Now, I found this to be interesting, because this is basically what we’re seeing in the “talk turkey” thread: creationists are faced with evidence that they can’t explain away, and the majority of them just hem and haw over whether they really have to meet the classical definition of science in order to be considered scientific. Clearly creationists wouldn’t accept such arguments if they felt that the evidence were on their side.
Then I got curious: what did Brush really say in his article in Science? Did he really say that predictions aren’t a good way to do science? True to form, the creationists didn’t cite the article. So I checked PubMed and Web of Science, whose periodical indices go back to well before the alleged date of the article (1984 or so) and Brush only wrote one article in Science in the last 30 years: an article from last year on transgenic crops. The article which Humphreys describes simply doesn’t exist!
Jesus knew exactly what he was talking about. There is another fold.
We are not alone in this universe or even on this planet, nor have we ever been.
The only things you can physically witness going in and out of the fold are the clouds. Jesus knew a lot about the clouds too. There is evidence of this fold all over earth. You just have to know how to look and what to look for. Most things in the other fold appear transparent or semi-transparent, but you can train your eyes to see it. The only thing is, once you see it, you have to deal with it. If you study the “face” images in the “Artificial Art on Mt Everest” folder at my site (link at bottom), in the crops where the face is laying horizontally, you will see there are two semi-transparent figures standing on top of the face (I have no idea what they are, I just know they are “figures”). I believe the other fold has knowledge of us, we just don’t have knowledge of them (because the overwhelming majority can’t even see them and never will see them as long as they live).
However, it seems digital photographs are the best way to see evidence of the other fold. Maybe that’s because nothing is moving in a photo, and it gives your eyes time to adjust and focus. You can take about any high quality digital photo of the outdoors and zoom it as much as you can without distorting it, and then simply study it (the same goes for digital satellite photos). That is really the key to seeing a lot of things on Earth that others can’t see.
Seethruart, what is your understanding of the word fold? I’m not looking for any deep-rooted explanation of the interstices of religion and science. I simply want a nice, clean definition of fold as it appears in your post.
Not to say I don’t believe your pretty pictures, but did you ever notice how sometimes when you look at the clouds, or at the patterns of spots on a ceiling, or something equally busy… you tend to be able to spot face-like images in there? Maybe it’s just me. Now, should I think that there are aliens or whatever in another fold making those faces - or should I think that since humans use faces to readily identify one another, that we are more likely to find such images among scenery? No one ever seems to talk about the “human elbow” on Mars… it’s always the face… hmmm.
Son, you may like to look at pretty pictures and faces in the clouds, because there are pretty pictures in the clouds, and they are not random or accidental. However, I don’t mistake fantansy for reality, nor do I try to brush reality away with silly little explanations that simply don’t apply to every person or every situlation. I know more about the clouds than you will ever know. I’m not in denial about life on other planets either. There are many things about this planet, and space, and other worlds, and “faces” that, your simple little explanations don’t cover. If you don’t want to believe that then, that’s your perogative. I like to accept whatever reality there is. It’s easier in the long run.
I apologize for not making this clear in my first response. I am not a Christian, I don’t belong to any religion. I simply believe in God, and I know Jesus was real. I am not about to defend or explain everyone of Jesus’s quotes. However, I am not afraid or ashamed in anyway to speak up when I agree with something Jesus said.
Well, you spun off your comment directly from the quote of Jesus speaking of the different folds (of sheep), and it was a bit confusing when you continued to use the word. It looked like you meant a fold in the space-time continuum or something.
First, I’m not your son - and if I happened to be, I’d probably quicky disassociate myself from you anyway on the basis of your cloud accusation.
Given your pictures, your statement on cloud formations, etc, I will simply say that’s a statement of serious contention.
Unfortunately, for me to believe requires some good evidence, and not pictures of shadows on mountain tops. Especially when the “face” in question looks more like someone straining to pass a bowel movement than a plain human face.
Have a nice day, and don’t let the aliens get you.
Are the tiny little aliens who landed on the moon before our own Apollo missions part of this “other fold” too, or is only the clouds (and I have seen clouds that look like flocks of sheep too) that Jesus was talking about?
Back on topic, people. We’ve started some kind of communication here, with AiG. Instead of bashing them, and instead of being hijacked by SeeThroughHead, perhaps we could focus on a dialogue, maybe try to get them to answer the questions? It could be fun.
This is sorta related to the OP: Here, they quote Jacques Cousteau out of context:
Ol’ Jacques was merely commenting on how deep the ocean really is and what the Earth would be like if the continents did not exist, not offering a YEC theory on how Noah’s Flood could have happened. (Some YEC’s believe the Earth was nearly perfectly round before the Flood and the continents as we know them did not exist till after the Flood, that there was a lot of tectonic activity going on beneath the surface. Thus, the waters only appeared to have receded; in reality, it was the mountains rising above the surface, which is why you can find marine fossils on certain mountaintops.)
I think you’re really misrepresenting their position. You’re implying that they think that the Flood happened on Mars, when it is clear that they don’t.
Not sure about that Ben, I think all they are saying is that it’s hypocritical for science to use the term ‘Noachian’ to describe a real event when it doesn’t accept that the Genesis flood is literally true.
Of course this is just a pointless exercise in semantic dodging though.
"Where did the water on Mars come from? Probably both from space and from the interior of Mars. Many creation scientists [for example, Wayne Spencer, “The Origin and History of the Solar System” 3rd ICC, 1994, pp. 513-523] have suspected that the Genesis flood was a catastrophe which affected the whole solar system, not just the earth. If high-velocity chunks of ice made the craters on Mars, the ice would turn to water vapor upon impact. The very large Martian vocanoes (Mons Olympus, etc.) would have belched out huge volumes of water vapor (even the smaller volcanoes of Earth do that). Just today two creation scientists here in New Mexico, John Baumgardner and Roger Lenard, both suggested that possibility to me. John has previously pointed out the evidence for a global “resurfacing” event on Venus at precisely the time his theory says the tectonic plates on Earth were plunging into the mantle to produce the events of the Genesis flood [Austin, Baumgardner, et al., “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History”, 3rd ICC, 1994, pp. 609-621]. "
