I'd just like to bring up a favorite quote from a professor of mine who said, "History is 10% wrong and 90% bias". Helps keep things in perspective.
Kerouactivist
Diamond Member
- Jul 12, 2001
- 4,665
- 0
- 76
"In regards to cherubs, there is certainly ample evidence from varied sources supporting the existence of other worldly creatures."
Rumor of a UFO Crash in Nepal/China Border
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/01-31c-05.asp
In Darbhanga district of Bihar that borders Nepal, tourists returning from Nepal are talking about a possible UFO crash in Nepal. The rumor is also rampant in Kathmandu, capital of Nepal and other Nepali cities. The crash site is in deep Himalayan border of Nepal and China.
According to sources, the crash site may be close to Mount Everest and is totally inaccessible from either side. The rumor world is speculating that the Chinese military is actively looking at the crash site.
It is also rumored that the Extra-terrestrials are not allowing any one to go close to the site.
Unusual activities and some tremors were felt all over the Himalayan regions from India-Nepal side. This was not the effect of the possible UFO crash.
UFO activities have gone up very heavily in recent days in that area. And no one knows why that is happening.
It is possible that the crash was nothing but a Chinese spacecraft. China has some secret military projects in that area.
The time of the year is so bad that no one can really go to the site and investigate. Everything is just frozen out there.
Nepal military is busy fighting the Maoists who are creating a lot of insurgency problems in that part of the world.
According to UFO scientists, it is possible that the underground UFO bases in the regions was damaged by the tremor last week and some strange aftershock is being felt since the large 9.0 Richter earthquake in Sumatra, Indonesia causing the huge Tsunami.
Learning to Communicate with Extra Terrestrials ? Young Children in India-China Himalayas Use Strange Sign Language
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/01-29d-05.asp
In the deep region of Himalayas, people are reporting strange behaviors in children. They are using sign languages that is unknown to their families and any one around. Many of them draw pictures of triangular objects flying in the sky. Many of them do not know what they saw and how they learnt these sign languages.
Some in the region of Aksai Chin believe that these children regularly communicate with the extra-terrestrials who are only visible to these children and communicate via spiritual telepathy. The children learn the sign language to communicate back to these beings from another Galaxy or Universe.
According UFO research materials, some Mexican children also manifested similar behavior when many in the area reported for a long time UFO sightings.
The extra terrestrials communicate with children first because they are always easy to become friends with.. They teach children the sign language they can understand.
According to some teachers in the schools in that area, young children are extra agile and extra talented these days. Their problem solving skills have increased and they are much more disciplined. They continually use a strange sign language among themselves. However they cannot teach this language to adults!
The locals in the area believe UFO is visiting the area for thousands of years. It stopped for a while and now it has started!
The Indian and Chinese local authorities are indifferent sighting the fact that every thing is perfectly normal ? children often use strange behavior to play among themselves!
The Truth Is Out There: Declassified Reports of UFO Sightings Reveal 88 Sightings Last Year
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=607253
Details of Britain's most recent UFO sightings are revealed in previously secret documents disclosed to The Independent .
The files, released under the Freedom of Information Act, show that, last year, the Ministry of Defence's UFO unit received 88 reports from military staff and members of the public worried about unexplained objects in our skies.
The classified files help to complete a picture of the scale of UFO sightings first revealed by this paper last month. These updated "X-files" show the most recent observations were made on 15 January this year following two separate reports from Chatteris, Cambridgeshire, and Whitstable, Kent. The reports refer to "strange lights seen in the sky".
Other sightings give more detail. A report from Devizes in Wiltshire on 24 September last year records an object that: "Looked liked a big ball of fire coming down from the sky with a tail and sparks coming off the end of it." Another, from Somerset the week before, states: "The object looked like a great bright light and was really intense, like a ball of fire coming down from the sky, rapidly moving towards the ground."
Although such reports might be discounted as meteor showers or other astronomical phenomena, other sightings are not so easy to dismiss. A report from Surrey on 20 May last year describes a UFO as having "grooves and windows" but no room for humans. Even the MoD inspector notes that the "witness had seen the object so clearly".
Many of the other sightings refer to UFO's changing colour, speed and shape. The most common colours are yellow, orange or black.
A report from Goole, East Yorkshire, recorded in April last year, noted: "The object looked like a boomerang and was stationary over a power station. An aircraft was circling the object."
In the same month, a UFO observer from Seaforth, Merseyside, noted: "I saw a UFO with a cluster of four bright lights in a ring shape on it. Three beams of white light shone upwards and disappeared."
These latest files to be declassified by the MoD are not as complete as reports from mid-1976 and 1977 released last month. Hundreds of documents previously kept secret by the Ministry of Defence's special UFO department, known as S4F, detail many reports of a possible visit by extraterrestrial life-forms. One is made by an RAF pilot and two NCOs at RAF Boulmer, Northumberland.
In July 1977 Flt-Lt A M Wood reported "bright objects hanging over the sea''. The MoD document adds that the RAF officer said the closest object was "luminous, round and four to five times larger than a Whirlwind helicopter". The UFOs were reported to be three miles out to sea at a height of about 5,000ft.
The officer, whose report is supported by Cpl Torrington and Sgt Graham, said: "The objects separated. Then one went west of the other, as it manoeuvred it changed shape to become body-shaped with projections like arms and legs." The report describes Flt-Lt Wood as "reliable and sober".
That account was deemed so sensitive to the national interest that the MoD had delayed its release for an extra three years. But under the Freedom of Information Act, which came into force on 1 January, the file has been declassified.
Dave
Rumor of a UFO Crash in Nepal/China Border
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/01-31c-05.asp
In Darbhanga district of Bihar that borders Nepal, tourists returning from Nepal are talking about a possible UFO crash in Nepal. The rumor is also rampant in Kathmandu, capital of Nepal and other Nepali cities. The crash site is in deep Himalayan border of Nepal and China.
According to sources, the crash site may be close to Mount Everest and is totally inaccessible from either side. The rumor world is speculating that the Chinese military is actively looking at the crash site.
It is also rumored that the Extra-terrestrials are not allowing any one to go close to the site.
Unusual activities and some tremors were felt all over the Himalayan regions from India-Nepal side. This was not the effect of the possible UFO crash.
UFO activities have gone up very heavily in recent days in that area. And no one knows why that is happening.
It is possible that the crash was nothing but a Chinese spacecraft. China has some secret military projects in that area.
The time of the year is so bad that no one can really go to the site and investigate. Everything is just frozen out there.
Nepal military is busy fighting the Maoists who are creating a lot of insurgency problems in that part of the world.
According to UFO scientists, it is possible that the underground UFO bases in the regions was damaged by the tremor last week and some strange aftershock is being felt since the large 9.0 Richter earthquake in Sumatra, Indonesia causing the huge Tsunami.
Learning to Communicate with Extra Terrestrials ? Young Children in India-China Himalayas Use Strange Sign Language
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/01-29d-05.asp
In the deep region of Himalayas, people are reporting strange behaviors in children. They are using sign languages that is unknown to their families and any one around. Many of them draw pictures of triangular objects flying in the sky. Many of them do not know what they saw and how they learnt these sign languages.
Some in the region of Aksai Chin believe that these children regularly communicate with the extra-terrestrials who are only visible to these children and communicate via spiritual telepathy. The children learn the sign language to communicate back to these beings from another Galaxy or Universe.
According UFO research materials, some Mexican children also manifested similar behavior when many in the area reported for a long time UFO sightings.
The extra terrestrials communicate with children first because they are always easy to become friends with.. They teach children the sign language they can understand.
According to some teachers in the schools in that area, young children are extra agile and extra talented these days. Their problem solving skills have increased and they are much more disciplined. They continually use a strange sign language among themselves. However they cannot teach this language to adults!
The locals in the area believe UFO is visiting the area for thousands of years. It stopped for a while and now it has started!
The Indian and Chinese local authorities are indifferent sighting the fact that every thing is perfectly normal ? children often use strange behavior to play among themselves!
The Truth Is Out There: Declassified Reports of UFO Sightings Reveal 88 Sightings Last Year
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=607253
Details of Britain's most recent UFO sightings are revealed in previously secret documents disclosed to The Independent .
The files, released under the Freedom of Information Act, show that, last year, the Ministry of Defence's UFO unit received 88 reports from military staff and members of the public worried about unexplained objects in our skies.
The classified files help to complete a picture of the scale of UFO sightings first revealed by this paper last month. These updated "X-files" show the most recent observations were made on 15 January this year following two separate reports from Chatteris, Cambridgeshire, and Whitstable, Kent. The reports refer to "strange lights seen in the sky".
Other sightings give more detail. A report from Devizes in Wiltshire on 24 September last year records an object that: "Looked liked a big ball of fire coming down from the sky with a tail and sparks coming off the end of it." Another, from Somerset the week before, states: "The object looked like a great bright light and was really intense, like a ball of fire coming down from the sky, rapidly moving towards the ground."
Although such reports might be discounted as meteor showers or other astronomical phenomena, other sightings are not so easy to dismiss. A report from Surrey on 20 May last year describes a UFO as having "grooves and windows" but no room for humans. Even the MoD inspector notes that the "witness had seen the object so clearly".
Many of the other sightings refer to UFO's changing colour, speed and shape. The most common colours are yellow, orange or black.
A report from Goole, East Yorkshire, recorded in April last year, noted: "The object looked like a boomerang and was stationary over a power station. An aircraft was circling the object."
In the same month, a UFO observer from Seaforth, Merseyside, noted: "I saw a UFO with a cluster of four bright lights in a ring shape on it. Three beams of white light shone upwards and disappeared."
These latest files to be declassified by the MoD are not as complete as reports from mid-1976 and 1977 released last month. Hundreds of documents previously kept secret by the Ministry of Defence's special UFO department, known as S4F, detail many reports of a possible visit by extraterrestrial life-forms. One is made by an RAF pilot and two NCOs at RAF Boulmer, Northumberland.
In July 1977 Flt-Lt A M Wood reported "bright objects hanging over the sea''. The MoD document adds that the RAF officer said the closest object was "luminous, round and four to five times larger than a Whirlwind helicopter". The UFOs were reported to be three miles out to sea at a height of about 5,000ft.
The officer, whose report is supported by Cpl Torrington and Sgt Graham, said: "The objects separated. Then one went west of the other, as it manoeuvred it changed shape to become body-shaped with projections like arms and legs." The report describes Flt-Lt Wood as "reliable and sober".
That account was deemed so sensitive to the national interest that the MoD had delayed its release for an extra three years. But under the Freedom of Information Act, which came into force on 1 January, the file has been declassified.
Dave
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
In comparing evolution through natural selection (THAT is what we're debating here, not "evolution" which merely means "things change"), it's important to understand an important distinction:
Natural selection is indeed a scientific theory. As such, it makes predictions, and is subject to "the scientific method". That is, it is capable of being either supported or undermined on the basis of empirical evidence. That is what it means for something to be SCIENCE.
Now, natural selection, like ever other theory for which there is a strong scientific consensus, has overwhelming evidence in support of it, and a small amound of evidence against it. This bears repeating: Even the best scientific theories have evidence against them. Evidence against a theory does NOT necessarily mean the theory is false. It MAY mean that the theory needs further refinement, or that the "evidence against" is invalid. The point is, one must look at the weight of evidence, and refine the theory if necessary to best accomodate ALL the data. Isn't it interesting that those who oppose natural selection because "there are some difficulties" don't make that argument to any other scientific theory (all of which also have "difficulties"). The point is, there's an obvious, selective agenda at work here.
Compare this with "Intelligent Design". ID is NOT a scientific theory, since there is no possibility of data proving or disproving it. Think about that: There is no experiment, no data of any kind, that could possibly "disprove" ID. That is, ID is "an explanation", a matter of belief, NOT science. And not being science, ID has no place in any science curriculum.
I might add, as an explanation, ID is pretty lame. What it amounts to, in it's most fundamental form is: "If we cannot fully explain something, it must be God." Note that this line of "reasoning" has, through the millenia, led mankind to conclude that all sorts of (at the time) inexplicable phenomena were the work of God (or gods). What history has told us is that the more we understand (through science) the nature of the world around us, the more we see that God had nothing to do with it.
If a scientific theory does not adequately explain all the data, then that just means that we need a better scientific theory. But supporters of ID say, "If natural selection is false, the BEST alternative is ID." But how could they possibly know that? For all they know, a better scientific theory of evolution may be just around the bend. But ID'ers don't event want to consider that.
Finally, to demonstrate how truly dishonest opponents of natural selection are, here's a fair question for them: If every single one of your scientific objections to Natural Selection were overcome, would you reject ID and accept Natural Selection? My prediction is that the answer would STILL be no. That shows that the advocates of ID have no real intellectually honest interest in natural selection. Their underlying motive is to push their religious agenda.
Natural selection is indeed a scientific theory. As such, it makes predictions, and is subject to "the scientific method". That is, it is capable of being either supported or undermined on the basis of empirical evidence. That is what it means for something to be SCIENCE.
Now, natural selection, like ever other theory for which there is a strong scientific consensus, has overwhelming evidence in support of it, and a small amound of evidence against it. This bears repeating: Even the best scientific theories have evidence against them. Evidence against a theory does NOT necessarily mean the theory is false. It MAY mean that the theory needs further refinement, or that the "evidence against" is invalid. The point is, one must look at the weight of evidence, and refine the theory if necessary to best accomodate ALL the data. Isn't it interesting that those who oppose natural selection because "there are some difficulties" don't make that argument to any other scientific theory (all of which also have "difficulties"). The point is, there's an obvious, selective agenda at work here.
Compare this with "Intelligent Design". ID is NOT a scientific theory, since there is no possibility of data proving or disproving it. Think about that: There is no experiment, no data of any kind, that could possibly "disprove" ID. That is, ID is "an explanation", a matter of belief, NOT science. And not being science, ID has no place in any science curriculum.
I might add, as an explanation, ID is pretty lame. What it amounts to, in it's most fundamental form is: "If we cannot fully explain something, it must be God." Note that this line of "reasoning" has, through the millenia, led mankind to conclude that all sorts of (at the time) inexplicable phenomena were the work of God (or gods). What history has told us is that the more we understand (through science) the nature of the world around us, the more we see that God had nothing to do with it.
If a scientific theory does not adequately explain all the data, then that just means that we need a better scientific theory. But supporters of ID say, "If natural selection is false, the BEST alternative is ID." But how could they possibly know that? For all they know, a better scientific theory of evolution may be just around the bend. But ID'ers don't event want to consider that.
Finally, to demonstrate how truly dishonest opponents of natural selection are, here's a fair question for them: If every single one of your scientific objections to Natural Selection were overcome, would you reject ID and accept Natural Selection? My prediction is that the answer would STILL be no. That shows that the advocates of ID have no real intellectually honest interest in natural selection. Their underlying motive is to push their religious agenda.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
In comparing science and religion, it's important to understand an important distiction:
Science has not, will not, and cannot disprove God. Such a thing is simply not scientifically possible. Science requires evidence. And observation. And the ability to form theories. That is what it means for something to be SCIENCE.
So quit being dishonest yourself and drop it. Otherwise, it's obvious that your underlying motive it to push your anti-religious agenda.
For the record, I "accept" evolution, and am not a fan of ID. I just happen to think that you are yet one more of those idiots who has no idea what science and religion is all about. Let me help you to understand. From a scientific point of view, both the existence of God and the non-existence of God are equally likely... or rather, equally unlikely as there is absolutely no evidence for or against. Nor is there likely to ever be any.
So quit trying to turning science into a religion like the rest of the nutjobs in this thread. It's disgraceful to science.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,999
- 307
- 126
Its amazing how the topic seems stay on track to one common theme - Evolution is a theory - even when several spinsters threw their best opinions out. I have a theory that spinsters run out of spin after a little sunshine hits them.
The point is that theory of Evolution/Natural Selection is unlike the theory of Creation/Intelligent Design and basically that science and religion faith are equally unalike, therefore its pointless for people to compare them. No matter how either is compared they will never approve or disprove the other.
I find these arguments very parralleled to the "does 1=.999..." thread where people continually tried to compare abstract with definitive measures.
The point is that theory of Evolution/Natural Selection is unlike the theory of Creation/Intelligent Design and basically that science and religion faith are equally unalike, therefore its pointless for people to compare them. No matter how either is compared they will never approve or disprove the other.
I find these arguments very parralleled to the "does 1=.999..." thread where people continually tried to compare abstract with definitive measures.
Actually, the scientific view is that the question of the existence of deities is meaningless, because the concept of deity is insufficiently well defined to test in a scientific way.
kage69
Lifer
- Jul 17, 2003
- 31,485
- 47,927
- 136
The bible the oldest book in the world? Perhaps if one assumed it was all written at the same time (it wasn't) and that there is only one version (there isn't). With the large number of different authors (most of whom lived many years after the events of which they wrote) that contributed to what is known as 'the bible,' saying it is the oldest book in the world is a combination of wishful thinking and foolishness.
Oldest known book (not a bible, sorry).
I know there are Vedic scriptures written in Sanskrit that date back 5000 years as well. It can be argued the Gita is far older than what you call 'the bible.'
Oldest known book (not a bible, sorry).
I know there are Vedic scriptures written in Sanskrit that date back 5000 years as well. It can be argued the Gita is far older than what you call 'the bible.'
Originally posted by: Vic
Split hairs much?
There's an essential and important difference between a question where there's equal amounts of evidence or a lack of evidence on all sides of a question (for example, does string theory work?) and a question that is fundamentally meaningless.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
You're moving away from the point. While the question is fundamentally meaningless to science, the reality is that many with agendas are trying to proclaim that science has solved (or is working to solve) the question of God. Read the thread. In that context, the question moves from fundamentally meaningless to one with a complete lack of evidence.
I didn't do this. Your psuedo-science-is-my-religion buddies did when they said that science could do something it actually can't, which is prove that God doesn't exist. I imagine that religious people wouldn't be all up in arms about this issue if it wasn't for the anti-religious hypocrites teaching exactly that to their children in our public schools.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The question really isn't fundamentally meaningless to science. There is a crossover betwen science and religion in the realm of philosophy in that both are trying to answer the question -- Why and how do we exist?
Religion claims that supernatural prestidigitation is necessary. Science says it is not and attempts to provide logical and natural reasons for our existence. If science keeps moving forward, it should eventually answer most all of the questions we have. If so, science will essentally prove that there is no need for a supernatural being to explain us and our world. By doing so they would eliminate one of the basic needs for a god, and maybe that is what religion fears the most?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Or so you would like to believe. Unfortunately, more or less your entire post here is bullsh!t. There is not one true and factual statement in your 2nd paragraph. If science were to do what you say, it would become a religion. And what religion fears the most is not the elimination of any basic need for a god, but the removal of the positive moralities, ethics, histories, traditions, culture, and philosophies that religion brings to our society.
No his logic says they are equal both as likely despite no evidence suggesting it exists. Vic keeps going on mini-rants about science being used a religion but has yet to demostrate anyone doing so.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
You need to read the damn thread, Spencer.
:roll:
First, leprechauns != God. Simply using that analogy proves your ignorance regarding religious philosophy.
Second, you are completely wrong regarding the logic I am presenting. Completely wrong. Let me point out how by rephrasing your sentence:
"Science can't prove that Leprechauns exist so using Red Dawn's logic they must NOT!"
Get it?
The Human Species is dominant. How come we are not more vulnerable. That blows your argument out of the water.
I'm sorry to have to say this but if you do not have a background in scientific literature and methods, there is no way you can comment on any scientific theories. Your beliefs ("I believe that human beings didn't evolve from amoebas") are invalid if they are:
1. They are not rational.
2. They are not empirically supported
3. They have no foundation in the literature.
If your belief coincidenes with an accepted scientific theory, then it is a valid belief (I believe that as one approaches the speed of light, time dilation increases as well is valid). This entire thread is pretty much intelluctually bankrupt because many people here do not have a firm grounding in the sciences. This is like someone like me (trained in the sciences) making a prediction about the economy. It may be based off of some random tidbits of information but as a prediction, it is completely devoid of any rational or worthy merit.
1. They are not rational.
2. They are not empirically supported
3. They have no foundation in the literature.
If your belief coincidenes with an accepted scientific theory, then it is a valid belief (I believe that as one approaches the speed of light, time dilation increases as well is valid). This entire thread is pretty much intelluctually bankrupt because many people here do not have a firm grounding in the sciences. This is like someone like me (trained in the sciences) making a prediction about the economy. It may be based off of some random tidbits of information but as a prediction, it is completely devoid of any rational or worthy merit.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter