Posted on 10/11/2002 6:10:44 AM PDT by apackof2
Scientific Approach
The founder of Reasons to Believe presents a rational Christian look at UFOs and extraterrestrials.
Hugh Ross has a B.S, Physics, University of British Columbia; M.S. & Ph.D., Astronomy, University of Toronto.
Mr. Ross is the co-author of, Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men (NavPress, 2002)
Hugh has been stargazing since he was a young boy, and by the age of 17, he had become director of observations for the Royal Astronomical Society in Canada. As an astronomer, Hugh has logged thousands of observation time and has learned that science can and does address the possibility of life’s existence elsewhere in the universe. In the mid-'70s, Hugh was assigned the task of processing UFO reports at CalTech. At the same time, Hugh began an intense study of the Bible. "Secular society is gullible about the possibility that extraterrestrial life exists without having scientific evidence to prove it," says Hugh. "The motivation for this book is the need to communicate clear, satisfying explanations from scientific, theological, philosophical, and political standpoints."
Hugh says that he uses the scientific approach called "the process of elimination" to answer the question Is there a place where extraterrestrials could live in the universe? Over the years, science has made some significant advances. "The number of candidates for life sites within the Milky Way grows smaller each day," says Hugh. At one time, biologists speculated that extraterrestrial life forms might be based on exotic chemistry, not carbon as earthly life is. But today the conclusion is that all conceivable life forms must be carbon-based. And if life forms exist on other planets, they must be planets like Earth, orbiting a star like the sun in a galaxy like the Milky Way. "Ongoing research shows that this seems less possible as each year passes," says Hugh.
Residual UFOs
Most people think UFOs are physical. "But they can’t be physical," says Hugh, "because they defy gravity." While Hugh does not say that UFOs aren’t real, no physical object can move like UFOs have been reported to move. Respected UFOolgists agree that there must be something real at the bottom of some UFO reports. Residual UFOs (RUFOs) is a terminology that refers to the UFOs that are left over after all the others are explained away. There is quite a bit of evidence that UFOs are real, such as crash sites. There are over 1,000 sites where allegedly the UFOs have crashed. "The ground is depressed, the trees and grass are burnt," says Hugh. "In these scenarios, we are dealing with non-physical reality." What this evidence suggests is that RUFOs are capable of producing physical effects, such as burnt grass, but are not physical themselves.
Hugh says the Bible proclaims the existence of a personal Creator who can act independently outside the cosmos and who is not restricted by the four, large space-time dimensions (length, width, height or time). The Bible also describes the spirit realm (the realm beyond matter, energy and space-time dimensions) and declares the existence of God and two or more distinct creatures: humans and angels. Hugh explains that humans remain physically restricted to the dimensions of the cosmos and cannot account for the unexplained phenomena. Angels, or fallen angels, remain as possible links. Fallen angels, or demons, intent on distorting God’s authority and purpose, draw attention away from God and the gospel and are an identifiable source of explanation.
The conclusion that demons are behind the RUFOs phenomenon is testable. According to the Bible, demons attack only those individuals who invite the attacks. "All that is necessary to further prove the conclusion of demonic involvements," says Hugh, "is to continue surveying people to ascertain who has encounters with RUFOs and who does not." Researchers continue to observe a correlation between the degree of invitations in a person’s life to demonic attacks (séance, Ouija boards, astrology, witchcraft, palm or psychic reading). One reason why research scientists may be reluctant to say specifically that demons exist behind the RUFOs is because that answer points too directly to a Christian interpretation of the problem.
Reasons to Believe is an interdenominational ministry that communicates the basis for belief in the Bible as the true Word of God.
www.reasons.org
No, that's answering a post. You came to this thread to use the words of a murdering nutcase as a tool against some here. That's a big hint of the kind of stuff you admire.
Everytime anyone quotes a source, that's a repetition of someone else's words. If I quote Charles Manson, according to your twisted thinking, then I am a "worshipper" of Manson. I have rarely read a sillier statement than that.
If you use his words as an argument or a tool to benefit yourself, then yes it is.
As I said in my original reply to you, you did not understand my post of the tarot card. Just forget about it, it requires a modicum of wit on the reader's part.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Quit going around revering the words of murderers and you won't have to worry about it.
Thanks. They think the bible should be written as a book of law, of a scientific textbook. It's not meant for that. It's meant to teach people to know God. If it was written for lawyers or scientists, it would fail in it's mission to teach truth and common sense.
But quite amusing in a mad sort of way.
... Yes, but only if your a free thinker ...A little too free, I should think. How does one get from "not UFOs" to "AH-HA! It must be demonic activity!"? That's quite a leap, don't you think? To argue that demons are responsible for UFO sightings, contacts etc. is to simply substitute one empirically non-verifiable claim for another, which is a really easy thing to do.
Should? Regrettably, life does not conform with the #3fan school of physics. Please explain your "reasoning." [sic]
A lot of wackos on FR (and elsewhere) claim the Bible disputes this.
That would make sense if there were "waters of space," but there aren't. There may be water in various places in space, but that's hardly the same thing.
About Mars? Here's a site that makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the pictures aren't loading right now. It's written by Hoagland. Admittedly he gets into some wild stuff sometimes, but he was the first to predict almost the exact structure of Europa, and he did it within seconds of seeing the pictures come back from Voyager as he was standing in the control room with the the NASA scientists running the operation, so he does have an intuitive mind for this stuff.
Of course my efforts are finite, you twit. You folks claim that the Bible is the unerring word of a supernatural being. In reality, its just a religious tract, no more inherently truthful than the Bhagavad Gita or the Koran. And what better way to demonstrate that its a creation of bored men and not gods, than to show that its chock full of errors, inconsistencies and falsitudes?
There is nothing in it that is not truth, because it is God's word.
You're telling me that you really believe that rabbits chew their cud?
If you see it as false, it is because you are not able to see because of your own spiritual condition.
Knowledge of the mechanics of rabbits' digestive system is hardly dependent on spiritual enlightenment.
If you are right, and the Bible is not true, we, who believe it are fools, but our future and our fate will be unaffected. If we are right, and the Bible is true, you will spend eternity in horrible punishment because you have scoffed at the Creator, and not accepted the redeeming Love of His Son, Jesus Christ.
This is the worst argument I've ever read. You're saying that I should start believing in your religion because its safer if it should turn out that your beliefs are correct? What happens if the "One, True Religion" should turn out to be Sikhism, Islam, or Zoroastrianism? There are literally thousands of religions in the world, and if we follow your approach and pick the one least likely to let us wind up in Hell or Hades or whatever, the odds of any particular one being "True" are infintissimally small.
only a spiritual awakening to a God who is at this moment, reaching out to you in love.
Zeus? Ankhenaten? Baal?
I pray, for your sake, that it is sooner.....rather than later.
Nonsense, you're not praying for my sake. But thanks for condescending, anyway.
If you believe in a universal flood, and the impact that the waters from above and below caused, you can see that what 'scientists' claim was caused by billions of years of evolution, could indeed have occurred in a 40 day flood. The eruption of Mt. St. Helen's is evidence of that. What occurred there in a few hours from the water and lava flow duplicates the geologic strata of the Grand Canyon......which 'scientists' claim took millions of years to form (and although credible scientists know that it is impossible to have happened, our 'educational' institutions still proclaim that erosion caused it to form).
The point is, if you believe in an Omnipotent God, creation in 6 days would not have been difficult. It is perfectly reasonable then, (and not the thought of 'wackos') to believe in a young earth, especially when you know that the so-called dating methods of scientists are filled with error and assumption. (It also is possible to believe that the Creation story is allegorical, and the earth is indeed older than the chronological years listed in Scripture).
However, you have to have a whole lot of faith to believe the ridiculous claims of evolutionists. I prefer to have faith in the Creator, and the truth of HIS word.
Yet somehow, God still foolishly holds the Sun still, when he really means to hold the Earth still. What a maroon!
I thought it was created in 4000 BC, which would make the earth only six thousand years old. Explain the discrepency. Or do you not take the Bible literally?
If you believe in a universal flood, and the impact that the waters from above and below caused, you can see that what 'scientists' claim was caused by billions of years of evolution, could indeed have occurred in a 40 day flood.
No, not really. There is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood, and all evidence you would expect to find is noticeably absent. Just as one example (and I'd be happy to post many more), Greenland ice cores go back more than 40,000 years. How come there isn't any evidence of the sediment, salinity change, etc. that you'd expect to find after a flood?
It is perfectly reasonable then
Don't worry. Nothing you have posted has been tarnished by reason.
especially when you know that the so-called dating methods of scientists are filled with error and assumption.
Care to back up any of your claims? Or should I just take them on faith? (snicker)
The friction from the tides of the moon and sun, the atmosphere, and the internal magma should add up to more than a millisecond every hundred years as is now observed.
They're making the same mistake as you, they don't realize the bible is meant to show a person how to know God, and it uses parables to do so.
The atmosphere is between us and space. Simple, really, if that's what it means.
LOL True.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.