Life on Earth: By Chance or by Choice ? - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 24 (permalink) Old 07-13-2009, 07:47 PM Thread Starter
Rockin' da fumanchu
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the straight and narrow,stumbling at best, only by Gods grace.
Posts: 7,224
Thumbs up Life on Earth: By Chance or by Choice ?

I'll try and have the video up of the service based off this paper, next Monday.

Life on Earth: By Chance or by Choice ?



http://www.walkingwithhim.com/resources/do...by%20Choice.pdf





Listen to my buddy, Jeff Bolton, from 6-9 AM Mon-Fri.

Obamanomics = Trickle Up Poverty

Think you need to format/reinstall your OS(XP), read this first.
Tx Redneck is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 24 (permalink) Old 07-16-2009, 04:33 PM
Lifer
 
Marisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tarrant
Posts: 10,319
Poorly executed... The "the earth is perfectly fit for us to survive" theory is back asswards. We evolved to thrive in the conditions here... the earth didn't evolve to be perfect for humans. LOL!

<-l30z
Marisa is offline  
post #3 of 24 (permalink) Old 07-16-2009, 04:47 PM
Lifer
 
Avery'sDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Red Oak
Posts: 1,509
Did that come straight from "The watchtower".
Avery'sDad is offline  
 
post #4 of 24 (permalink) Old 07-16-2009, 05:17 PM
Aspiring Bean Counter.
 
Slowhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Howard Johnson's Earthlight Room
Posts: 12,279
LOL. What is it with humans thinking that we're so fucking special? Newsflash: we're not.

Slowhand is offline  
post #5 of 24 (permalink) Old 07-17-2009, 05:25 PM Thread Starter
Rockin' da fumanchu
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the straight and narrow,stumbling at best, only by Gods grace.
Posts: 7,224
I guess it's fair to say that none of yall read the entire thing huh?





Listen to my buddy, Jeff Bolton, from 6-9 AM Mon-Fri.

Obamanomics = Trickle Up Poverty

Think you need to format/reinstall your OS(XP), read this first.
Tx Redneck is offline  
post #6 of 24 (permalink) Old 07-17-2009, 09:02 PM
Factory Issue
 
Yale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Shippensburg, PA
Posts: 12,295
IMO, the big, "why," can't be answered by science or religion, and should be abandoned.

Give me a dollar.
Yale is offline  
post #7 of 24 (permalink) Old 07-18-2009, 10:37 AM
Banned
 
poopnut2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: On the Fence
Posts: 20,196
Haha at the long day and night thing. It's the greenhouse effect that keeps the temperature at an relative temperature throughout our 24 hour day. Not whether or not the sun is blaring down on us. Yes, that affects the temperature, but it wouldn't "cook" us and it's not going to get 240 degrees below freezing. Look wAY up north, those guys go a month without sunlight and the temperature doesn't get that cold and they want to say it's going to happen everywhere else?

I'll admit that's all I read but that seemed to be enough.

EDIT: Well, I read the part about the earth's tilt. It's space, and you're talking about two spheres with the sun and the earth. Grab two balls, and start rotating one up and down. The sun doesn't just shoot rays directly at earth, it emits them everywhere. Yes, the tilt affects seasons, but so does the elongated revolution around the sun. Ideally, there'd be a perfect circle traveled around the sun at the distance we are in spring. That would kick ass.

Last edited by poopnut2; 07-18-2009 at 10:44 AM.
poopnut2 is offline  
post #8 of 24 (permalink) Old 07-18-2009, 10:56 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
In Texas, I'd rather our orbit year-round be the distance we are from the sun during summer. Granted that would make for some colder winters here. That's one reason given for why summer and winter are more extreme temperature-wise in the southern hemisphere; the earth's orbit is furthest from the sun during their winter and closest during their summer.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #9 of 24 (permalink) Old 04-24-2010, 01:57 PM Thread Starter
Rockin' da fumanchu
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the straight and narrow,stumbling at best, only by Gods grace.
Posts: 7,224
I just found the DVD from this sermon and got it uploaded.

from Tx Redneck on Vimeo.






Listen to my buddy, Jeff Bolton, from 6-9 AM Mon-Fri.

Obamanomics = Trickle Up Poverty

Think you need to format/reinstall your OS(XP), read this first.
Tx Redneck is offline  
post #10 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-09-2010, 07:57 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by poopnut2 View Post
Haha at the long day and night thing. It's the greenhouse effect that keeps the temperature at an relative temperature throughout our 24 hour day. Not whether or not the sun is blaring down on us. Yes, that affects the temperature, but it wouldn't "cook" us and it's not going to get 240 degrees below freezing. Look wAY up north, those guys go a month without sunlight and the temperature doesn't get that cold and they want to say it's going to happen everywhere else?

I'll admit that's all I read but that seemed to be enough.

EDIT: Well, I read the part about the earth's tilt. It's space, and you're talking about two spheres with the sun and the earth. Grab two balls, and start rotating one up and down. The sun doesn't just shoot rays directly at earth, it emits them everywhere. Yes, the tilt affects seasons, but so does the elongated revolution around the sun. Ideally, there'd be a perfect circle traveled around the sun at the distance we are in spring. That would kick ass.
Before the effects of the flood on the earth's axis, due to the atmospheric conditions scientists pull out of air bubbles found in "pre"-historic amber and according to what dinosaurs would need to survive, we know the earth's atmosphere had something on top of it pushing down on the atmosphere which created about twice as much air pressure and we had a bit more oxygen and a few little differences in the mixture of particles. This allowed dinosaurs to grow to the insane sizes we find them in the fossil record, not to mention how everything in the fossil record is much larger (such as crocodiles and sharks, etc). This proves the greater air pressure of the pre-flood world, or "pre"-historic, as some think of it.

Whatever was pressing down on the atmosphere, in theory, also blocked the sun's shortwave radiation, which is what causes things to heat up around here. The cracks in the oceans are where the flood waters came from, underneath the crust, according to the Bible, where most of the water was located back in that time (so we had maybe a small ocean toward the south of the globe, and mostly land with rivers back then, it would seem, theoretically).

If that were the case, then the earth was built like a perfect nuclear reactor, providing its own internal heating and watering system (since there wasn't any rain yet, which makes perfect sense, because the sunlight heating the atmosphere is what causes evaporation and clouds, etc.). Therefore, the globe would be equally heated all over, the canopy over the atmosphere would block the sun's heat, but let in the light (scientists have figured out how to replicate the canopy to cause this effect), and we'd have warm climates all around the globe. Also, we can track exactly when the wobble of the earth began, which means it is likely that the earth was straight up and down, and then the water's burst forth causing an off-balance to the spin, which caused the axis shift. It just so happens that when we use the mathematical equation to track the wobble of the earth backwards, we see that it began 4400 years ago, which is exactly when the Bible places the flood's occurance, as do many worldwide cultures (and we see 217 different cultures with very similar worldwide flood stories). We can also track the growing of the Sahara desert, because it grows a few feet each year on every side (meaning plant life on its edges dies out and turns to desert), and it tracks back to its beginning being about 4400 years. There are other markers around the world that indicate a worldwide flood about this time, as well. The odds of this being coincidence are astronomical.

And finally, we know the earth's temperatures were about the same all around the globe right before this global flood, because we find wooly mammoths near the North Pole, frozen, standing up, with green vegitation in their mouth being chewed and in their stomachs. We also have found a man in only a loin-cloth near the South Pole in Antarctica, standing up (that's hardly winter-wear). So the clothing of the man proves warm climate (of which our wobble never could've supported for that region of the planet), and the mammoth's green vegitation proves a warm climate there, as well. The fact that both man and mammoth were frozen standing up means that whatever happened to them happened in literally seconds, freezing them solid before they even realized what happened.

The theory is that this canopy around the atmosphere collapsed during the flood either due to the extreme weight of the crust pressind down on the water causing it to shoot up and break the canopy, or, a meteor shattered it, causing the Gulf of Mexaco (which is firmly believed to be a meteorite crater). I opt for a combination of both, with the meteorite triggering the crust break, causing the flood, which further hindered the canopy. Also, the colder ice is, the more magnetic it becomes, and the earth's magnetic energy (the poles) was approximately 2.75 times stronger 4400 years ago (because every 1600 years, the magnetic force loses about half its energy). The magnetic force likely pulled the ice moreso toward the poles, and this is why we find only the center of the globe having little ice while the top and bottom of the globe had tons of ice, according to evidence of glaciers pulling north as they melted. It would seem that glaciers came down as far south as the mid-US, if I'm not mistaken. Man could've easily survived in the middle of the globe, as could animals and sea-life. As the ice melted, the water drained from the land and went to the recesses near the cracks (i.e. - where we now have oceans, obviously). You'll notice that the trenches in the ocean floors are all connected to a central burst point.

The evidence of a worldwide flood would be millions of dead things, buried in layers of sediments, all over the earth, just like we find layers and dead things in those layers at the bottom of standing bodies of waters such as lakes. Mt. Saint Helens laid down what appeared to be 360,000 years worth of layers in a matter of 2 weeks after the explosion. And when we look at the actual layers in the earth, we see bones settled through multiple layers, not just in one single layer, which would mean that those bones lasted through millions of years till they were fully barried and fossilized, which makes no sense. Normally, if there were no flood, the carcuses would lie on the ground and break down and turn to dust eventually, due to atomspheric exposure. That's not what we see in the evidence.

What we do see are fault lines with tons of bones around them, as if water were draining back into the earth through the fault line, pulling the bones with it as it went, but the bones were buried just below the surface on their way to the fault line in the drainage. That's why fault lines (sink holes) are the best place to find "dinosaur graveyards" where people barely have to dig below the surface to find the bones. However, the torrential waters broke apart the carcuses so badly that it is incredibly rare to find a full skeleton.

The theory makes much more sense with the proof. People just aren't very good at laying out all of the parts of the theory quickly in a nice neat package that explains it and the proofs well.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #11 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-09-2010, 08:00 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk View Post
In Texas, I'd rather our orbit year-round be the distance we are from the sun during summer. Granted that would make for some colder winters here. That's one reason given for why summer and winter are more extreme temperature-wise in the southern hemisphere; the earth's orbit is furthest from the sun during their winter and closest during their summer.
By the way, if the sun isn't heating the atmosphere in this theoretical pre-flood world, it would not matter if the earth came a little closer to the sun.

Also, we still see ice shards up in the top layer of our atmosphere, remenants of the canopy that used to be there. Those ice crystals are what create the sound and light of the Aurora Borealis, which, I suppose, is a reminder of the world that was. Literal singing is reported all the time from this Aurora Borealis, not just sounds, which is kind of creepy if you don't know what it is or how it creates the voices. Pretty weird stuff. I won't explain that, though...

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #12 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-09-2010, 10:18 PM Thread Starter
Rockin' da fumanchu
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the straight and narrow,stumbling at best, only by Gods grace.
Posts: 7,224
I enjoyed those two post Brian. If I may ask, are these matters something you're studying in school?





Listen to my buddy, Jeff Bolton, from 6-9 AM Mon-Fri.

Obamanomics = Trickle Up Poverty

Think you need to format/reinstall your OS(XP), read this first.
Tx Redneck is offline  
post #13 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-10-2010, 08:15 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tx Redneck View Post
I enjoyed those two post Brian. If I may ask, are these matters something you're studying in school?
Nah, about 10 or so years ago, I ran across a college seminar on video being given by a scientist and after 3 1/2 hours, I had a pretty good overall view of how the creation model worked. I'm a fairly scientific person in my thought process, and I already had a pretty good grasp on a lot of different things pertaining to science. When I heard this seminar presented, all of the science I knew suddenly all fit together perfectly into the theory, and I couldn't find any holes. I was amazed at just how perfect it all fit. And with each new scientific fact I learned, I noticed that it all continued to support this theory, and so the theory never really changes, unlike Evolution & Big Bang theories, which constantly are modified and tweeked as new information is discovered.

Dr. Baugh's stuff is good if you can find a video of his in a college seminar setting. However, it is possible that his credentials are fraudulent, and so I refer people to his stuff with caution and a disclaimer. However, most of what he teaches is basically the same as what all other creationists teach. Kent Hovind's videos are decent and show a lot of proofs that evolutionists use, and then turns them around to use them against the evolutionists and to support creation theory, and it makes more sense once he does this. That's always entertaining. Kent Hovind and Ken Hamm's videos are great for showing holes in evolution so that it looks to be an impossible theory and incredibly stupid. That's always entertaining. Kent Hovind was a bit stupid, though, and stopped paying taxes due to what he thought was a loophole in the tax system (which, technically, there is a loophole, but it was stupid to try to utilize it when we live in the country and need to pay taxes for our security and other things). He says he didn't want to give money to them, though, due to their funding of evolution in public schools and other things he didn't believe were right. While he seems to have stood on principle, it was still a stupid move.

Ken Hamm's got some good videos at Answersingensis.com. Institution for Creation Research is a fully accredited college in California and they have lots of good stuff on their website: icr.org. Hovind's videos are free online at drdino.com. I've done years of research and watched probably 30+ hours of videos and watched seminars, etc.. Interesting stuff. Makes a ton more sense than evolution and big bang theories. Hope you enjoy researching it. It's pretty eye-opening. Be sure not to just take their word for it. Go look into the actual research yourself. That way, people can't say you're just parroting what a creationist said.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #14 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-10-2010, 08:26 AM Thread Starter
Rockin' da fumanchu
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the straight and narrow,stumbling at best, only by Gods grace.
Posts: 7,224
Cool. By chance, did you watch the video I posted?





Listen to my buddy, Jeff Bolton, from 6-9 AM Mon-Fri.

Obamanomics = Trickle Up Poverty

Think you need to format/reinstall your OS(XP), read this first.
Tx Redneck is offline  
post #15 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-10-2010, 08:37 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
By the way, to prove the earth is not very old and no dating method works, just a few years back, they found a T-Rex fossil that still had some soft tissue on it in which it contained red blood cells. This is the first find of dinosaur blood and soft tissue. What's great about this is that it is impossible for soft tissue and red blood cells to survive over millions of years, must less even 50,000 years. Besides the fact that we have seen things like birds fossilized in a matter of a couple of years due to being buried in mud, this proves fossilization doesn't happen slowly as we were taught, and it proves that dinosaurs are not nearly as old as we were led to believe.

It amazes me what scientists are not taught in college. Scientists are taught that fossilization time is determined by only two factors: time and pressure. The more time there is, less pressure is needed, and the more pressure there is, less time is needed. That is sheer stupidity when you learn how fossilization works.

Fossilization is a process where water moisture in soil comes through and takes particles of living matter away and replaces them with sediments. That's why a fossil is just rock when we find it, having no living matter left over. Notice how water is the main component of fossilization? So, the presence and frequency of water in the soil is most important for speeding fossilization. If you have heavy rainfall in an area, things will fossilize much more quickly. In the news article I was reading a few years back, the scientists said they buried a bird in the mud two years ago, because he was dead outside their offices. They either decided to dig it up or they were digging a whole for some construction there and they found the fossilized bird. This was on Yahoo News, by the way, not in a creation science article. They commented that the bird was fossilized exactly like we find pteridactyls.

In other words, if there were a worldwide flood, the water content in the soil would be massive, and the pressure from the water on the surface would speed up the process too, and so not much time would be needed at all for fossilization to occur. I bet the things during the flood were fossilized before the flood even fully drained off. If not, they were probably fossilized within a few years of the flood's end, but most likely, sooner. Sometimes, as in the case of the soft tissue found, something gets incased so well that water doesn't move through it very quickly at all, or the area may not have much rainfall, and you end up with some tissue not fossilizing, it would seem.

Evolution and an old earth is absurd and there is no proof for it. Sure, there's adaptation within species, but there is no interspecies evolution occuring in the fossil record or in modern times. That's just ridiculous and unfounded. And since dating methods wholely depend on us knowing the original quantity of carbon 12 & 14 (or whichever molecule or isotope they're using) in the object at the time it died, there is absolutely no way to know how much has broken down. Also, contamination of the elements of the object being dated is untraceable, as well. It is utter stupidity to actually fantasize that one can date an object this way, and yet scientists, knowing full well the limitations and inaccuracy of every dating method, still say they're accurate. That's just ridiculous. One has to be an idiot to trust such methods IF they know how the methods work.

My wife is a PhD of Cognative Neuro Science (brain researcher), and she says evolution researchers aggrivate the hell out of her, because she has to use the actual "scientific method" every day which requires quatative data, and evolutionists go by a modified version which does not require the quantative data and works only for the purpose of showing some theoretical possibilities, not actual facts. She says they pawn this stuff off as fact, constantly, when they have no possible way to prove these things because they have no quantative data. Scientists that do research the proper way will of course be upset that other scientists are using an easy way out that doesn't prove anything and then claiming they've made grand discoveries. Why else would evolution theory constantly be changing to fit new evidences they discover? They keep finding out they're wrong.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #16 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-10-2010, 08:41 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tx Redneck View Post
Cool. By chance, did you watch the video I posted?
You're gonna' laugh... but no. LOL When I get time, I will watch it. I've just been so busy lately that i haven't had a free moment to watch it. I just read a few posts and figured the video had something to do with creation/evolution type stuff.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #17 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-10-2010, 09:12 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Hey, your link doesn't work anymore. Could you find that again and relink it? Thanks.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #18 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-10-2010, 09:49 PM
Lifer
 
5point0pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianc View Post
i'm a fairly scientific person in my thought process, and i already had a pretty good grasp on a lot of different things pertaining to science... I couldn't find any holes... The theory never really changes, unlike evolution & big bang theories, which constantly are modified and tweeked as new information is discovered.

.... Show a lot of proofs that evolutionists use, and then turns them around to use them against the evolutionists and to support creation theory, and it makes more sense once he does this... Kent hovind and ken hamm's videos are great for showing holes in evolution so that it looks to be an impossible theory and incredibly stupid.

... Makes a ton more sense than evolution and big bang theories.
lmao!

Working on my project Stang
5point0pony is offline  
post #19 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-10-2010, 09:54 PM
Lifer
 
5point0pony's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post

Evolution and an old earth is absurd and there is no proof for it... And since dating methods wholely depend on us knowing the original quantity of carbon 12 & 14 (or whichever molecule or isotope they're using) in the object at the time it died, there is absolutely no way to know how much has broken down... It is utter stupidity to actually fantasize that one can date an object this way, and yet scientists, knowing full well the limitations and inaccuracy of every dating method, still say they're accurate. That's just ridiculous. One has to be an idiot to trust such methods IF they know how the methods work.
.
LMAO!

This thread is hilarious and I hope people aren't eatin up this shit.

Working on my project Stang
5point0pony is offline  
post #20 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-10-2010, 11:08 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5point0pony View Post
LMAO!

This thread is hilarious and I hope people aren't eatin up this shit.
If you're gonna' call people stupid, indirectly, you should show us your extreme intelligence and debate this stuff. If you think my comments about dating methods are inaccurate, then, by all means, explain how dating methods work, and that alone should prove me wrong, correct? If you're so much more intelligent than us, this should be a simple task for you. So, let's hear it. Explain dating methods and show me how I'm wrong.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #21 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-11-2010, 04:52 AM Thread Starter
Rockin' da fumanchu
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the straight and narrow,stumbling at best, only by Gods grace.
Posts: 7,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tx Redneck View Post
I just found the DVD from this sermon and got it uploaded.

from Tx Redneck on Vimeo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
Hey, your link doesn't work anymore. Could you find that again and relink it? Thanks.
Here's the text.

http://walkingwithhim.net/resources/...y%20Choice.pdf





Listen to my buddy, Jeff Bolton, from 6-9 AM Mon-Fri.

Obamanomics = Trickle Up Poverty

Think you need to format/reinstall your OS(XP), read this first.
Tx Redneck is offline  
post #22 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-11-2010, 06:04 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianC View Post
By the way, if the sun isn't heating the atmosphere in this theoretical pre-flood world, it would not matter if the earth came a little closer to the sun.

Also, we still see ice shards up in the top layer of our atmosphere, remenants of the canopy that used to be there. Those ice crystals are what create the sound and light of the Aurora Borealis, which, I suppose, is a reminder of the world that was. Literal singing is reported all the time from this Aurora Borealis, not just sounds, which is kind of creepy if you don't know what it is or how it creates the voices. Pretty weird stuff. I won't explain that, though...
WRONG.
The Aurora Borealis is a result of solar winds interacting with the Van Allen Belts.
Ice crystals have absolutely nothing to do with the Northern Lights.
There is also NO sound related to the Aurora Borealis.
I lived in Anchorage for a few years. In 93 or 94 there was more than normal sunspot activity. The Lights were so active that instead of having to look north (even from Anchorage, AK) we were looking straight up at an incredible light show.
An incredible entirely silent light show.

Ice crystals are going to form anywhere there is water and freezing temps. Has nothing to do with some "canopy". And there are no "shards" floating around either.

I applaud your attempts to solidify your position with science.
But pulling crap like this out of your ass actually helps you none at all.
90LSC is offline  
post #23 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-20-2010, 05:24 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90LSC View Post
WRONG.
The Aurora Borealis is a result of solar winds interacting with the Van Allen Belts.
Ice crystals have absolutely nothing to do with the Northern Lights.
There is also NO sound related to the Aurora Borealis.
I lived in Anchorage for a few years. In 93 or 94 there was more than normal sunspot activity. The Lights were so active that instead of having to look north (even from Anchorage, AK) we were looking straight up at an incredible light show.
An incredible entirely silent light show.

Ice crystals are going to form anywhere there is water and freezing temps. Has nothing to do with some "canopy". And there are no "shards" floating around either.

I applaud your attempts to solidify your position with science.
But pulling crap like this out of your ass actually helps you none at all.
Hey, I'm just regurgitating what I read on secular sites about the Aurora Borealis many years ago. Here's a quote from one I just found in a random Google search:

"Observers claim to hear sound when northern lights appear. The height of the northern lights is 80-130 km above the Earth, in an environment which is almost a vacuum, making it impossible for the sounds to come directly from the auroras. There are several theories regarding this. One theory is that the sound may be coming from discharges in the electrical fields on Earth which occur during an aurora. Another theory is that the electromagnetic energy produced could cause vibrations in certain objects, such as frozen pine needles or loose hair, causing the hissing, swishing or crackling noises heard by spectators. In a laboratory, it was tested that even wearing a pair of glasses could raise one's threshold by 3 or 4 decibels. There is even a theory that the sound is merely a psychological reaction."

So, yes, there seem to be a lot of claims that people hear sounds.

However, it's very possible that I'm mixing up the sound from the Aurora Borealis with some other audio I've heard where scientists were pulling sounds out of the atmosphere with high tech equipment. Not just sounds but singing, and they said the voices don't ever take breaths. Also, radio telescopes supposedly get a sound out of stars and large bodies in space. How, I am not sure. I'm not sure if they're slowing down the light frequency till it becomes sound (and I'm not sure that's even possible). I think that's kind of what the movie Contact had to do with. But again, it's been so many years since I looked into that stuff, I'm probably just mixing up information.

I do know that there are ice crystals in the outter most layer of the atmosphere (sometimes referred to as the heatsink) and I know people report hearing sounds when they see it sometimes. I'm just mixing information, I'm sure. My mistake.

Regardless, it doesn't degrade the other information I gave in any way. Not sure why I included the stuff about the Aurora Borealis, to be honest.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
post #24 of 24 (permalink) Old 05-21-2010, 12:43 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tx Redneck View Post
I finally watched it. lol Yeah, that's a great video. He has a great way of just crushing Atheists. I don't believe any of the atheists whom posted in this thread actually watched the whole thing or they probably wouldn't have posted. lol

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome