1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI googled it and got 13 400 links. Some pro, some con.
myth buster moon landing
google that
Kelly
Give me a specific one that you want me to see, and I'll comment of that one.
Edit:
I looked at this video clip: http://brblife.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/myth-busters-moon-landing-hoax/
But the evidence that the moon landing took place, it is really some footage, and nothing more?
My best evidence that it really took place is the moon stones that they collected and brought back to Earth. There is no way to fake moon stones.
I'm not a conspiracy guy. I don't believe in conspiracies, as more or less all of them doesn't hold together if you really look at them.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI said that mainly as a reality check, just curious if KJ was one of the conspiracy dudes. Doesn't look like it. The thing about variable time flow, KJ, is that it can be calculated to an astounding degree, just google 'time dilation' and you will find thousands of hits. It is a cornerstone of relativity. You may doubt time as a variable but without real research and a valid answer you are just that, a doubter, walking a hundred years in the past where the rest of the doubters started. You are a hundred years too late to find yourself in the majority. What is the basis for your doubting time as a variable? Just gut feeling?
I googled it and got 13 400 links. Some pro, some con.
Give me a specific one that you want me to see, and I'll comment of that one.
Edit:
I looked at this video clip: http://brblife.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/myth-busters-moon-landing-hoax/
But the evidence that the moon landing took place, it is really some footage, and nothing more?
My best evi ...[text shortened]... conspiracies, as more or less all of them doesn't hold together if you really look at them.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI believe moon rocks would have been easy to fake, give them a rare
I googled it and got 13 400 links. Some pro, some con.
Give me a specific one that you want me to see, and I'll comment of that one.
Edit:
I looked at this video clip: http://brblife.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/myth-busters-moon-landing-hoax/
But the evidence that the moon landing took place, it is really some footage, and nothing more?
My best evi ...[text shortened]... conspiracies, as more or less all of them doesn't hold together if you really look at them.
rock say it was from the moon, who could disprove that till someone
actually gets there and brings something back? I would say stick to
the links that are from the show itself, they go after various complaints
and show why the complaints are actually not valid. My favorite was
the shadows of rocks pointing in several directions at once in a picture.
The complaint was that it was proof there were several sources of light
casting shadows in multi-directions at once like a studio could do
instead of the single source of light the sun.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe moon rocks could not have been faked because there were no moon rocks to use as a sample. Also the main thing about the moon rocks that would not have been known in advance was the near total lack of water. That was a suprise and could not have been predicted and even if predicted, the exact amount of what little water there was could not have been estimated so any fake would have been easy to detect. The thing is, any moon hoax would have had to have fooled the Russians and the Chinese, both of whom would have had a huge stake in undercovering a hoax. If they suspected such and proved it, the propagana victory would have been worth a hundred moon launches to them. If you believe the moon rocks would have been easy to fake, try it! Rots a ruck on that one.
I believe moon rocks would have been easy to fake, give them a rare
rock say it was from the moon, who could disprove that till someone
actually gets there and brings something back? I would say stick to
the links that are from the show itself, they go after various complaints
and show why the complaints are actually not valid. My favorite was
the shad ...[text shortened]... directions at once like a studio could do
instead of the single source of light the sun.
Kelly
KJ, why do you insist on believing in the creation story anyway? It's not even Christian, I saw with my own eyes the 7 day creation story on a papyrus in the Cairo museam, dated about 4000 years old. The thing about that is it is also not even Egyptian, its actually thousands of years older from yet another religion, Zoroastrianism, I think. So why did not the biblical scholars invent their own creation tale? Why would they just repave an ancient one two religions removed from christianity? Out of the thousands of creation myths they took that one on and made it their own and people just went along with it including you. It's the biggest con game in history and you fall for it hook line and sinker. You tell us you can't beleive in fossils because they could be mixed from earthly disasters but there are plenty of places around the world where nothing disasterous has taken place and we can see for instance, the buried civilizations of early america, the settlers from Virginia in the 1600's buried a couple three feet underground so we can see it takes hundreds of years to bury even that deep, that we can see with our own eyes. Then we dig deeper and find another civilization buried 10 feet under and its clear it came from a deeper time, there was no disaster that mixed those layers, and digging deeper yet we find stuff from 20,000 years ago and no mixing with newer layers yet you have to continually rationalize all that out to continue your believe in a thrice told tale not even christian in origin. How do you rationalize all that within yourself?
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThe reason I believe in the creation story, nothing else touches it!
The moon rocks could not have been faked because there were no moon rocks to use as a sample. Also the main thing about the moon rocks that would not have been known in advance was the near total lack of water. That was a suprise and could not have been predicted and even if predicted, the exact amount of what little water there was could not have been esti ice told tale not even christian in origin. How do you rationalize all that within yourself?
As I pointed out before, unless we assume something from nothing,
we simply have to come from somewhere. Science does not offer
anything that touches creation, nothing at all, at best it is always an
after the event and time goes on, but what caused the event, where
did the pieces all come from? From science or better said from the
people on this chess site, I heard things like there was no time, then
there was, everything came from neither something and nothing, and
the list goes on. Science is cool with an on going process, but not so
much with how it all began with respect to everything.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou mean, in your opinion nothing else touches it. In my opinion, it just makes for political/religious strife where religious right wing wack jobs are ruining our formost place as the top scientific power in the world all just to benefit the right wing nutters who want to foist the creation story on a science class. We have to be viewed as the laughing stock of the scientific world for such antics.
The reason I believe in the creation story, nothing else touches it!
As I pointed out before, unless we assume something from nothing,
we simply have to come from somewhere. Science does not offer
anything that touches creation, nothing at all, at best it is always an
after the event and time goes on, but what caused the event, where
did the pieces all ...[text shortened]... h an on going process, but not so
much with how it all began with respect to everything.
Kelly
The only reason you think nothing else touches it is because you have studied nothing else, probably being force fed this myth by your parents so you are just one out of billions of other so duped by the biggest con game in history. There are plenty of other creation tales with a lot more imagination than the creation tale and with a lot less world strife associated with it.
4 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm not sure where you'd get a right or left wing anything out of what
You mean, in your opinion nothing else touches it. In my opinion, it just makes for political/religious strife where religious right wing wack jobs are ruining our formost place as the top scientific power in the world all just to benefit the right wing nutters who want to foist the creation story on a science class. We have to be viewed as the laughing sto ...[text shortened]... lot more imagination than the creation tale and with a lot less world strife associated with it.
I just said. You get whack jobs everywhere that does not mean that
because there are whack jobs supporting something that makes the
position more or less correct. The tricky part would be getting past the
distraction of a whack job, and look clearly at what is being suggested
is true or false, then judge it squarely on its own merit without the
distraction of fringe element. I’d say it is not much different than
having a squared away, sharp looking person, who is articulate
promoting a position too, favorable appearance and manners do not
make the position any more correct simply because of their pleasing
mannerisms either. When we use the fringe of a group to color the
whole we could loose something worth keeping too.
Political/religious strife in my opinion has more to do with the make
up of man than politics or religion. People will use whatever they can
to get a leg up on others, they use the law, they use religion, they use
various and sundry causes, they use volunteer work, and so on. Simply
because evil things were done in the name of something does not
always mean that something is evil or promoted the evil that was done
in its name.
I do not view creation as science as I have stated over and over, it is
faith you either accept it or reject it, you will never be able to prove it.
ID is a little different; we can see ID in many things that have nothing
to do with life, but the movement does as you say have its whack jobs
out there, but so too does a lot of other belief systems with and
without God/gods.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseYes in my opinion nothing touches it, but I ask you to give me
You mean, in your opinion nothing else touches it. In my opinion, it just makes for political/religious strife where religious right wing wack jobs are ruining our formost place as the top scientific power in the world all just to benefit the right wing nutters who want to foist the creation story on a science class. We have to be viewed as the laughing sto ...[text shortened]... lot more imagination than the creation tale and with a lot less world strife associated with it.
something that addresses the beginning squarely that is science
base.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayScience could invent stories, the creation story is just that, a story. Science is not in the business of creating stories, it endevours to elucidate reality as opposed to creationism, it is a story and a poor one at that. Why do you believe in third hand myths? Don't you even care it's not a christian tale? That story was around long before Abrahem, Noah, or any of the OT folk so why do continue to beleive it as if it were christian doctrine?
Yes in my opinion nothing touches it, but I ask you to give me
something that addresses the beginning squarely that is science
base.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ - If science could show that life did start in a primordial soup (or some other abiogenesis theory) i.e a chemical evolution prior to the molecular evolution of first life...... would you still be unhappy and question "where did all the pieces come from" i.e taking your argument back to another level (universe creation maybe), before you believed there is no god / intelligent design?
The reason I believe in the creation story, nothing else touches it!
As I pointed out before, unless we assume something from nothing,
we simply have to come from somewhere. Science does not offer
anything that touches creation, nothing at all, at best it is always an
after the event and time goes on, but what caused the event, where
did the pieces all ...[text shortened]... h an on going process, but not so
much with how it all began with respect to everything.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAll you creationists love to use the creations of science well enough but you don't know what you are doing to the educational system of the US forcing creationism to be taught in SCIENCE class along with evolution as if they are equal. Creationism is pure fantasy nothing more and the more it is foisted on unsuspecting children the more the laughing stock we are to the rest of the world and the further behind we will inevitably get in the leadership of science the more creationism is foisted on malleable children. Of course that is exactly what you want, another generation of children to come under the spell of the biggest scam in human history. I would rather see my kids grow up pagan than be stuck in the clutches of christianity.
[b]I'm not sure where you'd get a right or left wing anything out of what
I just said. You get whack jobs everywhere that does not mean that
because there are whack jobs supporting something that makes the
position more or less correct. The tricky part would be getting past the
distraction of a whack job, and look clearly at what is being suggested
is tru ...[text shortened]... bs
out there, but so too does a lot of other belief systems with and
without God/gods.
Kelly[/b
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm not denying creation is a story, if it was just 'made up' isn't as
Science could invent stories, the creation story is just that, a story. Science is not in the business of creating stories, it endevours to elucidate reality as opposed to creationism, it is a story and a poor one at that. Why do you believe in third hand myths? Don't you even care it's not a christian tale? That story was around long before Abrahem, Noah, or any of the OT folk so why do continue to beleive it as if it were christian doctrine?
clear cut as you make it out to be, but that is the center of the point
of discussion. With respect to science and stories, people come up
with different ways to rationalize the way things could have happened
all the time to wrap a story around a topic, 'this could have
happened', 'this may of occured', 'possible this happened first" nothing
wrong with that, but that is what we do.
Again, the creation story is not science, someone wrote down an event,
they didn't just say here is what may explain the universe if the story
is true. As far as why I believe the OT and NT are true, has to do with
the events and things I see today in the middle east, the events and
things I have seen in my life since I got saved. I didn't start out as
a Christian I got saved when I was 25, before that religion was not
a part of my life.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasI agree with you that creation is not science and science class is not
Creationism is not science, shouldn't be taught in any science class.
Creationism is religion, shouldn't even be discussed in Science Forum.
Never mix religion with science.
Never mix anti-science with science.
the place for it to be taught; however, anti-science I'm not sure what
that means, but if it is to question the results of science I'd say there
isn't any such thing as anti-science, because science is all about
questioning the results and making sure they are right, to look at
things every which way. If you refuse to do that you do not have
science you have dogma.
Kelly