Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Translation: I trust doctors to save my life. I trust astronauts to tell me that there is no life on the Moon. However, when they tell me that aliens have been visiting Earth, they are clearly suffering from an "optical illusion" ROTFLMAO!!!
Dude, homegirl (whatever you are), you're a damn trip.
I'm sorry your desperation to be right reduces you to such taunts to distract from my point.
The doctor, uses tests and evidence to decide how to treat someone. Tests are run, x-rays to blood chemistry, etc. Do you want to go to a doctor that just uses his vision, sees you clutching your chest in obvious discomfort and decides you need open heart surgery, when all you really need is an antacid?
You really do remind me of C34 and his ark thread, facts roll off of you like water off a ducks back, as I have posted links to proof that eye-witness accounts alone are basically worthless.
Nor have you provided any evidence that just because they are a doctor or astronaut that they are nos susceptible to seeing things that just ain't there.
I agree with you point here, the, for lack of a better term, stupidity of saying goddunit as a substitute for "I don't know", well it's a sell out to reason and intelligence.
Your arrogance precludes you from even realizing that the alternative to God dunnit that you accept is NOT "I don't know" . . . it is God didn't do it!!! IF it truly were "I don't know" it would be acceptable . . . but God didn't do it is no more reasonable and logical than God dunnit . . . because what is scientifically unmistakable and irrefutable is that "something dunnit!!!" That is what makes your silly ass unicorns and fairies etc. not comparable . . . because there is no "dunnit" for them to explain. But for God there is definitely a "dunnit" to explain.
Your arrogance precludes you from even realizing that the alternative to God dunnit that you accept is NOT "I don't know" . . . it is God didn't do it!!! IF it truly were "I don't know" it would be acceptable . . . but God didn't do it is no more reasonable and logical than God dunnit . . . because what is scientifically unmistakable and irrefutable is that "something dunnit!!!" That is what makes your silly ass unicorns and fairies etc. not comparable . . . because there is no "dunnit" for them to explain. But for God there is definitely a "dunnit" to explain.
I refute your "something dunnit!"and replace it with "it happened". You don't know how it happened anymore than I do...Your insults directed at those who disagree with your point of view are getting really boring lately.
Apparently, it's necessary to point out to you that a belief in a flat earth is rather easily disproved; it's not as though "science" changed the game as part of some insidious plot.
If it is "easily disproved" how come scientists believed it for years and would not consider any other position? This just goes to show how slow and lumbering science is. It takes decades for them to change their viewpoint because all the scientists agree with each other and dont bother to consider and evaluate new ideas properly. They are all too ready to pooh-pooh them instead. History is proof of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
The existence of scientists who follow traditional religions is pretty convincing proof that you don't know what you're talking about here.
Somehow scientists who do this are able to believe in 2 gods and reconcile them both to themselves. It is EXACTLY what I am talking about. The 2 belief systems reside side-by-side in the mind of these scientists and they have not thought deeply about either - if they had, they would have abandoned one or the other. They are probably mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Nope, scientists are able to admit when they don't know something. They don't automatically jump to "therefore it is evidence that gods/aliens exist".
Are they? Are they really able to admit they dont know? They do automatically jump to other-scientists-proposed theories, yes.
All I hear from NASA scientists is either a big zip, nothing about the strange things imaged in their photographs. They do, however, tell us lots of things they want us to believe. The whole point about science is that it should be investigating things which they do not understand, but money is the judge of what is investigated and what is not.
Quote:
And I noticed you never answered my question. Do you have any research which shows that scientists are closed-minded and unwilling to accept new information? Or it this just another assertion we have to take on faith. There seem to be a lot of those in what you're proposing.
Haha, What a delusion. Of course scientists are generally close-minded and unwilling to accept new information. Here is your answer: Science denied a round earth for decades, also that the earth revolved around the sun. There is your 'proof'.
Of course, not all scientists are like this and there are some who are making headway, but generally 'science' is like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native"
...as I have posted links to proof that eye-witness accounts alone are basically worthless.
Nor have you provided any evidence that just because they are a doctor or astronaut that they are nos susceptible to seeing things that just ain't there.
If eye witness accounts are worthless, why do the courts still use them as testimony? (answering "well they shouldn't in my opinion" is not good enough)
You say this which acknowledges the human-ness of these groups of people, yet, most of us believe doctors without question and even let them cut up our bodies if they want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "MysticPhD
That is what makes your ... unicorns and fairies etc. not comparable . . . because there is no "dunnit" for them to explain. But for God there is definitely a "dunnit" to explain.
So there is no such thing as UFOs, anomalies in the Moon/Mars photos, unexplained phenomena? These are all "dunnits" done by something but unfortunately, science does NOT want to investigate them all because no-one will fund it.
sanspeur: It doesn't matter if it is a "dunnit" or a "happened" it still is not being investigated by the scientists. I would not have so much to say against science if they were willing to investigate or peer review some of the strange things which are being found on Mars and the Moon.
It seems that they feel more at home burying their heads in academic subjects rather than investigating the increasing nebulous subjects. This is where there is no research because there are no boundaries. At least physical science has laws in place to explain or help explain away phenomena. UFOs and the like may be phenomena coming from other dimensions for example. Alien abductions may be taking place between dimensions but the concept of 'dimensions' is still in its infancy and not really understood on a practical level which is where many of these phenomena may be taking place.
This is why science is failing to grasp the nettle and move forward into new areas where there are so many more unknowns. Yes, they are investigating sexy things like God Particles and trying to find out how the world began, but these have happened in the past, and by understanding more of what is happening now around us (how UFOs and aliens are doing what they are doing) would lead to a greater understanding of particle physics. Possibly more so than studying or trying to find God Particles or re-creating Black Holes or the Big Bang.
If eye witness accounts are worthless, why do the courts still use them as testimony? (answering "well they shouldn't in my opinion" is not good enough)
You say this which acknowledges the human-ness of these groups of people, yet, most of us believe doctors without question and even let them cut up our bodies if they want to.
Do you not pay attention to anything. Do you not see news articles where person after person is freed from prison because they were wrongly convicted based on eye-witness testimony, but overturned by DNA or other reliable evidence. The courts are behind the times, and it is going to take changes in laws to correct it.
Educate yourself about the real world, it will give you the appearance of having some intelligence and that you actually pay attention to what goes on in the real world. Here is a place to start,,,,,,,,,,, eyewitness experiment - Google Search
If it is "easily disproved" how come scientists believed it for years and would not consider any other position? This just goes to show how slow and lumbering science is. It takes decades for them to change their viewpoint because all the scientists agree with each other and dont bother to consider and evaluate new ideas properly. They are all too ready to pooh-pooh them instead. History is proof of this.
Simply asserting that you have proof is not the same as having it.
Quote:
Somehow scientists who do this are able to believe in 2 gods and reconcile them both to themselves. It is EXACTLY what I am talking about. The 2 belief systems reside side-by-side in the mind of these scientists and they have not thought deeply about either - if they had, they would have abandoned one or the other. They are probably mutually exclusive.
Or maybe they're not and you're just making stuff up about people you've never met. Do these sorts of personal attacks make you feel better about yourself?
Quote:
Are they?
Yes. Thanks for asking.
Quote:
All I hear from NASA scientists is either a big zip, nothing about the strange things imaged in their photographs.
Probably because their job is to do science, not to respond to nut-jobs who think there's a government conspiracy to hide the "fact" of alien cities on the moon from the rest of the population.
Quote:
Haha, What a delusion. Of course scientists are generally close-minded and unwilling to accept new information. Here is your answer: Science denied a round earth for decades, also that the earth revolved around the sun.
OK, so you have 1 example from 2500 years ago where scientists correctly measured the diameter of the earth and another of scientists correctly evaluating evidence shortly after it became available. And that's your "proof" that scientists are closed minded. You wonder why no one takes you seriously?
Quote:
If eye witness accounts are worthless, why do the courts still use them as testimony?
If eyewitness accounts are worthwhile, why does medical research demand double-blind studies? It's because we know that personal subjective opinions don't mean much.
Courts use eyewitness testimony as a last resort when there's no physical evidence to go on. It's better than nothing, but even in the best cases research shows that it's not much better. Look up the placebo effect, psycho-acoustics, and so on for cases where people are easily fooled.
Quote:
So there is no such thing as UFOs, anomalies in the Moon/Mars photos, unexplained phenomena? These are all "dunnits" done by something but unfortunately, science does NOT want to investigate them all because no-one will fund it.
Why do you automatically jump from unknown to something must have done it (implying a conscious action by something alive). Why not just say it's unknown until you have a reason to say otherwise.
Quote:
I would not have so much to say against science if they were willing to investigate or peer review some of the strange things which are being found on Mars and the Moon.
But they are. The alleged face on mars has been re-imaged in subsequent trips to mars, for example. It turns out it's just a normal rock formation. Happy now? I'm guessing no since it didn't turn out to be evidence of alien monuments.
My bet - you'll claim it's all part of the disinformation by government scientists to cover up the truth. Your posts are a strange mix of attacking science combined with desperately wanting its approval. If scientists all so corrupt and inept, why worry about what they believe?
The answer is obvious - you know science produces reliable results. You're grasping at any excuse for why it doesn't back up your faith in aliens. Scientists are corrupt, they're closed-minded, they're slow, they're ignoring your obviously superior research, they're part of a vast conspiracy, and so on. But all the while you're ignoring the obvious answer - they're right and you're wrong, and they have the evidence to prove it. But that can't be possible since you know you're right. Now you just have to find the right evidence to prove it. You're in good company ... it's how creationists back up their faith as well.
Quote:
UFOs and the like may be phenomena coming from other dimensions for example.
What does this even mean? Here's a good example of why science isn't looking into things like this - you need more than just a catchy sounding idea to investigate. It has to actually refer to something concrete. I'll bet you can't formulate this idea in a way that anyone could ever possibly test.
But you'll be the first to complain when scientists don't take it seriously.
Quote:
(how UFOs and aliens are doing what they are doing)
Again, you assume the UFOs are related to aliens, that aliens exist and that they are doing anything at all that we can measure. I know you're upset science isn't backing up your faith in those ideas, but it's not science's fault that you're running off half-cocked with these wild conspiracy theories based on nothing at all.
Just think: in a few months we're gonna be a year closer to 2012. I'm sure things will really start to heat up around this time next year.
Which I think is most humorous, as the chicken little's with their religious symbols draped around their neck screaming the sky is going to fall, base the 2012 end of times on a pagan calendar. But just because they see themselves as the majority (christianity) it does not mean that their practices and god(s) should not be classified as pagan.
Your arrogance precludes you from even realizing that the alternative to God dunnit that you accept is NOT "I don't know" . . . it is God didn't do it!!! IF it truly were "I don't know" it would be acceptable . . . but God didn't do it is no more reasonable and logical than God dunnit . . . because what is scientifically unmistakable and irrefutable is that "something dunnit!!!" That is what makes your silly ass unicorns and fairies etc. not comparable . . . because there is no "dunnit" for them to explain. But for God there is definitely a "dunnit" to explain.
I would make a distinction between 1) "God didn't do it" and 2) "We don't need to posit the existence of God". I never claim the first, but I often claim the second.
As for "something dunnit" being "scientifically unmistakable and irrefutable" - well, I refute it! The fact that something happens does not imply that some intelligent being had to do it. The fact that something exists does not require that someone created it.
If God exists, are you then forced to say "Someone must have created God"? Obviously you will say that God is an exception. But if you claim that God is an exception, then why should God be the only possible exception?
Science must posit some fundamentals, but that does not imply the existence of God.
I would make a distinction between 1) "God didn't do it" and 2) "We don't need to posit the existence of God". I never claim the first, but I often claim the second.
Your #2 requires that you accept an inscrutable Source of all that exists and openly profess that ignorance . . . NOT pretend you explain it with euphemistic names like "Nature" and "natural" or euphemistic non-explanations like "random," "mutation," and "emergent," etc. What you are actually doing is positing the existence of a "non-God" that is responsible for some pretty Godly stuff relative to us puny creatures.
Quote:
As for "something dunnit" being "scientifically unmistakable and irrefutable" - well, I refute it! The fact that something happens does not imply that some intelligent being had to do it. The fact that something exists does not require that someone created it.
You are making the transition from our discussion about the science . . . to beliefs by changing "something" to "someone" . . . not me. Whatever we think about this Godly "something" . . . rightfully belongs to our preferences in the realm of BELIEFS (yours included) . . . NOT science. But that something exists and is Godly remains "scientifically unmistakable and irrefutable"
Quote:
If God exists, are you then forced to say "Someone must have created God"? Obviously you will say that God is an exception. But if you claim that God is an exception, then why should God be the only possible exception?
I would have expected better than this from you Gaylenwoof . . . the "turtles all the way down" . . .??? Really???Shame on you.
Quote:
Science must posit some fundamentals, but that does not imply the existence of God.
It shouldn't imply the non-existence of God either . . . ESPECIALLY in the face of the Godly majesty, power and control of the "fundamentals" you presume to co-opt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
