UFO's & Ghosts

[superheavyrhun]

Bilbo Shhhh. Let the heathen have their delusions. And if you don't you'll get hunted down by the alien bounty hunter from the X-Files.

[Punisher136]

"god" isn't all powerful and the numbers scientists are trying to shove down peoples throats are inaccurate. Accept that.

I'm always astounded when people talk about scientists in these debates as having one common agenda that goes against something or someone else like religion.

The fact is that they're a bunch of individuals who don't want to be known for be frauds or producing work that is not good quality.

They critique each other's publications brutally as they are often in competition with each other or at the least are passionate about what they think is good science.

You won't get a group of scientists covering for each other, especially worldwide. There a lot of different funding bodies for any type of research and there's no way they'd all be persuaded to sell something they don't believe is true.

Scientists can only look at the evidence they are able to find. They are not perfect. Some will make mistakes somtimes which is why other scientists must be brutal when deciding whether or not to let someone else's work be published.

I have heard of the occaisional fraud but ultimately they will be exposed - by OTHER scientist who want their jobs and their funding and have real results that contradict the lies and they want to publish them.

The scientific community is not one evil force trying to decieve people.

The numbers they (and by they i mean most and by most i mean the widely recognized and "respected" ones) have come with are completely fraudulant. One of their "ground-breaking" ideas has it pegged that the universe we live in, which is composed of 3d objects (4 is you count our own consciousness), has to have 10,11, or 26 total physical dimensions for their theories to work. You can only have a stable physical existance in a 3d object. The objects they project to be 4d, 5d and even 26d, can actually be made into 3d models (if you make them solid OR in skeleton form) therefor negating the fact that its possible for another physical dimension. They draw it as a see-thru object but well over 99% of all 3d objects aren't square or for that matter a skelton type model of themselves so saying these models are a farce is fairly easy to prove.

Alot of their universal creation theories (including their big bang debacle) are riddled with the phrase "and then something happened". They have focues on numbers for way too long and numbers don't back everything up. There are numbers out there that HAVE to exist because if they didn't, mathematic formulas wouldn't work out yet we are unable to compute or even ballpark a comprehendable number (they have come up with the symbol i to represent the square root of negative one) for for the square root of negative numbers (this sounds petty but they are very significant when computing forces of nature and infact a lot of situations require them to be put in).

Numbers are limited and trying to find out everything just soley with numbers can't be done. I could also go into the fraudulant numbers when it comes to the scientific community (and again by that i mean those that people want to pay attention to) on glonal warming, but i'll save that for another time when they really start to set themselves up for it.

[Scrap]

The frauds are found out by scientists not me not you, they are the seekers of truth

[Punisher136]

The frauds are found out by scientists not me not you, they are the seekers of truth

Yes but those who come up with ideas against popular already accepted without truth ideas get crucified.

[Kev]

The frauds are found out by scientists not me not you, they are the seekers of truth

The idea that when it comes to questions of origins that scientists are any more seekers of truth than religious folk or the rest of us is just ludicrous.

Everyone has a world view, a framework through which they see the world and interperet any evidence to fit their own theories accordingly.

Scientists, especially those involved in biological and evolutionary related fields are every bit as zealous as the most fundamentalist religious fundamentalists. Evolution is a religion make no doubt about it and guys like Richard Dawkins are its high priests.

[Scrap]

Yes but those who come up with ideas against popular already accepted without truth ideas get crucified....................



Yes its happened to me but scientists in the end proved me right it took them ten years but they got there

[Andre]

They get crucified because they refuse to use the same measing stick. The ones with the stick feel threatened because they think its their precious time and energy and your a threat to all the time they have learnt or discovered a certain thought line.
Goes back to emotions then and whos a grown up boy and who isnt.

Evolution/ religion. I reconize both things for what they are. living things evolve into better equiped things so that can deal with crap better the next time around ,physically ,mentally and maybe it spils over into spirituality.Like in disease ,which is dis- ease,that to me is real evolution and growth in our time.
Both can be over emotionalized and used as stand points for people who want to be on one side or another, there is actually (some )truth in both.But if you choose to stand on the furtherest out post of either of those stand points you will never see even the smallest truth in the other.
Balanced people see it ,the ones who are on one side or the other are the same as the ones still locked into the them and us syndrome of having to be right in everything so they can never see the other side cause they are too far away from others by choice.
Who cares ,basically one is measurments by humans and the other is language by humans attempting to relate to others what they cant yet see. IT is a way of expressing what you see ,its only a way of relating something to others.
IT fails when the 'relating fails' and emotions come into it because someone has found a new measuring device that makes you think a different way.
It shouldnt be a war of who is right and who is wrong.
Judgment of others viewpoints keeps you seperate from half of yourself too.

[Sharla]

The frauds are found out by scientists not me not you, they are the seekers of truth

The idea that when it comes to questions of origins that scientists are any more seekers of truth than religious folk or the rest of us is just ludicrous.

Everyone has a world view, a framework through which they see the world and interpret any evidence to fit their own theories accordingly.

Scientists, especially those involved in biological and evolutionary related fields are every bit as zealous as the most fundamentalist religious fundamentalists. Evolution is a religion make no doubt about it and guys like Richard Dawkins are its high priests.

How many people here actually know any scientists?!?! I know a few and some ARE ....... Christian!!!!!

Why do people think that believing in evolution means you can't believe in god?!?!? So timelines might not be exactly as people have interpreted but that really doesn't have to change much about how you live as a Christian or whether or not you think a god might be behind creation. Seriously I think even if the big bang theory is correct it doesn't mean a higher power wasn't behind it!

The longer and the more complex the history of life the more extraordinary it is and the MORE you'd have a reason to celebrate whatever higher power might be responsible!

[Andre]

The frauds are found out by scientists not me not you, they are the seekers of truth

.

Seriously I think even if the big bang theory is correct it doesn't mean a higher power wasn't behind it!

Poetry in motion, a new expanse dawns, cc

[Kev]

The frauds are found out by scientists not me not you, they are the seekers of truth

The idea that when it comes to questions of origins that scientists are any more seekers of truth than religious folk or the rest of us is just ludicrous.

Everyone has a world view, a framework through which they see the world and interpret any evidence to fit their own theories accordingly.

Scientists, especially those involved in biological and evolutionary related fields are every bit as zealous as the most fundamentalist religious fundamentalists. Evolution is a religion make no doubt about it and guys like Richard Dawkins are its high priests.

How many people here actually know any scientists?!?! I know a few and some ARE ....... Christian!!!!!

Why do people think that believing in evolution means you can't believe in god?!?!? So timelines might not be exactly as people have interpreted but that really doesn't have to change much about how you live as a Christian or whether or not you think a god might be behind creation. Seriously I think even if the big bang theory is correct it doesn't mean a higher power wasn't behind it!

The longer and the more complex the history of life the more extraordinary it is and the MORE you'd have a reason to celebrate whatever higher power might be responsible!

It sounds very nice and harmonious what you say but I don't disbelieve in evolution because of religious faith I disbelieve in it because of the complete and total lack of empirical evidence to support it.

Regardless of wheter or not I believed in God I would still not believe in macro evolution as an explanation for explaining how life came to be simply because it is bad science, in fact it is not science at all.

There are so many mistruths and blatent lies regarding evolution that are put on there in the media on a daily basis.

We are always told that the fossil record is reliable evidence for evolution.........it is not.

We are told that we share a common ancestor with apes and have all seen the charts and diagrams showing a simple mokey or pgymy shrew on the extreme left side of the chart, with apes gradually getting bigger, more upright and less hairy as they go along until it culminates with man at the extreme right.

This chart is ficticious, none of the links in between have been found, yet we are led to believe that Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalis, Australapithicene Africanas and Aferinis etc are all genuine missing links when in fact they are all either entirely human, (homo erectus) or entirely ape (Australapithicenes).

Molecular biology has all but disproven evolution as we now know that any change in an organism has to occur at the cellular level, in an organisms DNA. For even the simplest instruction thousands of lines of DNA instruction are needed and without this information nothing can happen to an organism. For new changes to occur in an organism new information has to be added and this simply cannot happen.

A dog will never grow wings for example as it's DNA does not contain the information to build them and there is no way and random genetic mutation has been proven time and again to only damage an organism not enhance it.

Imagine if Microsoft announced their new version of Windows would be created by giving a team of three year olds access to the current code to have a play for 5 years and then we'll see enhancements what their random button presses bring in terms of new features? Sound insane? Then why believe that the far more complex genetic code can be created and improved upon in this way?

A molecular biologist by the name of Michael Behe wrote a very interesting book called Darwins Black Box which should be mainstream reading in every school. A highly qualified scientist, an expert in the field of molecualr biology his book is a damning indictment of current evolutionary theory.

What makes his case all the more compelling is that he's not a Christian and had no religious axe to grind. Unfortunately as you can imagine, the Christian Right were all too happy to make liberal use of his work and so he got ostracized from mainstream science as a result.

His book is an excellent primer though for how evolution fails at the molecular level, the most basic level of all.

Don't always assume that becuase someone disbelieves in evolution that they are operating in blind faith and against reason. I came to my conclusions only after literally years of immersing myself in the literature.

[Sharla]

Bilbo I am a biological scientist with a background in molecular biology and Botany and i disagree with you. Molecular biology supports the theory of evolution. DNA changes naturally and easily by a number of processes including crossing over and recombination. They are always involved in any sexual reproduction.

It's not only the absence or presence of a gene that dictates a trait but it's level of expression. A little growth hormone = a little growth - a lot = a lot. This can be altered by changing just one base pair in the activation site of a transcription factor. Small changes in DNA can have huge effects.

All you have to see to know that is the difference between parents and their children. Variation is natural. It'd be weird to be the exact clone of your parent because that never happens.

Not all changes to DNA are beneficial of course and I'm sure that the larger nose I have than my mother will not help me pass my genes onto the next generation. thus not all changes in the DNA code are improvements or continue to be inherited but they don't all have to be.

The random part is taken out by a selection pressure which will deem a trait an advantage or disadvantage according to whether or not the gene carrier will have to opportunity to procreate.

[Andre]

I honestly belive that we are from a higher source not directly from God but decendants of others/ourselves through God.
We are on an extremly dense experience into matter.
We are extrmemly dense into what doesnt matter as well. :-)

[Sharla]

Yeah I agree Andre. Regardless of whether or not you believe in a specific timeline of events I don't see how it has to change whether or not you believe in a god or how morally resposible you are. So why is it always brought into these discussions as if it changes anything?

[Andre]

Stuck on the pointy bit of a point of view and cant get off.

[Kev]

Bilbo I am a biological scientist with a background in molecular biology and Botany and i disagree with you. Molecular biology supports the theory of evolution. DNA changes naturally and easily by a number of processes including crossing over and recombination. They are always involved in any sexual reproduction.

It's not only the absence or presence of a gene that dictates a trait but it's level of expression. A little growth hormone = a little growth - a lot = a lot. This can be altered by changing just one base pair in the activation site of a transcription factor. Small changes in DNA can have huge effects.

All you have to see to know that is the difference between parents and their children. Variation is natural. It'd be weird to be the exact clone of your parent because that never happens.

Not all changes to DNA are beneficial of course and I'm sure that the larger nose I have than my mother will not help me pass my genes onto the next generation. thus not all changes in the DNA code are improvements or continue to be inherited but they don't all have to be.

The random part is taken out by a selection pressure which will deem a trait an advantage or disadvantage according to whether or not the gene carrier will have to opportunity to procreate.

The kind of changes you are talking about however are not evolution on a macro scale. I completely agree with the validity of natural selection as identified by Darwin but I am totally unconvinced in his claim that natural selection can lead to evolution.

As a biologist you will be able to correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that whatever changes happen in any organism, be it a dog, a plant or somebody's daughter the genetic information must be already present within the DNA of the organism in question.

So a dog can through selective breeding, or through enviromental pressures undergo considerable change in size, colour, behaviour etc as certain traits are isolated and encouraged. So for example birds on a remote island may lose the ability to fly over time as survival favours those who are unable to get lost at sea, or a species of cave fish might lose its sight over time as it becomes unneccessary, or some species in a remote location may shrink in size to cope with lack of food etc.

But none of this is macro evolution in the molecules to man sense. All of the information necessary to make these changes was always present in the species and it's just a case of jiggling lines of code so to speak rather than creating new information.

Experiments of zapping fruit flies with high levels of radiation produced a series of bizarre flies some with many pairs of wings, extra legs, different sizes etc. However life expectancy was reduced in all cases and as soon as the treatment was stopped the flies returned to a normal state in just a few generations suggesting that organisms resist change rather than respond to it.

It seems to me that scientist make exactly the same kind of leap of faith that religious believers do, in that through an act of faith they believe in spite of a total lack of evidence that these little changes brought about by natural selection can be a catalyst for macro evolution on a molecule to man scale.


cc though for an interesting discussion, it's nice to meet someone who works within the molecular sciences, I find the whole subject of creation vs evolution a fascinating one and it's rare to meet someone who has an extensive knowledge