- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,059
- 52,633
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
From Live ScienceI'm unaware that crop circles have ever been a scientific investigation.
I'm sorry, I didn't see in that link where any "actual" scientists investigated crop circles? True there were investigators, like those looking for ghosts and bigfoot, but people from the mainstream scientific community, I don't think so.
Actual scientists are hard to spot, aren't they?I'm sorry, I didn't see in that link where any "actual" scientists investigated crop circles?
I only looked at the first article. I'll check the second one out. Thanks.Actual scientists are hard to spot, aren't they?
Especially if one holds scientists up to such a standard that the average or below average layman (like I) can't converse with him.
I just reviewed E. H. Haselhoff's paper. Seems he's quite a loaner. One of the major indicators of the quality of a peer review research paper is the number of citations it receives. Seems there were only two and both were by Haselhoff himself. He also seems to be working from a description by two other people rather than actual data from a field investigation himself. Sorry, I'm unconvinced.Actual scientists are hard to spot, aren't they?
Especially if one holds scientists up to such a standard that the average or below average layman (like I) can't converse with him.
Reminds me of a documentary where they got a team of experienced circle-makers to make circles, then asked a 'scientific' crop circle investigator to say whether it was 'genuine' or 'fake' - he said there was no doubt it was genuine because of the bent nodes and signs of radiation that couldn't be faked. They also asked a psychic circle investigator to check it, and she told them it still had powerful energies and invited a bunch of friends round to soak up the vibes.
Except I didn´t ask you a question, and I couldn´t care less what you of all believe or don´t believe.There are about 15 of them.And I'll return an equally simple answer: I don't believe it.
Riiiiight.
I ask a simple question and get a website that's about 15 pages long.
I even ran FIND for the word "electromagnetic" and it came up with nothing.
What about the strange “magnetic particles” that are found in crop circles?
At 26:48 of the film, Gamble asserts that “strange magnetic particles” are found in crop circles. This sounds like a convincing explanation for some non-human origin, doesn’t it? (Of course it does, which is why Gamble uses this example).
This feature too is easily explained. Here is a page that explains how to create a crop circle—with magnetic particles included.[http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Crop-Circle] Here’s how you do it:
“Also, melt some iron filings into droplets on site and sprinkle them around the flattened area to leave ‘meteorite particles’ and magnetized stalks.”
This is yet another technique used by hoaxers precisely to stoke the idea among believers that crop circles have some sort of paranormal origin. In this case, Foster Gamble fell for it.
Very specific. With your supreme ability to find old internet references, you certainly don't mind if I ask a specific question about the scientific documentation for watches that stopped ticking?My specific question was about electromagnetic disturbance at the crop site; and I even gave the example of watches that stopped ticking.
As I said, most of these "15 pages" are comments. If you cannot manage to skim through a short and well referenced essay like this one... how do you manage to read your bible?I get a 15 page link to go through and, as I said, I ran FIND against the word "electromagnetic" and it came up blank.
Job 1:19b And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house,Where is the biblical justification for crop circles?
Well, I guess building your house on sand is kinda bad.Job 1:19b And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house,
Where is the biblical justification for crop circles?
Job 1:19b And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house,
It was nice talking to you again, AV. Reminded me why I chose to ignore you before. And will again.
Bye!
I think what I just saw here with Freodin, is an attitude of: It's okay for you to believe my scientific explanation, but don't justify a phenomenon with Scripture, or I won't tolerate it.If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand anyway.
I think the question is, what's the connection between a story about wind blowing on a house and crop-circles?I think what I just saw here with Freodin, is an attitude of: It's okay for you to believe my scientific explanation, but don't justify a phenomenon with Scripture, or I won't tolerate it.
Well, it is a science forum thread, not an apologetic forum thread. Nevertheless, I don't see a problem with a scripture citation, just its interpretation, which I think would be better suited in the apologetics area. Just an opinion.I think what I just saw here with Freodin, is an attitude of: It's okay for you to believe my scientific explanation, but don't justify a phenomenon with Scripture, or I won't tolerate it.
The weather theory of crop circle formation is dismissed due to the assumption that the weather was generated by Mother Nature, which, of course, isn't true.I think the question is, what's the connection between a story about wind blowing on a house and crop-circles?
I'm not interested in your opinion ... since it is targeted at me.Well, it is a science forum thread, not an apologetic forum thread. Nevertheless, I don't see a problem with a scripture citation, just its interpretation, which I think would be better suited in the apologetics area. Just an opinion.
It was not intended specifically for you, but I understand what you are saying. Perceived target removed.I'm not interested in your opinion ... since it is targeted at me.
I said I have no problems with citations?After all, I was asked for a Scripture citation, and I gave one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?