Did an angel trigger the volcano eruption in Mexico?

[M30USA]

No skin off my nose what he believes. He is free to believe in whatever lunacy that he wants. However, no one is obligated to agree or even treat his views as though they are worthy of admiration. I believe (it's a belief too) that his belief in UFOs/angels is wacky.

 

I can, and as can others, express that belief here too.

 

I'd like to remind you that perception of any subject (ie, feeling it is "wacky") has zero to do with the validity of the it.

[M30USA]

I've provided you with references to dozens of case study evidence. Whether you read them or not is your choice.

 

As for your claim that "we know what causes volcanoes", that's irrelevant because I never said UFOs caused it. I suggested that they triggered the natural causes.

 

We also know what causes earthquakes. Yet we humans can trigger them with mega sonic waves. This is established and declassified already. No debate.

 

So if we, as mere humans, can do this with earthquakes, I think it's 100% certain that UFOs/ETs (if they exist) can trigger volcanoes. Angelic beings in the Bible clearly possessed the ability to manipulate natural earth phenomenon. I think based on what we are seeing today, this reality is finally coming within the scope of plausibility.

[M30USA]

I wasn't talking about anything, but I think the debate would make the most sense if we referred to the Homo Sapiens Sapiens (the species we belong to), which according to anthropologists walks the earth for about 200.000 years. Not sure what 6000 year old species you were referring to, but you made me curious. Any links?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans

 

Perhaps I should link to the site which lists the variables that affect carbon dating (atmospheric pressure and humidity) and how even the formula which attempts to account for these variables are based on...assumptions? Don't believe carbon dating. Even hardcore proponents admit that its accuracy greatly diminishes after several thousand years.

 

Also don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia. I, myself, have encountered several factual errors on subjects that I am expert on in the last several years. Plus many of the entries are not even correctly referenced.

Edited July 3, 2013 by M30USA

[zanzi]

it wasn't an angel. It was a quartet of them flying in formation, with violins.

[M30USA]

Sure, link to the site please, but I wouldn't call it assumptions. It's more than assumptions if you realize the uncertainty a method has can be measured. Besides, didn't you just imply that there were species of humans that preceded the 6000 years? Why else would you bring up the importance of referencing the species if you believed Neanderthals existed created together with Homo Sapiens Sapiens 6000 years ago

 

O really? Do you realize it's possible to account for changes in atmosphere, temperature and pressure? Do you realize that even with the most pessimistic standard deviation when it comes to C14 you can still prove that dinosaur bones are tens of billions of years old, and that the 99.7% confidence interval for Homo Sapiens Sapiens bones is within a couple thousand years of the ones we assumed?

 

While I'd be very curious about those examples (), I'm just quoting wikipedia because it's easy to find and easy to read. If I had doubts about a method or result, I wouldn't reference wikipedia, but I do think it's almost always correct when it comes to hard science and very easy to understand for people without a scientific background.

 

Fyi I have a Master's Degree in Engineering.

 

Yes, the Bible does leave room for the possibility that other human-like beings existed on earth before "Adam" (which means "mankind" and/or "red" in Hebrew). However, if this is the case, then they must not have been made during the "6 days" but rather before Gen 1:2--afterwhich the earth became "void" and "without form" as a result of God destroying earth prior to Adam's time. The possibility is that verse 1:2 picks up after God had potentially restarted the earth from whatever was there previously (ie, other prehistoric humans?). This lends credence to the fact that God told Adam and Eve to "repopulate" the earth. How can you "repopulate" the earth with humans if there had been no humans before? My guess is that this is the time period during which most prehistoric predecessors to modern man lived. So what makes Adam so special was not merely his physical attributes or DNA, but rather that he, unlike the previous versions of humans, was made distinctly "in the image of God". The presumption, if this is true, is that prior versions of mankind were either animals or humans who were not made in the image if God but rather Satan. This seems to line up with the verses of Scripture which suggest that earth was Satan's home when God planted Adam there.

Edited July 4, 2013 by M30USA

[TaxAHCruel]

These people I can at least debate because they haven't entered the arena with a pre-set mind which refuses to consider evidence.

 

More ad hominem nonsense. The simple fact is that one can not "refuse to consider" what has not been offered. Until you actually present some evidence then the mantra that people are "refusing to consider it" is just a cop out canard.

 

Have you presented any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning to lend credence to the claim that angels exist? No.

 

Have you presented any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning to lend credence to the claim that UFOs are anything but objects that are in the sky and have not been identified? No.

 

Have you presented any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning to lend credence to the claim that something flying above a volcano in any way influenced how and when that volcano erupted? No.

 

So one has to ask: What exactly is your point/claim here? And how are you substantiating it? Are we to see anything on offer here except "I am personally not happy with the number of hours you have spent invested in this subject?" as an argument?

[M30USA]

More ad hominem nonsense. The simple fact is that one can not "refuse to consider" what has not been offered. Until you actually present some evidence then the mantra that people are "refusing to consider it" is just a cop out canard.

 

Have you presented any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning to lend credence to the claim that angels exist? No.

 

Have you presented any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning to lend credence to the claim that UFOs are anything but objects that are in the sky and have not been identified? No.

 

Have you presented any arguments, data, evidence or reasoning to lend credence to the claim that something flying above a volcano in any way influenced how and when that volcano erupted? No.

 

So one has to ask: What exactly is your point/claim here? And how are you substantiating it? Are we to see anything on offer here except "I am personally not happy with the number of hours you have spent invested in this subject?" as an argument?

 

I have repeatedly presented you with information about where to find case studies and evidence. The fact that you ask this question means you aren't reading my posts. Honestly there's nothing else I can do in response to someone such as yourself except to not respond. You can do your own homework. My goal here is to propose theoretical explanations for the evidence, not to supply you and other naysayers which the actual evidence. That's your job, buddy. Peace.

[pie2]

M30, I know you were secretly pondering UFO sightings as you watched the fireworks...don't deny it! :p:D

[M30USA]

M30, I know you were secretly pondering UFO sightings as you watched the fireworks...don't deny it! :p:D

 

Actually, those explosions in the sky tonight WERE identified. They were fireworks.

[Els]

Because everybody knows they are real, that's why. It's just too much to handle. People would suddenly be forced to rethink everything about how they live if they knew it to be true. So it's easier to partially block it out and relegate it to the status of "bizarre yet interesting" so that we go on with our lives unchanged.

 

You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or titans taking over earth for all I care, but you do know that it's statements like these that get most of us on your ass, not your actual beliefs, right?

[pie2]

Actually, those explosions in the sky tonight WERE identified. They were fireworks.

 

Fireworks that you were imagining were UFO lights.

 

Come on, I know it's true. Why? Because the topic may have briefly and annoyingly crossed my mind.

 

Noooooooooo!!!!!!

 

 

 

Don't worry, I quickly recovered.

[M30USA]

You can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or titans taking over earth for all I care, but you do know that it's statements like these that get most of us on your ass, not your actual beliefs, right?

 

I'm sorry, I was just rephrasing the idea spoken by Dr. John Mack, former Head of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical. Forgive me.

[Els]

I'm sorry, I was just rephrasing the idea spoken by Dr. John Mack, former Head of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical. Forgive me.

 

Yes, and this idea works both ways, don't you think? Heck, followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could use the exact same statement, as well.

[pie2]

Heck, followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could use the exact same statement, as well.

 

 

Sigh, all Pastafarians know the Gospel of the FSM is the only true authority.

 

Anyway, M30's got the UFO bug pretty bad, and nothing short of an act of God will change that. These threads have become a staple here now. I agree with GorillaTheater...M30 definitely loves to spark those controversial (but fun) conversations!

Edited July 5, 2013 by pie2

[TaxAHCruel]

I have repeatedly presented you with information about where to find case studies and evidence.

 

No you have not. And as I said the claim you are making is not even clear. The OP contains nothing but a couple of you tube videos.

 

Please give me the peer reviewed scientific paper that substantiates even one iota the idea that something unidentified flying over a volcano influenced how and/or when it erupted.

 

Not a you tube fan video or a personal blog opinion piece. I mean ACTUAL substantiation for the claim.

 

Forgive me if I do not hold my breath. Given that by your own admission you have not even identified what the objects were - let alone what influence they did or did not have.

 

Oh look, a bird flew past my window 10 minutes ago - and now the tea lady has arrived. I guess that means the bird caused her to arrive! Wow!