meaning of the word "bigot."

This term dates to the time of the Norman invasion of France: the area that is now refereed to as "Normandy." The Norman's were recent converts to Christianity, and true to form, there are no more "True Believers" than recent converts, and they had the habit of punctuating their statements with the words "by God." This became shortened to bygot, and eventually "bigot." By God, bigot... got it?

Today we have people who assume a similarly certain position on contemporary subjects, but do so from a secular, "logical" perspective. You know, like the French intellectuals during the French Revolution who sent thousands to their death on the guillotine.

I won't go into the millions of deaths at the hands of the perfectly "logical" atheistic Communist: Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot. All the wonderful social advances in the name of "Scientific Socialism."

Logic, and "rationality" can be, and is, fully as oppressive and "bigoted" as any religious dogma.

So, you want to "believe" in only that which is "Provable?" Then you believe in nothing. Well, I take that back. Yes, PI is PI regardless of the language you speak. Likewise the Pathagorium Theorem. But the further one gets from pure mathematics, the further one gets from "truth."

Yes Prom, secularist can be bigots to.

And back to UFO's: Want to call all those airline pilots, cops, and astronaughts kooks? Fine. Bigot!

And that is why I want toi be the first "Mad Monk of XS!" Muhuah ha ha ha ha!!!

E.Liberty

[fredintoon]

"I won't go into the millions of deaths at the hands of the perfectly "logical" atheistic Communist: Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot. All the wonderful social advances in the name of "Scientific Socialism."

Well, gee Lib, why not?
The only reason that they outdid medieval Christians in the slaughter stakes is that those old guys didn't have the technology for serious mass murder and had to off their victims one at a time.
However, medieval religionists and 20th century atheist dictators (or was Pol Pot a Buddhist? And you forgot Hitler btw, he was a National Socialist) have this in common, they were all murdering hypocrites with the same secret plan, "Let's kill these people and steal their stuff."

[prometheus578]

"So, now I'm a bigot! Why... I never!"

I've been called many things in my lifetime. (most of them true, what of it?)
But, are you inferring that I'm intellectually closed minded?
You wound me, Sir.
I cannot let that insult stand...
I not only believe in what is proveable, but also in what is probable and possible. (But possible within the limits of sane, sober reason. Creationism fails that test)
I shall play your little game... and play well.

But, regardless of how fun this would be for me... it is fraught with a certain danger.
As Creationism is religiously based, and as religion comes from an emotional mindset, I initially chose to stay silent. One can't change a religiously based opinion. To try, only angers the person who has no facts, nor data, to back up his position.
Debates with Creationists(or religionists) always seem to look like attacks on their personal, spiritual philosophies.
The arguements soon turn emotional and irrational, as they try to defend their indefensible positions... for to admit they're wrong, would mean that their whole life view, and how they've lived their lives so far, has been a total waste of effort.
There is nothing to be gained by doing this. It opens the way for hostility, resentment and general all around bad feelings.
As I have no friends anyway... making more enemies matters little to me, but it is not how I care to go through life... as always, trying to be the "Little Ray of Sunshine" that I am.
But, a challenge of sorts has been thrown my way.
Never one to shy from battle...I shall march to the sound of the guns.
I do request, though, that regardless the outcome, there should be no lasting anomosity between the players.
I also request, in order to save time(and my patience), that no answers consist merely of "The Bible says it, so it must be true." Someone would end up looking rather foolish, and that's not the goal here. I believe the point is to debate, share information and enhance knowledge

Even though I initially stated that I wanted no part of this... that didn't mean that I wasn't going to research this topic for my own enlightenment.
Anyone who doesn't question himself once in a while, nor seek more information to bolster his opinion (or possably turn it) is a fool of the highest magnitude.
I've spent the better part of a week (retired... plenty of time) researching and sorting out data on both sides of this issue. (again for personal reasons) It is only because this thread became active again, and I sensed a certain taunting, that I find myself force to enter the field of battle.
So, E. Liberty... how to proceed?
Care to make a statment?
Pose a question?
Any favorite topics come to mind?
(You can play Rasputin later)
Oh, and I'm already very familiar with the "Watchmaker Scenario", and "What good is half a wing". Please try to bring something of more substance to the table.

For your perusal, I've referenced an interesting site I found several days ago. You may pick and choose topics from here if you wish.
If you know a good Creationist site, I would appreciate a similar gesture.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[planedick]

I believe...

We are not the only planet with intelligent life on it. Probably some time a long time ago some space traveler dumped his bag of waste (s**t) and it fell here. Microbes being what they are and doing what they do, eventually found a way to survive here and adapted to this enviroment.

So here we are....

[Special Ed]

[i]Originally posted by prometheus578
Sadly, I throw no bricks tonight, (nor shall I cast the first stone)

I won't debate with Creationists.
Logic, reasoning and scientific facts are no match for emotional beliefs and kiddie stories told during "Someday School".
Just isn't worth the effort.

Science promises nothing, yet can prove a few things.
Religion promises everything, and can prove nothing. [/B]

Sorry Prom, but your remark strikes me as snide, demeaning, and patronizing.
I have to move my residence and shop. This means disconnecting my computer and reassembling it at a new location. This may take a week or so. In the mean time, if you can convince me that Uncle Chuck’s "Theory Of Evolution" is an absolute fact, in the same since as
"Newton's Third Law of Thermodynamics," please go at it.
I am, despite my lack of a degree, pretty damn well read. But you know what? The more I read, and the more I learn, the less I know. Here are a few verses from The Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam that sums it up.

Into this world, and Why not knowing,
Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing :
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing.

For "Is" and "Is-not" though with Rule and Line
And "Up-and-down" by Logic I define,
Of all that one should care to fathom, I
Was never deep in anything but...Wine.

Oh threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!
One thing at least is certain... this Life flies;
One thing is certain and the rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown forever dies.

I’ll get back when I get moved and get my computer reassembled.

[Bud Manley]

Here are a few verses from The Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam that sums it up.

I looked THIS up with the thought that since the poem uses rhyming verse it was written in English and therefore most likely is not truly a verse from some Arab guys book.
I found that:
The Rubaiyat

By Omar Khayyam

Written 1120 A.C.E.

Since we all know that A.C.E. stands for American Classic Edition and that, my friends, is a Honda. As this is a site primarily devoted to Yamaha enthusiasts I deem it inadmissible as a quotable article in this discussion.

[prometheus578]

"Thank you for your reply, E. Liberty."

Sorry Prom, but your remark strikes me as snide, demeaning, and patronizing.

MY apologies... that was not my intent.
It's just difficult to reconcile, or rationalize science against a non-science belief system.
Science is basically science, regardless of where on the globe one stands.
Were we having this debate in Egypt, my difficulties would be similar.
Day and night are caused by Ra moving across the sky from east to west.(not a spinning planet) Mummification is need to preserve the body for the afterlife, and all the food and boats, etc entombed are to help the spirit cross the waters to the next world.
Yes, I would have a hard time arguing science against that line of thought. Makes perfect sense.
Were that you were born an Egyptian, E.Liberty, is this the course that our discussion would take?
Obviously, I couldn't prove that you were wrong.
Nor could I prove you were wrong, were you born in the plains states, that all your chanting and foot stomping dances cause rain to fall. You would have grown up on tales of personal visions... guided by the spirit of the eagle and the wolf. Hardly objective reasoning, but whole cultures followed this, or similar lines of thought.
One can believe in eating the hearts of their captives to gain their strength and spirit, worshipping ancestors, offering animal and human sacrifices for appeasement... the list is endless.
Why, I ask, is your belief system more valid than these?
Didn't thousand/ millions believe in these things... for centuries and longer? How can you now, (or don't you) say that they were wrong?
Even your current belief system is founded on chance.
Had a conquering army struck to the left instead of to the right, a different civilization would have been wiped out, and along with it, their religious beliefs.
Had not the Romans been beaten down by the "godless" Huns, would we still be worshipping their gods? Ancient Rome and Greece were filled with stories, their version of Creationism. And they all seems pretty valid at the time... at least to them.
Yet, here we are... Christianity being the dominant science philosophy for the western world... and all views must coincide with what was written thousand of years ago. The Gospel truth, so to speak.
I try to be objective(not snide nor mean-spirited), but seriously, E. Liberty, if you were watching me debate evolution/creationism with a Hottentot or a !Kung, would you not also giggle a little?
Facts and logic would do little to sway the Hottentot's opinions, and the !Kung might be a bit of a challenge, me having difficulty getting my main points across by making clicking sounds with my tongue.
I, too, have no degree in Science, nor Religion. (though I'm seriously considering sending away $175 to the Progressive Universal Life Church to become an ordained minister and get my degree in Theology... for no other reason than having my business card state "The Right Reverand... and ending in PhD. Plus, it'll force some of the "bounders' on this site to show me a little more respect)
Sorry, I drifted a little...as I do at times.
Speaking of drifted... To my amazement last night, I discovered that Continental Drift was a result of the Great Flood!
Being a voracious reader, as yourself, and always seeking arguements for both sides of an issue, I've been visiting several Creationist sites for information and perspective.
Here is one: Creation Science
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm
The author summorized the key points from John Woodmorappe's highly regarded book: "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study".
If I may cite a few passages(sorry, but I can't duplicate the slide show)


(Hhmm... presentaion exceeds the charactor limits for posts. I shall put it in a continuation post)

Post Scriptum: Hmmm.. took up more space that I anticipated. (Two posts)
I'm sorry that I had to include such a lengthy discourse. I didn't want to change it in any manner, even for length, as I didn't wish to be accused of editting out anything that might make my viewpoint look foolish.

[prometheus578]

CONTINUATION:

If I may...

Noah was six hundred year's old when the floodwaters came on the earth. The flood has been dated to about 5,000 years ago (actually, about 4,950 years ago, see "Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates", Whitelaw, 1970, or the updated paper "The biblical record of Creation, Flood and history in light of 30,000 radiocarbon dates", Proceedings, 15th Anniversary Convention of Bible Science Association, pp. 197-202, 1979). The given verses document key events during the year-long flood.
Note that God had the animals and people board the ark seven days before the start of the flood. This would acclimate the animals to their temporary home before the rough environment of the flood began.
Also note that God kept them on the ark for three months (Dec, Jan, Feb) following the first appearance of dry land in order to give time for plants to grow to provide food for the animals.


Some Christians feel compelled to believe that the Biblical flood was just a local event. This is typically because they believe that science has proven that evolution has occurred in the past (which it has not), but they still want to retain faith in the reliability of the Bible. However, as the listed items show, this is not a realistic position to take. The described flood MUST have been a global flood covering the entire earth.

Is there evidence that there was once a flood which covered the entire earth? If this were the case you would think the result would be obvious, and creationists say it is!
Global flood evidences include:
The earth's features (such as mountains, canyons, regional stratigraphy (large-scale single rock beds), soft bending of rock strata, etc.) require some type of catastrophic explanation.
Sedimentary rock formations (formed through water deposition) cover substantial portions of North America and other continents.
There is no evidence that coal, oil, or ore deposits are being formed today, yet massive deposits are found in the earth.
Likewise, the earth contains many great fossil beds, none of which appear to be forming today either. Fossils require rapid burial to be preserved.
Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five continents.
Exceptions in the geologic column indicate that it was not formed in a gradual manner, such as the appearance of single trees that extend vertically through multiple "ages".

There are other, non-geological, evidences that point to a start (or rebirth) of the earth approximately five to ten thousand years ago, as would be the case if a global flood has occurred.
The origin of civilization is generally agreed to be in the Middle East, which is where Noah's Ark landed. The Middle East just "happens" to be a good, centrally located place from which to repopulate the world.
The oldest written materials date back five to six thousand years.
The first signs of civilization, things like pottery, agriculture, the domestication of animals, metallurgy, and the first cities are dated by secular scientists to approximately 10,000 years ago at the earliest.
The oldest known living things, the Bristlecone pine trees in California, date to about 5,000 years ago.
Study of the build up of human population makes it clear that humans have only existed for a few thousand years (not millions), even when the maximum likely effects of war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are considered.
An analysis (Whitelaw, 1979, referenced earlier) of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the "Radiocarbon" journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago.

We now move on to discuss particulars of the ark ...
God gave Noah specifications for how the ark was to be built. It is interesting that the ratio of the given dimensions has been found by modern ship builders to represent a very stable configuration. Remember that the ark was not really a "boat". It didn't need a power source to move it along (like sails), nor a rudder to steer it, nor did it need to move through the water efficiently. It simply needed to float and be as stable as possible. It only needed to be sea-worthy for one year. The bottom of the ark may have been made out of large logs to give it extra stability. It did not have any particular place to go!
The ark "window" was actually a long "slot" under the roof eaves. It was a particularly important feature, as it provided needed ventilation and illumination.
The exact type of wood used is not known. It may have been teak, cypress, or some other hard or hardened wood.
The "pitch" with which the ark was sealed may or may not have been petroleum-based. It is believed that some oil may have existed before the flood, produced from non-biological sources. Most oil is believed to have formed from plant material uprooted and buried by the flood.

Who exactly was on the ark? The large number of species of animals in existence today is often used to illustrate the supposed impossibility of the ark. However, it would have been sufficient to bring just representative animals from each GENUS in the taxonomic rank, not every species. All of the species for a given genus have the same amount of genetic complexity (just expressed physically in different ways, such as differing coloration or size), and both creationists and evolutionists agree that the variations identified as species can all be derived from a suitable common ancestor. In addition, it was only necessary to bring aboard those animals that lived on land (land mammals, land birds, land reptiles, amphibians).
Dinosaurs would have been part of the cargo, but as with all animals that grow to be large, juvenile representatives would have been taken. In fact, the median-sized animal (half were smaller than this and half larger) was about as big as a small rat, with only 11% being larger than a sheep. We need to get out of our head the idea from children's Bible story books that there were adult giraffes on the ark with their necks sticking out through holes in the roof, and fully grown elephants and hippos wandering around the decks! Adult animals were not only unnecessary, but are typically less flexible in adapting to new situations.
The people on the ark were Noah, his three sons (Ham, Shem, and Japeth), and their four wives (we don't know their names).

We must get another idea out of our heads also, which is thinking about the ark as a floating "zoo". The more appropriate analogy is that of modern intensive livestock confinement, where animals are raised in the minimum possible space with the maximum amount of labor saving devices employed. The ark was not intended to be an enjoyable experience for the animals (or the people!). It was, rather, a temporary captivity in which the only thing to be achieved was simply survival in reasonable health. There are many things that are doable for one year with survival as the only goal, that could not be sustained for a long period of time.
The three main ingredients for survival are 1) a place to stay, 2) sufficient food, and 3) sufficient water. Woodmorappe has calculated how much of the ark was needed to support each of these.
A little less than one-half of the floor space was needed at a minimum to house the animals.
Food in the form of hay, dried fruit, dried meat, and dried fish occupied up to 12% of the ark volume. Most of the food was hay, compressed or possibly pelletized to take up less space.
Drinking water took up about 10% of the ark volume. This could have been less if rain water was also collected from the roof.
Of course, ALL of the available floor space and most of the interior volume would have been used for some purpose (there may have been an animal exercise ring). The main point of the calculations is to show that the minimum amount of space needed was readily available.

Dealing with the problem of animal waste has been studied. We must remember that Noah and his sons were smart people, and that they had a long time to prepare for the voyage. Extensive planning took place. Part of this planning was to design suitable enclosures for different types of animals, and to design them with labor-saving features in mind. It would not be possible to clean each cage individually, nor would it be necessary if enclosures such as those mentioned on the slide were employed.
Pests such as insects and rats could have been controlled through the use of ducks, cats and other animals that effectively control pest populations. Even though Noah is told to take two of every type of animal, this should be regarded as a MINIMUM, and does not prevent him from taking, say, dozens of ducks and cats on board.
Earthworms provide another solution for getting rid of waste materials (they are natural biologic agents for the immediate biodegradation of manure).

Woodmorappe estimates the ark contents by weight to show that the carrying capacity of the ark was more than enough for its cargo.
The dimensions of the ark and a draft of 15 cubits (Gen 7:20) give it a cargo mass of 17,000 tons (Hong et. al. 1994).
Biomass refers to the weight of the animals (and people). This increased significantly during the year as the animals grew bigger. Some reproduction would also have taken place.
The increase in biomass would have been more than offset by the consumption of the food and water supplies initially on the ark.

How were the animals for the ark gathered? It is clear from the scriptures referenced on the slide that BOTH Noah and God were involved.
The "Divine Filter" indicates that God made the final decision about which pair of individuals of each type boarded the ark. One reason for this is that only God could know the genetic potential of each candidate, and it would be important that the individuals having the greatest genetic potential serve as the "founding pair" in repopulating the world. Some of the animals were probably chosen by God directly from the wild.
However, Woodmorappe postulates that Noah may have kept a menagerie (a collection, like a zoo) of animals in preparation for the ark. It is important to remember that Noah had a long time to prepare (up to 100 years). He may have even paid people to help gather the animals. With such a menagerie Noah could be sure he had individuals that adapted well to captivity (the "Tolerance to Captivity Filter"), and that exhibited gentle, "non-nervous" behavior (the "Behavioral Filter"). In addition, he could have performed breeding experiments to help determine which individuals would be best suited as parents for repopulating the world (the "Genetics Filter").