Surviving 2012 and Planet X

[Jared Alberghini]

Part 1 of 5 shows how the approach of Planet X is already changing our world. Produced and hosted by Marshall Masters, a former CNN science feature field producer, this program offers a straightforward view of this coming human event. As the co-author and publisher of Planet X Forecast and 2012 Survival Guide, Marshall believes that 2012 will be a survivable, evolutionary event.

YouTube - Surviving 2012 and Planet X - Part 1 of...

Part 2 of 5 presents scientific proof for a catastrophic return of Planet X in 2012. Produced and hosted by Marshall Masters, a former CNN science feature field producer, this program offers a straightforward view of this coming human event. As the co-author and publisher of Planet X Forecast and 2012 Survival Guide, Marshall believes that 2012 will be a survivable, evolutionary event.

YouTube - Surviving 2012 and Planet X - Part 2 of...

Part 3 of 5 presents historical proof for past catastrophic flybys of Planet X and ancient predictions regarding 2012. Produced and hosted by Marshall Masters, a former CNN science feature field producer, this program offers a straightforward view of this coming human event. As the co-author and publisher of Planet X Forecast and 2012 Survival Guide, Marshall believes that 2012 will be a survivable, evolutionary event.

YouTube - Surviving 2012 and Planet X - Part 3 of...

Part 4 of 5 examines the massive Planet X preparations our governments are making in anticipation of a 2012 Planet X flyby. Produced and hosted by Marshall Masters, a former CNN science feature field producer, this program offers a straightforward view of this coming human event. As the co-author and publisher of Planet X Forecast and 2012 Survival Guide, Marshall believes that 2012 will be a survivable, evolutionary event.

YouTube - Surviving 2012 and Planet X - Part 4 of...

Part 5 of 5 offers a post-2014 vision of our world and how humanity will rebuild after the Planet X flyby. Produced and hosted by Marshall Masters, a former CNN science feature field producer, this program offers a straightforward view of this coming human event. As the co-author and publisher of Planet X Forecast and 2012 Survival Guide, Marshall believes that 2012 will be a survivable, evolutionary event.

YouTube - Surviving 2012 and Planet X - Part 5 of...

What Are YOUR Thoughts?

- Jared

[Phnx]

Only managed to view the first 2 so far.

The Sun as a binary star system is pretty interesting, and I've come across that theory before. Also in esoterica Jesus (The Sun) is often described as a 'twin', so could be a metaphor for a binary.

The information from IRAS that the brown dwarf star appears red got my antenna wiggling (Hopi: "The Purifier will appear as the Red Kachina, maybe that means it will appear red in the telescopes that the scientists use. It will remain in place for a long time.")

The scientific evidence is sketchy at best, and they are playing 'hide & seek' with it for some reason. Why would NASA make an announcement to some obscure newspaper? Who's heard of US News & World Report? (They do exist I've checked, they've even got a website)

However I've done a little digging and there were others who apparently covered it, albeit coyly. Newsweek, The Astronomical Journal etc. Here's an interesting snippet from The Washington Post:

The Washington Post covered the story of Planet X on the front page on December 31, 1983 called "Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered." This story reported that the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) detected heat from an object about fifty billion miles away. A report of an interview with chief scientist Gerry Neugebauer from Jet Propulsion Laboratories appeared in the story. The article stated:

"A heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system has been found in the direction of the constellation Orion by an orbiting telescope aboard the U.S. infrared astronomical satellite... 'All I can tell you is that we don't know what it is,' said Gerry Neugebauer, chief IRAS scientist."

The Post article went on to explain that this mysterious object has never been seen by optical telescopes on Earth or in space, but its infrared heat signature was detected twice by IRAS as it scanned the northern sky between January and November of 1983. The second infrared observation of the body, which is so cold it casts no light, noted that the body appeared not to have moved in six months. This suggested that the object is not a comet, since it probably would have moved. The article also explained that the infrared telescope aboard IRAS, which is able to detect very cold objects, calculated that the heavenly body was so cold that its temperature is about 459�F below zero

PARANOIA - Planet X

Whether Planet X or Galactic 'alignment' I think we're screwed either way.

[Tiger]

I was looking at the evidence given for a "tenth planet"
and it seems that one telescope and results from NASA
are the key foundation for the existence of a planet called "X"


They quote many old texts, but I would be careful that
this could easily turn into another "false flag" event set up
not just for a country or two, but for the entire world.



I dont beleive it or disbelieve it at the moment, but it
did remind me of this :

LINK

[Andres]

I'm with Marshall Masters on this topic of 2012. It will be survivable but I could only imagine at a very high cost.

Tell you the truth I hope it doesn't happen. But if by 2011 I see what looks like a second star next to ours I think I'll move to Montana and learn how to farm.

[myob]

The earth has been hit by thousands of "evolutionary comets"; the most most famous one was 65 million years ago that wiped out 75% of life on earth and prepared the way for us to arrive on the scene. About 13,000 years ago the Clovis comet wiped out all the farmers not just in Montana but throughout the whole US. Another comet hit Siberia in 1908 and wiped out hundreds of millions of trees. If it had arrived just a few hours earlier, the spin of the earth would have targeted western Europe and wiped out human lives instead of just trees. Right now, there are over 5,000 comets roaming our solar system - 700 of which are a mile or more in diameter which could have the destructive power to wipe out continents. Thousands of meteorites actually hit the earth every year, with a combined destructive force of 1,000 times the explosion of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. These meteorites are also thought to be evolutionary; contributing to global warming.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by myob

65 million years ago

HOW many years ago ?


The Sun has been shrinking at a SET RATE
for all of our time of being able to record it.

Common sense says that if the Sun has been
shrinking at the same set rate for as long as
we have been able to record it means that the Sun use
to be...


BIGGER.


We would no doubt have had to have been inside the Sun
for that many years to have transpired for "evilution"
to fulfill 65 million years. LINK

[myob]

What planet are you on?

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by myob

What planet are you on?

<< That one.

[myob]

OK, just checking. You act like you haven't been on earth too long.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by myob

OK, just checking. You act like you haven't been on earth too long.

Please try to refrain from insulting anyone. I know your
evilutionary beliefs allow you to believe its okay to do that...


Reality is; its not okay.


You have done good so far - dont mess up.

[myob]

No insult intended at all, I was just trying to figure out how you arrived at your conclusions. I had no idea you are a Creationist.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by myob

No insult intended at all, I was just trying to figure out how you arrived at your conclusions. I had no idea you are a Creationist.

Well, good, because I am not a creationist.


As for why I believe it, the article pretty much covers it.
Its just plain math.

[Wah Bhatti]

amasing i did not thing we would survive so my memerships end 2012 but now theres hope i will phone paypay

[TimPhelan]

This theory isn't just simple math Steve.

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs'

"1. The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!

That's a little like watching the tide go out and concluding that the water level must have fallen at that rate since the earth began. Therefore, working backwards, much of the land must have been under water a few weeks ago! Since careful inspection shows no signs of such a flood, the earth can't be older than a few weeks!"

"Blunder number two is the unwarranted assumption that the rate of shrinkage reported by Eddy and Boornazian is an established fact. Far from it! The rate of shrinkage was published as an abstract to further scientific discussion, not as a polished paper. Certain creationists nevertheless pounced upon it as though it were the Holy Grail. Before long, serious flaws in its methodology turned up and the data has since been discredited; the full text of their study was never published. It is instructive to note how creationist authors became fixated on that one point even though several studies at the time (or shortly thereafter) drew completely different conclusions."

Originally Posted by Tiger

HOW many years ago ?


The Sun has been shrinking at a SET RATE
for all of our time of being able to record it.

Common sense says that if the Sun has been
shrinking at the same set rate for as long as
we have been able to record it means that the Sun use
to be...


BIGGER.


We would no doubt have had to have been inside the Sun
for that many years to have transpired for "evilution"
to fulfill 65 million years. LINK

[TimPhelan]

Regarding Planet X here's a couple sites that debunk this:

Planet X and the Pole Shift

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Planet X

Seems that 2003 was originally supposed to be the year, but after that year passed and the world didn't end 2012 was the next year picked.

[myob]

Wait! There are more dates 2016, 2034, 2047, soon ...
Yogi Berra gave us the best prediction ever when he said "It ain't over till it's over."

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

This theory isn't just simple math Steve.

The link is from a PhD, but I will go and see what Hovind has to
say about it. Hovind is currently in jail, and was not a PhD.


The PhD guy ( Akridge ) says that it is a conservative
statement to assume that the rate of shrinkage has been constant for
400 years. That is 400 years of data showing
a constant shrinkage of 2.5 feet per hour.


Akridge says :
"Therefore, the assumption of a constant shrinkage rate is a conservative assumption."



From your link :

"The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. The worst, by far, is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, then it has always been shrinking!"


That form of thought was debunked by Akridge in the link
I gave. The evidence does point to a steady rate of shrinkage
according to Akridge.


Also Hovind was quoted as saying : " The sun is shrinking at 5 feet/hour which limits the earth-sun relationship to less than 5 million years.".


Akridge is half that at 2.5 feet. That means a lot when you talk of "billions and billions" of years.



/Steve

[TimPhelan]

Originally Posted by Tiger

The link is from a PhD, but I will go and see what Hovind has to
say about it. Hovind is currently in jail, and was not a PhD.

/Steve

The link I gave is a site by Dave E. Matson who is debunking Dr. Hovind's "young earth" theories.

That's not the only people who have said that the original study by John Eddy and Aram Boornazian in 1979 was flawed. In fact Eddy himself reversed his conclusion not too many years later. The problem is creationists have taken that article and used it to help prove their creationist and young earth theories. Akridge worked at Oral Roberts University so he may have been biased to some extent.

Here's another site with an article about this subject:

TRN - Nov 1996 - Honey, I Shrunk the Sun!

The Eddy and Boornazian results were disputed almost immediately. In the same month as the presentation, another group published a paper in Science that showed results of less than 1/4 the shrinkage rate. In 1980, another paper concluded the rate was about 1/7 what Eddy and Boornazian had found. Another look at the data by a different team of scientists found that the high shrinkage rates "are the results of instrumental and observational defects rather than real changes," and that team determined there was no overall change over the past 250 years, though there was an 80-year cycle of shrinkage and expansion. Similarly, an extensive article in Astrophysics Journal made the case for a cycle of 76 years of shrinking and expansion. Since then, additional papers have been published which verified the cyclical change but failed to verify the original shrinkage result.

Perhaps the most important paper, and one I alluded to in my response letter, was a 1984 report by Eddy -- one of the original authors of the shrinkage presentation -- and Frohlich. They found that, from 1967 to 1980, there was an increase in the sun's diameter equivalent to 8 feet per hour. The behavior they found is extremely consistent with a 76-year cycle.

So, the tentative paper by Eddy and Boornazian spurred more research, which ended up invalidating their results but finding new, better information. They presented a puzzle and the scientific community solved it. The data does not support long-term, rapid shrinkage of the sun. The scientific method worked!

Another quote:

Van Till went on to say, "Though it may not have been apparent to his untrained readers, Akridge's uncritical acceptance of a single report -- a report greeted with skepticism by the relevant professional community, a preliminary report not yet tested by comparison with other relevant studies -- represented a serious failure to perform with integrity the critical evaluation expected of professional scientists."

Once Akridge's article was in the creationist literature, it became part of their "scientific proof" against evolution, making it almost impossible to correct. Indeed, it has taken on approximately the same status as an urban legend. Thomas Barnes, then the Dean of the graduate school at the ICR, wrote an article about six "evidences" for recent creation in a 1982 Christianity Today. The list was concluded with the shrinking sun claim.

Looks kind of like a scientific urban legend that won't die, and the reason is because of the creationists are keeping it alive.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

The link I gave is a site by Dave E. Matson who is debunking Dr. Hovind's &quot;young earth&quot; theories.

You said Eddy changed his mind, what about Boornazian ?

He was the other half of the team.

The people who claim that the rate is 1/7 what Eddy and Boornazian
said have no references, which makes it a flimsy argument. It could
have been a powerful one, since then the numbers would be in favor
of the evilutionist. I predict there never will be any references.



Creationists and evilutionists are both assuming things. Neither
group is able to follow the scientific method since they were
not there to collect evidence of what they claim. Which is why
the whole deal is a religious atmosphere.


You know what that means ? Both sides operate from faith,
not facts. I point this out many times to people. Both sides
are unscientific.


The priests of evilution are not any different than
the priests of creationism in this matter of science.
They have no facts that proves their respective points
if they truly follow the scientific method.


The difference is basically found in the character of the people
who worship their respective God. One side has better
character, so I listen to them more.


Were Eddy and Boornazian evilutionists or creationists ?


I say go with Akridge, because of his greater credentials.


Tim,
you did not correct me about my misquote on the number 2.5
in Akridge's equation. If you were reading my links you would
have caught that.


By the way Hovind was never someone I quoted from, you
brought him up. He also has less credentials than Akridge.


If I kept something "alive", it was better than keeping the
other side "alive" since I am helping the world know more
about good character, and not so much about something
falsely called science.

[Tiger]

How odd. Scientists that do not believe in their own work.

This article :

LINK


says : "Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof."

Tsk. The scientific method is nothing but an objective fact-finding and fact-verifying program.


Empirical evidence is just that, it is verified by the empirical senses. If
it does not test true over and over again, it does not deserve credibility
and certainly can NOT be called a LAW. Evilution is wrongly taught as
if it were a LAW. It is nothing of the sort.


If facts are no longer facts, then science has lost its objective credibility.

Know what that means ? In a nutshell, the scientists in the article I
linked here think that science is just a matter of personal beliefs/opinion.

Read their statement again :

"Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof."


There is "no way to know" if fact are facts ? Sure there are ! Accomplish
all the steps of the scientific method and you will be discovering objective truth, not opinionated subjective junk-teachings falsely called science nowadays.


Faulty thinking leads to faulty conclusions.

[TimPhelan]

"Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof."

This is a common definition, the most common definition, of science and proof. Here is one of the most thourough explanations of this subject:

Proof and Science

Proof, as we mean it when we say "prove me wrong", has nothing to do with science. While we might use the word "proof" in science, it is not a scientific idea. Proving is an exercise in logic. ...In fact, we can call scientific observations, "facts". At least we can do this if we define a fact as an observed event. That is pretty much what it means in a court of law. The concept of fact in law and in science are very similar. ...Proof and truth: proving something does not make it true. It just means that you have convinced other people that the evidence supports your conclusion. ... No scientist will ever claim that a theory is true. What they will do is state that the evidence agrees with the theory. Of course, sometimes new evidence shows up that we didn't have before. Then in science, as in law, we will reach a new conclusion. ...
"Scientific laws are the evidence used to support a conclusion. Scientific hypotheses and theories are our best attempts at explaining the behavior of the world, in ways that can be tested by further experiment. The facts (the scientific laws) must convince us that our theory is a good explanation for what happened."

This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

It can be confusing but this shows that there wasn't any "faulty thinking" as you claimed Steve.

Evolution is a theory and also a fact.

By the way, what is so evil about evolution Steve?

Many Christians and other religious people believe in evolution.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

This is a common definition, the most common definition, of science and proof. Here is one of the most thourough explanations of this subject:

Proof and Science
It can be confusing but this shows that there wasn't any "faulty thinking" as you claimed Steve.

Evolution is a theory and also a fact.

By the way, what is so evil about evolution Steve?

Many Christians and other religious people believe in evolution.

True science is based on the scientific method. True facts are repeatable, objective, and of course, true at all times. Man has allowed himself two major categories as to how we got here, mostly God and then through evilution. Neither is repeatable, empirically based
information.


The fossil record can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and of course, the scientist throws in
his "slant" based on his "belief system", because none of it is truly repeatable. Gravity is repeatable,
logic is repeatable, physics is repeatable. Creation is not... so all the beliefs are just that : beliefs.
Evilution is not scientific, because there are no objective demonstrable facts surrounding that belief, and is
therefore in the realm of religion, not science. Its just like creationism, which is another religious
belief system, but nevertheless, both are in the realm of "religion" and not science.


When one man sees a bone from "_____saurus", and says, "Its 20 billion years old", and another
man says, "Its only 3000 years old . " ..just who is to be believed ? You believe whoever it is that fits your prior belief system, or religion since
both are RELIGIONS.


Belief >> faith >> religion.


Empirical facts >>laws >> science.


Two totally different categories in thinking.


Creationism and evilution are in the first (religion) category.


Prove to me evilution or creationism has empirical evidence, gathered
by the scientific method. If you can I will recant my statements that both are NOT religion.

Good luck, you will need it.

[TimPhelan]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Prove to me evilution or creationism has empirical evidence, gathered
by the scientific method. If you can I will recant my statements that both are NOT religion.

Good luck, you will need it.

OK, I will. But some other time. It's there Steve. You're basically saying that science is wrong in saying the fossils that are millions of years old aren't real. They are part of a religion. Maybe it would be easier for you to show otherwise. Good luck in doing that.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

OK, I will. But some other time. It's there Steve. You're basically saying that science is wrong in saying the fossils that are millions of years old aren't real. They are part of a religion. Maybe it would be easier for you to show otherwise. Good luck in doing that.

Show me.

(nope, not from Missouri )



When you can show me that either side follows the
scientific method - I will recant.

The burden of proof is upon you, Tim, not me.

Until then, enjoy your religious beliefs, it is all you have.

/Steve

[myob]

But don't dawdle too long, though in solving this. You have until 2012 when the Sun's 4.57 billion year old evil twin will come around and destroy all the evidence on earth for either side.

[Tiger]

Definitely


Once the truth is known, its hard to waste time in
the little stuff.

HOW many years...

[TimPhelan]

Originally Posted by myob

But don't dawdle too long, though in solving this. You have until 2012 when the Sun's 4.57 billion year old evil twin will come around and destroy all the evidence on earth for either side.

Haha. So right Paul.

The burden of proof is upon you, Tim, not me.

Until then, enjoy your religious beliefs, it is all you have.

So wrong Paul. I'm not religious really. Are you? Time to say so. Do you believe in creationism? Are you religious? Lets hear it.

The burden of "proof" is on you guys since you don't have any science on your side. Good luck though.

[myob]

In all ernestness and sincerity, I am very religious. I believe that God is the greatest scientist of all time - and of all space. How ridiculous it is to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?

As the late physicist Leon Lederman said, "We hope to explain the entire universe in a single, simple formula that you can wear on your T-shirt."

In a recent book Max Jammer, Rector Emeritus of Bar Lan University in Jerusalem, a former colleague of Albert Einstein at Princeton, claims that Einstein's understanding of physics and his understanding of religion were profoundly bound together, for it seemed to Einstein that nature exhibited traces of God quite like "a natural theology." Late in his life in a speech delivered in Berlin, Einstein gave this illuminating account of himself:

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene... No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life... My consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there. ... Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. In the nature of things nothing accidental is granted, but all things are determined by the necessity of the divine nature for existing and working in a certain way. In short, there is nothing accidental in nature. God does not play dice. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
- Max Jammer, Einstein und Die Religion, Konstantz, 1995

In this way Einstein thought of God as revealing himself in the wonderful harmony and rational beauty of the universe, which calls for a mode of non-conceptual intuitive response in humility, wonder and awe which he associated with science as well as in art. It was particularly in relation to science itself, however, that Einstein felt and cultivated that sense of wonder and awe that only a Great Scientist could create and run our universe.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

It's just amazing to me that so many people claim to have all the answers, when the greatest mind that ever lived remained in awe of the mysteries of the universe and always sought for the truth of God and science with no agenda except for truth itself.

[Thomas]

I can recall about 5 definite end-of-the-world events that failed to make their scheduled appearance. I'll bet I've forgotten many more.

I'm starting to wonder if I'm immortal.

I'm also starting to see why he's a former CNN science feature field producer.

Tommy.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Haha. So right Paul.



So wrong Paul. I'm not religious really. Are you? Time to say so. Do you believe in creationism? Are you religious? Lets hear it.

The burden of "proof" is on you guys since you don't have any science on your side. Good luck though.

Sorry, I wont let you off the hook. The burden of proof is
upon you to prove that either side uses the scientific method
to come to their beliefs.



Parroting me is not going to work, since I am not on a "side".

Remember your LINK that says :

"Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof."

If there is "no way of knowing" ... then you literally have nothing
to believe in.

One hint: Truth is true even if you dont believe it. Objective facts
are the same; true even if you dont believe them.

[TimPhelan]

Originally Posted by myob

In all ernestness and sincerity, I am very religious. I believe that God is the greatest scientist of all time - and of all space. How ridiculous it is to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?

Exactly Paul. Although I am agnostic, I have always thought that evolution could also be interpreted within a creationist theory. I mean what is more amazing than evolution IMO. It by itself almost makes you believe in a higher being.

Steve, you're wasting your time. I won't keep going on and on with you on this. You have a decided mind and that's ok. Good luck to you and your beliefs.

[myob]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Truth is true even if you dont believe it. Objective facts
are the same; true even if you dont believe them.

YouTube - Manfred Mann's Earth Band - Blinded By...

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Exactly Paul. Although I am agnostic, I have always thought that evolution could also be interpreted within a creationist theory. I mean what is more amazing than evolution IMO. It by itself almost makes you believe in a higher being.

Steve, you're wasting your time. I won't keep going on and on with you on this. You have a decided mind and that's ok. Good luck to you and your beliefs.

You are right about wasting time. It seems hardly anyone is
really interested in talking about the foundation of science.

But they love to talk about wishy-washy stuff.

Your non-answer is duly noted.

Good luck also in your beliefs.

[TimPhelan]

Originally Posted by Tiger

You are right about wasting time. It seems hardly anyone is
really interested in talking about the foundation of science.

But they love to talk about wishy-washy stuff.

Your non-answer is duly noted.

Good luck also in your beliefs.

Steve, you don't believe in science. That's obvious. When you are ready to talk about real science let me know. You were the one to originally attack Paul for talking about 65 million years ago. If you can logically say he was wrong then post some usefull information saying so. Not some BS crap that is easily descredited. We're still waiting.

[myob]

Originally Posted by Tiger

You are right about wasting time. It seems hardly anyone is
really interested in talking about the foundation of science.

But they love to talk about wishy-washy stuff.

Your non-answer is duly noted.

Good luck also in your beliefs.

I am absolutely fascinated by science and religion. This conversation is about neither one.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Steve, you don't believe in science. That's obvious. When you are ready to talk about real science let me know. You were the one to originally attack Paul for talking about 65 million years ago. If you can logically say he was wrong then post some usefull information saying so. Not some BS crap that is easily descredited. We're still waiting.

Ah... the "let me know" crap... you are not interested in science because you are not interested in truth.


Do you really not get this yet ? True science is obtained when the scientific
method is followed ( I underlined it for you this time. ) to arrive at facts, real objective facts.


This is primer school stuff. LINK

It appears you dont understand the goal of science or how
we have come to arrive at laws, real ones.


Stop trying to obligate me proving what you folks put forth.
Just stop.


Last chance Charlie : Prove to me that either side uses the scientific
method to present their "beliefs" and I will recant.


If you can not do that, dont try to call your religion "science". It is not science.


Last chance.


/Steve

[myob]

Let me try to explain to you again in a different way. The "scientific method" has at its root observable data, and scientists are constantly evolving our view of the cosmos as the accuracy of observation tools improve. This thread is a perfect demonstration that interpretation of this data is not definitive, and will never become 100% accurate. As Newton and Einstein have shown, mathematics is the only "pure science". Everything else is empirical data that is limited by the accuracy of the tools of observation. In the scientific method, scientists use mathematics to develop a model or theory to describe observable data. As observation techniques improve in accuracy, old theories continue change, evolve, or become discarded.

For centuries religion has limited scientific inquiry based on false assumptions, not facts. It was long held that there were only 7 planets in the solar system because the number "7" was a perfect number for deity. This was despite the fact that mathematical calculations indicated there were more objects beyond Saturn affecting the orbits of the inner planets. With the discovery of Uranus and Neptune, mathematical calculations still could not account for the perturbations observed, and led to the search and discovery of Pluto and eventually led to the discovery of a whole new family of objects in a distinct region called the Kuiper belt. With this discovery, Pluto was demoted from a planet to a number -134340, just one of the many other objects in the outer solar system.

Our observation techniques and accuracy continue to evolve, so that now with the Hubble telescope it is viewing events that happened near the beginning of the universe. Hubble has helped to resolve some long-standing problems in astronomy, as well as turning up results that have required new theories to explain them. Among its primary mission targets was to measure distances to Cepheid variable stars more accurately than ever before, and thus constrain the value of the Hubble constant, the measure of the rate at which the universe is expanding, which is also related to its age. Before the launch of HST, estimates of the Hubble constant typically had errors of up to 50%, but Hubble measurements of Cepheid variables in the Virgo Cluster and other distant galaxy clusters provided a measured value with an accuracy of 10%, which is consistent with other more accurate measurements made since Hubble's launch using other techniques.


Early Astronomers

The history of astronomy goes back several thousand years ago. Almost all ancient cultures had stories about how the universe was created, what it was like, who created it, and how the earth and humans got here, but those stories are usually not very believable. The early Egyptians believed that the universe was a large rectangular box with Egypt at the center of the bottom and with huge lamps which hung down from the top for stars. The ideas of the other cultures which were near Egypt usually had the same concept of an enclosed space with that culture’s part of the world at the center. One major factor holding the ancient cultures back from developing the technology to look farther into the cosmos was their belief in many unpredictable gods who controlled the universe. If the universe was unpredictable because of gods, why try to understand it if what you learned could become obsolete at the whim of the next god. The only culture that worshipped one God who made a predictable universe at that time were the Jews. The Bible, which came from that culture, later had a profound positive impact on science.

Some of the astronomers in the ancient cultures kept records of their observations. The Chinese have records going back to about the 1300s B.C. By about 700 B.C., the Babylonians could predict certain heavenly events. By about 600 B.C., the Greeks started to get interested in astronomy.

The Greeks

The first ancient culture that usually comes to mind as being more aware of the truth of their surroundings than other cultures of that time period are the Greeks. In fact, our word astronomy comes from the Greek words meaning "law and order". The Greeks were not the first culture to try their hand at astronomy but the work of their philosophers was widely distributed by the Romans and was the accepted authority on that subject for hundreds of years. The Greeks discovered that the earth was a sphere by several methods and the philosopher Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth to within about 300 kilometers of today’s generally accepted value. In about 200 BC Aristarchus first stated that the earth revolves around the sun but most philosophers argued that everything revolves around earth.

There were apparently also some cultures about which we know little who were interested in astronomy. Stonehenge and the various other similar structures which appear to be ancient calendars are some examples of monuments built by those groups.

Ptolemy

Around 150 A.D. Ptolemy (100?-165? A.D.), an Alexandrian astronomer, invented the concentric system to explain the motions of the planets around the earth. His work was the accepted authority on astronomy until 1543.

To fully understand why some of the early modern astronomer’s ideas were not accepted and why some of those ideas led the astronomers to be ridiculed, it is helpful to have a background on what was happening to the culture at that time.

For a time under the Romans, from about 300 BC to 476 AD, there was a decline in the study of astronomy in favor of astrology and some of the works of the Greek philosophers were destroyed.

Modern Astronomy

The modern history of astronomy starts in Europe in about 1300 AD. Before that time, the Roman Catholic Church had been the dominant religion in Europe and at times had more control over countries than did the kings of those countries. The Roman Catholic Church started in about 300 AD under the Roman emperor Constantine. Over time, the popes started getting more powerful because of the fact they were the heads of a religion followed by most of Europe and gradually replaced the empire as the center of power. During that time, some of the popes introduced some controversial beliefs to increase their power and the popes and most of the clergy became corrupt. By the 1200s, it was obvious that most of the clergy were more interested in gaining political power than in helping the people spiritually.

In 324 AD, the Roman emperor Constantine moved the capital of the Roman empire from Rome to the city of Byzantium, present day Istanbul, and renamed it Constantinople. As he built up his new capital, he collected and stored many of the ancient writings of the Greek philosophers in libraries in the city. In 395 AD, the empire split up into two parts. The eastern half had its capital in Constantinople and was called the Byzantine empire. The western half had its capital in Rome. The church also split into two parts; the eastern half was called the Eastern Orthodox Church and the western part was called the Roman Catholic Church. Each church also had its own pope and very different ideas. In about 476 AD the western half of the empire was destroyed by the Visigoths, Vandals, and other Germanic tribes. Southern Europe was then plunged into what is now called the Dark and Middle Ages, which was marked by frequent wars and a lack of strong governments. During that time, not much learning at all occurred and most of the population lived under lords as serfs. The priests of the Roman Catholic Church, however, kept education from dying out completely during that time. The eastern empire stayed together for another thousand years until 1453 when the Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople. Before the Turks could capture Constantinople and make it into Istanbul, however, most of the population fled the city, taking with them the works of the ancient Greek philosophers. As the knowledge from the city spread throughout Europe, it helped start what is now called the Renaissance.

The Renaissance

The Renaissance, which took place from the early 1300s to about 1600, was a time in which people in southern Europe began to learn, which had not taken place there much since the western empire fell. As the people started to learn, they saw the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church which led them to turn away from it altogether and to start pursuing the improvement of themselves with knowledge. They got much of that knowledge from the monasteries of Catholic Church which had preserved most of the books written before that time.

Starting in the 1500s, the learning from southern Europe began to enlighten the people in the north. In northern Europe, however, when they saw the corruption of the church, instead of turning away from the church, they tried to reform it. This period is called the Reformation. During the Reformation, people began to read the Bible for themselves, which the Roman Catholic Church was supposed to be based on, and found beliefs in the Bible which they thought were contrary to the beliefs of the church. Some of these people started the Protestant movement. Many thousands of people were killed, usually being burned as heretics, because of their belief in things which were contrary to what the pope, who set the beliefs of the Catholic Church, said. The Catholic Church was still very powerful and one of the beliefs that the pope set is that the earth itself is the center of the universe and that all other heavenly bodies revolve around it. This is the reason that the church persecuted those who believed Copernicus’s ideas about the sun being the center of the solar system.

The printing press was invented in the year 1430 which helped spread information about all of the sciences. This made the common man able to afford a book, which before then had to be handwritten and thus were very expensive. By this time, most educated people were aware that the earth was a sphere.

Copernicus

About that time a Polish canon of ecclesiastic law and astronomer named Copernicus (1473-1543) began to wonder if there could be a more aesthetically pleasing and reasonable arrangement for the planets than the concentric system. He studies Aristarchus’s heliocentric ideas and built a new system out of it. He developed a system where all of the planets, including earth, orbit the sun and where each one of these orbits was in the shape of a circle with the sun at its center. After almost forty years of study, he published his monumental book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs in 1543, the year he died. He was never able to prove his ideas but later advances in physics would make it possible to prove a version of those ideas.

Copernicus’s book caused an amazing amount of controversy. Martin Luther attacked his book by saying that Copernicus was "the fool who would overthrow the whole science of astronomy." Religious leaders attacked the heliocentric system by saying that they were contrary to scriptural revelations. The publisher of his book even inserted an anonymous apologetic note the readers of his book implying that his ideas were far fetched. Since the heliocentric cosmology was contrary to church ideas, advocating Copernicus’s ideas was punishable as heresy so the scientific community at that time was extremely reluctant to have anything to do with it. Philosopher Giordano Bruno committed this "crime" and was burned at the stake.

Copernicus’s ideas were not perfect because, since he believed that the planets move in perfect circles, he had to insert some epicycles and other mathematical structures into his theory which made it about as inaccurate as Ptolemy’s system. However, Copernicus’s theory was a tremendous leap in astronomy.

The next person to make an advance in astronomy was Tyco Brahe (1546-1601). With help from King Frederick II, he built an observatory on the Island of Hveen that was equipped with the most accurate pre-telescopic instruments for observing space ever built. He was able to determine positions of objects to within one minute of an arc, far more accurate than any previous attempt. Brahe constructed an uninterrupted record of the positions of many planets and other bodies for several years, but he did not accept Copernicus’s ideas. His idea of the universe was a compromise, he believed that the five planets orbited the sun, but the sun orbited the earth. He reasoned that the motion of the earth would be felt and he thought that Copernicus’s ideas were unscriptural.

Kepler

As the Renaissance was coming to and end, a German man named Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), who believed Copernicus, started looking at the records of Brahe’s observations. He discovered that none of the ideas presented thus far about the motions of heavenly bodies lined up to the evidence in Brahe’s records so he formulated his own ideas. After seventeen years of work, he finally came up with the true motions of the planets and published them in two books in 1609 and 1619. He discovered that the planets move around the sun in ellipses with one focus of the ellipse at the center of the sun and the other focus at a usually unoccupied point in space. He also came up with rules for their movements called Kepler’s laws.

Because of Kepler and Brahe, astronomers now had a model for the solar system that actually fit the evidence and that could be used to predict future events or reconstruct past ones. This was a giant leap for astronomy but the work still remained to give reasons for what Kepler observed.

Galileo

Living at the same time as Kepler, an Italian named Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) made the next breakthrough for astronomy. Galileo is probably best known for some experiments with falling objects from the leaning tower in Pisa, his home town, but he also made some exciting discoveries with his homemade telescopes and experimented with pendulums. Galileo was also a believer in the Copernican theory. Since Ptolemy first made up his concentric model, many people argued that Ptolemy’s theory must be true because they reasoned that the earth would leave the moon behind if it traveled around the sun. In 1610, Galileo made the discovery with his telescope, which was the most advanced at that time, that Jupiter had at least four moons orbiting it. This was proof against the concentric system because Jupiter’s moons were orbiting Jupiter and not the Earth, which everything orbited according to Ptolemy’s concentric model. If Jupiter could retain its satellites, then the Earth could retain the moon as it went around the sun. He published a paper about his findings and got in trouble twice with the Roman Catholic Church which placed him under house arrest until his death for advocating the Copernican theory.

Newton

The science of astronomy still needed one more piece in its foundation for others to build upon. This piece was contributed by an English man named Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Newton was an astronomer, scientist, and mathematician who investigated the laws of gravity and made spectacular discoveries about light. He formulated laws which explained how objects move and how gravity operates. He also laid the ground work for the study of spectrum analysis. He also made the first reflecting telescope which made possible the huge observatory telescopes of today.

The laws provided by Kepler, Galileo, and Newton were not perfect but they had a good degree of reliability and were used for many years. There have been revisions of their laws by Albert Einstein and others but the original laws are still used by many for calculations that do not need an extremely high degree of precision.

Einstein

One of the most profound impacts on science were two theories proposed by Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) realized that all motion was relative, that is, coordinates and the descriptions of movements meant nothing unless the reference body was defined. He also had evidence that the speed of light was a constant, being the same speed no matter how fast an observer is moving, which violates the Newtonian laws of motions but was later demonstrated experimentally. In creating his theory, he made the requirements that all defined laws must work with respect to all bodies of reference and that the speed of light with respect to all bodies was the same. To bring the requirements into one theory, he used a set of mathematical formulas called the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation defined the formulas to use when converting coordinates from one reference body to another when the first body is moving at a constant speed with respect to the second. With these formulas, he discovered that time and mass cannot be constant for the speed of light to be constant; thus, time can not be separated from space so the two must exist together in a four dimensional space-time continuum. For instance, if two trains are moving on two parallel tracks in the same direction at different speeds toward a light source, and the speed of light from the light source is the same for both of them, then time for the faster train must be slightly slowed. In 1905, Einstein published his findings in his Special Theory of Relativity. The Special Theory of Relativity could only be used in the absence of gravitational fields so he published his General Theory of Relativity in 1916. The General Theory of Relativity basically says that all matter curves space, and in turn, how space is curved affects the movement of matter, which explains gravitational fields. This theory is constantly being validated by modern scientific experiments.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by myob

Let me try to explain to you again in a different way. The "scientific method" has at its root observable data

You are getting close to understanding a major item.


Science is (again) based on empirical evidence. Things
that can be touched, seen, smelt, etc are "observable" data.


To have things "observed" there needs to be an "observer".
Neither creationism nor evilution have such a person and
are therefore unscientific.


Here is something that will blow your mind:

"Science is flawed."

[myob]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Here is something that will blow your mind:

"Science is flawed."

Agreed. And so are some minds.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by myob

Agreed. And so are some minds.

But not some hearts.


LINK

[tj]

Originally Posted by webdesignhq

Part 1 of 5

What Are YOUR Thoughts?

- Jared

Propaganda

[Jared Alberghini]

anybody watch the http://www.Zeitgeistmovie.com ?

[Michael Oksa]

So, if someone believes in evolution, they are evil?

[ThomM]

Was thinking when I saw the title of the thread, surviving 2012?
Hell we still have to survive 2008.

[MaskedMarketer]

Originally Posted by ThomM

Was thinking when I saw the title of the thread, surviving 2012?
Hell we still have to survive 2008.

Yeah, lets take baby steps here. We might not even make it until 2009, forget 2012

[Paul M]

Originally Posted by myob

The earth has been hit by thousands of "evolutionary comets"; the most most famous one was 65 million years ago that wiped out 75% of life on earth and prepared the way for us to arrive on the scene. About 13,000 years ago the Clovis comet wiped out all the farmers not just in Montana but throughout the whole US. Another comet hit Siberia in 1908 and wiped out hundreds of millions of trees. If it had arrived just a few hours earlier, the spin of the earth would have targeted western Europe and wiped out human lives instead of just trees. Right now, there are over 5,000 comets roaming our solar system - 700 of which are a mile or more in diameter which could have the destructive power to wipe out continents. Thousands of meteorites actually hit the earth every year, with a combined destructive force of 1,000 times the explosion of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. These meteorites are also thought to be evolutionary; contributing to global warming.

"prepared the way for us to arrive on the scene about 13,000 years ago"


Am not sure what planet you live on, but humans started evolving around 6 million years ago.

Humans were already living in caves and drawing horses and tracing human hands 32,000 years ago.

Humans were already present in the USA 13,000 years ago.

[bendiggs]

Originally Posted by Tiger

HOW many years ago ?


The Sun has been shrinking at a SET RATE
for all of our time of being able to record it.

Common sense says that if the Sun has been
shrinking at the same set rate for as long as
we have been able to record it means that the Sun use
to be...


BIGGER.


We would no doubt have had to have been inside the Sun
for that many years to have transpired for "evilution"
to fulfill 65 million years. LINK

Hate to break it to you, but not every astronomer and astro-physicist believes that the sun has been continually shrinking, or that it is still shrinking. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to show that the sun grows and shrinks with some regularity. Why not look into research done by people who may disagree with you instead of jumping on the bandwagon of those that do, just so you can support your argument?

Look at Is the sun shrinking? for some rebuttal.

[Patrician]

Einstein really was a genius, never more clearly to me than in this statement. The thing is, it is supposed to be so simple a child can understand, and God loves to 'confound the wise'. (He hates arrogance)

The Word is an offense - meant to be that way - that's why so many are offended.

Or to put it more simply, 'the Truth hurts'.

Or more cryptically, 'The Truth is a double-edged sword' - it cuts both ways.

"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life..."

Originally Posted by myob

In all ernestness and sincerity, I am very religious. I believe that God is the greatest scientist of all time - and of all space. How ridiculous it is to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?

As the late physicist Leon Lederman said, "We hope to explain the entire universe in a single, simple formula that you can wear on your T-shirt."

In a recent book Max Jammer, Rector Emeritus of Bar Lan University in Jerusalem, a former colleague of Albert Einstein at Princeton, claims that Einstein's understanding of physics and his understanding of religion were profoundly bound together, for it seemed to Einstein that nature exhibited traces of God quite like "a natural theology." Late in his life in a speech delivered in Berlin, Einstein gave this illuminating account of himself:

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene... No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life... My consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there. ... Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. In the nature of things nothing accidental is granted, but all things are determined by the necessity of the divine nature for existing and working in a certain way. In short, there is nothing accidental in nature. God does not play dice. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
- Max Jammer, Einstein und Die Religion, Konstantz, 1995

In this way Einstein thought of God as revealing himself in the wonderful harmony and rational beauty of the universe, which calls for a mode of non-conceptual intuitive response in humility, wonder and awe which he associated with science as well as in art. It was particularly in relation to science itself, however, that Einstein felt and cultivated that sense of wonder and awe that only a Great Scientist could create and run our universe.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

It's just amazing to me that so many people claim to have all the answers, when the greatest mind that ever lived remained in awe of the mysteries of the universe and always sought for the truth of God and science with no agenda except for truth itself.

[Michael Oksa]

Originally Posted by Patrician

Einstein really was a genius, never more clearly to me than in this statement. The thing is, it is supposed to be so simple a child can understand, and God loves to 'confound the wise'. (He hates arrogance)

The Word is an offense - meant to be that way - that's why so many are offended.

Or to put it more simply, 'the Truth hurts'.

Or more cryptically, 'The Truth is a double-edged sword' - it cuts both ways.

"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life..."

Sorry for the off-topic bit here, but it reminded me of my favorite quote...

"Truth is the sword of us all" (And, yes, it is from a rock 'n' roll song )

~Michael

[Patrician]

Thank you Allen. You know I know we agree on many things. I am not going to get into a theologic debate because I don't want to get attacked by the enemy.

Although I don't agree with everything you said, I do know hell is 'just' separation from God - it is just the opposite of eternal life - He has no beginning and no end.

Darn though, it is fun to think of the enemy as Crispy Critters, thoroughly flame broiled, slowly over an open fire. LOL.

Originally Posted by espacecadet

Bravo, Patricia.

Man's wisdom is fallible

On a brighter note, we won't have to worry about Hillary Clinton running for President in 2012...