Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Jul 12, 2021.
Please show me how I misrepresented her, so I can correct it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You claimed that she was afraid to tell the truth about her discoveries because she would be fired. How could you possibly know "the truth" if she kept it hidden?
You never watched the video I posted.
Here is a quote from...
Showing that she was “attacked” from both creationists and scientists. With the religious ones being even worse than the Scientific ones.
“She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing. These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. "It rips my guts out," she says. "These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists.”
In the video she talks more about her feelings about the Scientific side.
And, if my comments went too far, I apologize!
I definitely make mistakes, and have errors in judgment at times.
As far as I'm aware, it's not taught as a scientific fact, because it isn't one. It's a philosophical conjecture.
Were you taught that naturalism is a scientific fact at school?
BTW, I hope you're not confusing ontological naturalism with methodological naturalism. You know the different, right?
What if somebody is a troll and doesn't deserve respect (for instance)?
Of course she was "attacked" by scientists. That's how science works.
And of course she was attacked by creationists - because her findings don't support creationism.
Because her findings don't support creationism.
Your comments were downright false. Mary Schweitzer is definitely not on your side.
Well, I don’t think you are suggesting that we hate and disrespect each other?
I doubt it! You are far better than that!
My approach is to love and respect others as much, and as far, as circumstances allow. I start and try to stay there unless it becomes impossible to stay there.
Here are my marching orders...
“I pray that he may grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with power in your inner being through his Spirit, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. I pray that you, being rooted and firmly established in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the length and width, height and depth of God’s love, and to know Christ’s love that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.”
“If I speak with the tongues of mankind and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give away all my possessions to charity, and if I surrender my body so that I may glory, but do not have love, it does me no good. Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own benefit; it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrongs suffered , it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails;...”
1 Corinthians 13:1-8
And yes, I absolutely fail to do this perfectly, but I have a goal to strive for.
But love also protects.
If someone is hurting someone else around me I will try and stop them.
God knows, and you know, that there are exceptions where love takes the form of the protection of others.
Like you so often protect people here on this forum. You Ban people who are abusing others, don’t you? I am thankful for you and for the role you play here.
You are amazing!!!
I would bet that you have some kind of a similar approach! What is your approach?
You also desire to love and respect and protect.
You and God must be tight! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think that her findings are great!!!
Combine that with the Carbon-14 dating results already coming in and you have Dinosaurs walking with people.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You must be really excited about that possibility!!!
And the Bible has been saying the same thing literally, for literally thousands of years.
It can take hundreds of years, but Science usually catches up eventually. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The following are their Claims not mine...
2) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THIS IS THE REMAINS OF NOAH’S ARK?
The following is a general summary of the evidence which has been found at this site. We shall be going in more detail on some of the points, which are deemed important. The gradual accumulation of evidence over some 34 visits from various peoples and organizations, has included these finds:
– Ship’s anchor stones in the vicinity
– Metal nowhere in the ground around the boat-shape, but only inside the formation.
– Inside, an organized pattern of iron at regular intervals
– Radar evidence of man-made structure (walls, cavities, tank shapes, passage ways, side door way, ramp, etc)
– Regular vertical structure around the sides – crossed by horizontal formation, to form a “lattice work”
– Petrified, laminated wood
– Fossilized rivets containing a sophisticated alloy 4-foot-long metal rods
– Iron angle bracket
– Slag (waste product) from some type of metal production, coming out of the boat-shape from a location which suggests it could have been ballast
– The formation is the correct size (both length and breadth) to be Noah’s Ark
– It is in the correct location (the Biblical “mountains” – [plural] – of Ararat).
THE ANCHOR STONES:
On the tops of hills in the area Ron Wyatt had found some big stone objects, with holes through them. These were similar to ancient sea anchors found on the sea bed near ship wrecks around the world. These were essential equipment for ancient shipping. They were called “DROGUE STONES”.
With their flat surface area, they created a drag, in turbulent waters, to prevent a ship slipping sideways against a wave. In calmer waters, they hung deep, sounding for the bottom. They could have been manipulated also to direct a vessel around an obstruction. These “drogue stones” in the Turkish mountains were more or less in a curving line leading to the boat shaped object. They were of the size that would have been required by a ship of the Ark’s dimensions. Each carried a hole near the top, possibly for a cable or rope.
This just in from SetiAlpha6...
Atheist's Tip: Usually, the Atheist will avoid consideration of this evidence all together, by the character assassination of Ron Wyatt. He was a Creationist after all, so case closed!!! And this list was also taken from a Creationist Site, so again case closed!!! No evidence here, move along people!!!
So do that... "As you wish!"
I know that you guys are all better than that!!!
I mean you are, right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
From the discoverer of the site:
"A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia."
“In April 1997, in sworn testimony at an Australian court case, Fasold repeated his doubts and noted that he regarded the claim that Noah's ark had been found as "absolute BS".
Others, such as fellow ark researcher David Allen Deal, reported that before his death, Fasold returned to a belief that the Durupınar site might be the location of the ark. His close Australian friend and biographer June Dawes wrote:
He [Fasold] kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the [Durupınar] site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark.”
And... thus we have the Scientific controversy.
And... where a Scientific controversy exists, the need for more verifiable Scientific research also exists.
I don’t know who to believe!
And that is why I am financially supporting additional Scientific research.
Aren’t you excited!!!
(Bad Seti, Bad Seti!!!)
(Yes, yes... Sometimes I talk to myself.)
(But what does it mean! ???)
David Fasold wasn't a scientist.
David Fasold was an United States Merchant Marine officer, later starting a marine salvaging company.
I tried to make a similar point, a number of posts ago. The comments of David Fasold do not represent an authoritative or decisive criticism of the Site.
But then, even Scientists are often untrustworthy. Sometimes Scientists make up results for fame and fortune.
Scientific interpretations, perhaps even more so, are often untrustworthy, with thousands upon thousands of failed hypothesis, fairy tales, made up connections, and stories for the sheeple masses.
Science has always been a “majority rules”, dictatorship, and popularity contest.
History has proven that over and over again.
Want some examples?
But, me thinks that you already know that, right?
That's still a lie. Mary Schweitzer doesn't believe any such thing.
She discovered that proteins can be preserved for much longer than was previously believed. Her findings do not alter the age of the fossils. They're 68 million years old.
So please stop lying about her.
How would a scientist get fame and/or fortune by debunking the Durupinar site claims? More likely the ark enthusiasts would get fame and fortune by claiming to have found the ark.
Certainly there are failed hypotheses. That's how science works.
Noah's Ark is a failed hypothesis. The evidence shows that the flood never happened. No evidence has ever shown that the ark exists today.
?? No, we have a simple case of a dishonest guy. He's not a scientist. No "scientific controversy." No evidence. Just a guy who claims something different every time you ask him.
And is that why you are:
What ''Scientific research'' organisation is the lucky recipient of your financial support?
We can always try!
I did not make any comments regarding Mary Schweitzer’s personal beliefs in that post, only my own.
All I said was that her findings were great.
And that is certainly no lie!!!
But her findings contradict you. You haven't admitted that.
You had no reason to bring her up at all.
You forgot to mention the ''Scientific research'' organisation you're supporting, is there a reason you won't say?
Separate names with a comma.