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.
You guys, I started a thread in the Unexplained section...cuz I just found out that radio message we sent out in '74...came back answered 27 years later...What? 2001 and 2002...I'm outta the UFO loop.
England, crop circles...amazing if a spoof, well done...however, done over night yards a way from the biggest telescope over there.
And, of course, little grays would not be the only aliens around...who do you think you're talkin' too?
Old thread was it? And, if you are 'outta' all that, it's good. Last thing I want to do is squabble you you, but I just had to put in my 2c's worth to supply anyone else who is looking in with the counter evidence to 'crop circles' (or squares).
I was in the UFO thing when Crop Circles first appeared. I saw them evolve and I saw the 'scientific' attempts to explain them as natural Phenomenon (not terribly convincing) while - on the Believer side - we had the Theisthink dismissal of any other explanation than Aliens in Flying saucers.
Well, the 'circles' became more elaborate and weren't even Circles any more. We ended up with pictures and even advertisements. And somehow nobody ever 'saw it being done' even when it was done by people who were doing it. I may say that the first A4 picture -copy 'Crop Circle', Plus a 'circle' pattern where the circles were regular but a curved line (hard to do with string from a centre point) was wobbly when you looked from a low angle, made it pretty clear we had a man -made phenomenon on our hands and that 'nobody saw them' is irrelevant.
Crop circles were a hoax by Doug 'n Dave and it was picked up in many other places and has become an enthusiast's art form. It is nothing mystical let alone UFOlogical. And it is a neat example of how Believers can not only deny Any Other Explanation other than the one they want to believer, but can end up in utter denial of what is right in front of their faces - that they are man -made and always were.
ID love to hear the theory on how guys with ropes and boards can change the genetic makeup of the crops in their circles or how they can alter the area so a compass goes crazy?
Come on, Infinite Being in a test tube? Ha! Here we are so limited.
I can only speak for myself, but I would never use a microscope to prove an unfalsifiable hypothesis such as the usual god hypothesis. That's the entire point of lacking any belief either way ... there is no actionable data to work with. Anything that is supernatural is inherently in the realm of pure speculation because it cannot be examined, whether with a microscope, or with eyes, or with minds for that matter.
You can search these fora far and wide and you will not find anyone actually attempting to disprove god with science. You'll see people giving scientific evidence for the likelihood of various things being true that conflict with the god hypothesis and with other aspects of religious ideation. But you'll see no actual valid evidence against -- or for -- god from the realm of science.
The whole point of atheism isn't that god is disproven ... but that 100% of the information alleged to exist about his nature, character and claims are unsubstantiated assertions argued from religious authority figures or holy books.
It's really not that difficult to understand. Imagine giraffes trying to prove something like the existence of God using their limited knowledge and abilities. Well, there could be an advance species who sees us the same way, and equally as ridiculous as we would view the giraffes.
ID love to hear the theory on how guys with ropes and boards can change the genetic makeup of the crops in their circles or how they can alter the area so a compass goes crazy?
I'd heard claims to that effect during my UFO days, but somehow they never seemed to become more than claims. I saw photos of corn stalks scorched by UFO propulsion..somethings, which inexplicably looked like a hot wire laid across them. And the doctors had no natural explanation.
I'd ask for verified results, but I've seen plenty of claims of samples sent to labs where respected Scientists swore that it was something unknown to terrestrial science. And Then I'd need to have to track down the faculty and a list of present and past personnel AND contact them to see whether they had ever had any such samples...
And I do have other priorities. I just know that during my UFO days, none of those claims were verified, and some looked decidedly fishy.
In UFOLOGY, Fakery was almost as rife as in Creationism, and Crop Circles were even worse.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-12-2019 at 06:36 PM..
The whole point of atheism isn't that god is disproven ... but that 100% of the information alleged to exist about his nature, character and claims are unsubstantiated assertions argued from religious authority figures or holy books.
And with the latest edict, there can be no other such scientific hypotheses, claims, or assertions about God in the R&S forum. So you win.
It's really not that difficult to understand. Imagine giraffes trying to prove something like the existence of God using their limited knowledge and abilities. Well, there could be an advance species who sees us the same way, and equally as ridiculous as we would view the giraffes.
Nice try. It is I think a variant on the 'They denied powered flight' apologetic, which is really part of appeal to Unknowns.
The fallacy is to take something we now know was true and invite everyone to laugh at those who didn't believe it.
Then by extension say "You don't want to look as silly as those fellows, do you? So you'd better accept my claims now."
The fallacy is that the doubts were quite valid before the claim was justified, just as with Relativity, Black holes and the Higgs - Boson.
And it was Doubts that stopped science being sold the cold Fusion claim -until Verified (which it wasn't).
Now you are saying that we should admit that we don't know everything and so (in order not to look as ignorant as Giraffes who are unaware of space flight, for instance) we should accept any cockamamie claim that some theist wants to peddle us. Well, the Giraffes don't know about fairies either, and they happen to be right - so far as the evidence goes.
So, where you are wrong is in trying to sell us some Faith -claim (or whatever) before there is any verification of it. Until it is validated, it should be doubted as much as cold -fusion - or powered flight. Until proven.
If you learn anything at all, ever, from posting here, learn this: appeal to unknowns (and unprovens) is a fallacy.
Nice try. It is I think a variant on the 'They denied powered flight' apologetic, which is really part of appeal to Unknowns.
The fallacy is to take something we now know was true and invite everyone to laugh at those who didn't believe it.
Then by extension say "You don't want to look as silly as those fellows, do you? So you'd better accept my claims now."
The fallacy is that the doubts were quite valid before the claim was justified, just as with Relativity, Black holes and the Higgs - Boson.
And it was Doubts that stopped science being sold the cold Fusion claim -until Verified (which it wasn't).
Now you are saying that we should admit that we don't know everything and so (in order not to look as ignorant as Giraffes who are unaware of space flight, for instance) we should accept any cockamamie claim that some theist wants to peddle us. Well, the Giraffes don't know about fairies either, and they happen to be right - so far as the evidence goes.
So, where you are wrong is in trying to sell us some Faith -claim (or whatever) before there is any verification of it. Until it is validated, it should be doubted as much as cold -fusion - or powered flight. Until proven.
If you learn anything at all, ever, from posting here, learn this: appeal to unknowns (and unprovens) is a fallacy.
Learn this trans.
when appealing to known works ... run away or change the rules.
The whole point of atheism isn't that god is disproven ... but that 100% of the information alleged to exist about his nature, character and claims are unsubstantiated assertions argued from religious authority figures or holy books.
We are only allowed to talk about god from religious books. so it seems you are wrong. You are only allowed to talk about god in relation to what religious books say.
It would seem that they have total control of not only religious people but they control you too.
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.
