Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by BlasteR

 

If Evo's want to make claims, that changes in isolated populations are do to (mutations) and not Mendelian inheritance. Then they must provide the hard evidence of that. They must eliminate all the possibles that Mendelian inheritance isn't the source. Then show that mutation is the source. But they don't provide any support of their wild claim. They just say it must be true. Because classical evolution is true. Circular reasoning at it worst. Or best, depending on how you read it.
They also need to stop bemoaning their lack of a big enough laboratory or enough time to demonstrate classical Evolution experimentally. There are no and can be no exceptions to the rules of the scientific method. If scientific theories can't meet the criteria of that method. They remain, pseudoscience, and should be viewed as such................

How is the paranormal an exception to the scientific method? You have paranormal phenomenon like ghosts and apparitions, in some cases EVP's and in some cases there is even direct evidence of full-body apparitions. Teams like the Atlantic Paranormal Society have a very scientific approach and although they don't always find activity at a site their stockpile of evidence is MASSIVE. If people who are not scientists can enter the frey and capture evidence such as this with retail equipment that can be bought over the counter then why can't science do the same or better?

The fact is that science is largely ignoring the evidence because of
1-denial
2-it wont' get them a big grant
3-Those scientists will be criticised by their peers and discredited

That doesn't take away from the reality of the paranoromal. It just means that pseudoscientific topics are not fully considered by science because the scientists aren't actually the ones doing the research in the first place. How can we assume that nothing is going on when, with regards to paranormal phenomenon when the evidence is consistent and specific phenomenon are consistent? You can't assume one thing and have all this evidence point in the other direction. Not trying to change the subject but I'm using the paranormal as an example to prove a point.

-ChriS

Originally posted by xnibirux
Metaphysics can answer these questions of life.

Soon my friends.

Metaphysics is a crock of brain poop. It will never answer anything until it deals with the real physics and stops trying to go beyond. You're still prophecying I see.

Originally posted by alienib

Scientists: We've found creator's tracks

www.avpress.com

The professor described himself as a "flag-waving and card-carrying evolutionist and, about half the time, an atheist," but said evolutionary theory has not explained how the first living cells came into

I don't know if I'm repeating what someone else has already said. But it was on the BBC news that scientists had discovered that they could create living cells from heat and chemicals. Basically threw some harsh chemicals in a sealed metal container, boiled the chemicals to ensure the germs were dead, came back 2 weeks later and found culture inside it.

Interestingly I found that out a few months before it became mainstream news from a Dan Burisch interview.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


I call it the QRL - the Quantum Realization of Life. Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Physics, and Metaphysics hold fascinating details about life.

Many Atheists disagree with the above areas of thought.

It isn't the tip of the iceberg, but the segment of ice just underneath the water's surface.

reply to post by xnibirux


Well, I see that you don't know how to use logic or science so it may be an aimless cause for me to ever explain anything to you again. I'll keep my eyes peeled for those UFO's with my warm heart beaming upwards though.

I RECALL SEEING A DOCUMENTARY THAT STATED THE UNIVERSE STARTED AS A LIITLE BALL THAT COULD FIT EASLY IN YOUR PALM THAN STARTED EXPANDING AT LIGHT SPEED THEN STARS WERE CREATED AFTER THE STARS EXPLODED CREATING NEW ATOMS THE CYCLE KEPT GOING UNTIL WE ALL WERE CREATED THEREFORE MY OPINION IS THERE IS ONE GOD THAT CREATED EVERYTHING
BOTHERWAY IN MY RELIGION IT SAYS THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED IN 7 DAYS AND 7 NIGHT

[edit on 7-5-2008 by grimm703]

reply to post by BlasteR


I was speaking cynically about the scientific method and Neo-Darwinism.
Which doesn't meet the scientific method.
Yet Evo's are always throwing the "pseudoscience" tag at
ID scientist.
It is pure hypocrisy!
Science should of course include things we can't touch or even see.
It is the (materialist), that demand that the "material is all there is,
and all there ever will be" Carl Sagan. Therefore their definition says that
only things that can be put in the test tube can be called science.
However those rules only apply to any thing they don't want revealed to the public. "It's not scientific, it's pseudoscience!" they yell.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by Howie47]

Originally posted by Raistlyyn
What if aliens landed on earth tommorow, what would you belive then?

if aliens came down today and desroyed a damn city, the government would spoon feed everyone some bs, like something else happened. i dont think that will change for awhile.

reply to post by Howie47


ok mr. non materialiest, put forth or shut up. Give us uncontrovertable proof of inteligent design. Bible reference, and "look around at god's beauty" is not proof by the way.......you have 2000+ years of research to draw from..... and go....

Originally posted by alienib


I'm not the only one that thinks we did not come from apes or fish nor are we here by accident.

www.avpress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

You're not the only one who has no idea what evolution entails.

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by BlasteR

 

I was speaking cynically about the scientific method and Neo-Darwinism.
Which doesn't meet the scientific method.
Yet Evo's are always throwing the "pseudoscience" tag at
ID scientist.
It is pure hypocrisy!
Science should of course include things we can't touch or even see.
It is the (materialist), that demand that the "material is all there is,
and all there ever will be" Carl Sagan. Therefore their definition says that
only things that can be put in the test tube can be called science.
However those rules only apply to any thing they don't want revealed to the public. "It's not scientific, it's pseudoscience!" they yell.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by Howie47]

The only reason scientists won't study the paranormal in general is because of
1-It won't get them a big grant, nor CAN they get a big grant for doing such work because, to my knowledge, they are non-existent.
2-They are risking being disrespected and criticized by their peers
3-For those willing to take the risk, it creates a bad reputation among mainstream scientists regardless of the research and regardless of the findings.

I heard Michio Kaku today on the radio talking about the paranormal. What he said really didn't make any sense to me. Common sense dictates that anyone really studying the paranormal in-depth would realize that something is really going on (hypothetically implying that the paranormal..Ghosts, apparitions,etc.. is real). But what Michio Kaku was saying is that paranormal researchers are more advocates of the paranormal than anything else. Now, isn't that just because they know the truth while the scientists won't listen? The only thing you would want to do is get someone's attention therefore it would make others look at you as advocating the paranormal. The only reason that is true, and the only reason paranormal phenomenon is considered pseudoscience, is because the scientists are unwilling to take the leap and do the research in the first place.

Pseudoscience is simply anything that is considered fringe-science by the mainstream because it has either a lack of evidence or there is simply a lack of scientifically critical analysis. It doesn't mean that the paranormal isn't real, it just means that, metaphorically, mainstream science keeps it in the back of a large dark closet.

I understand your frustration with science in general, but that doesn't somehow mean that science is evil or out to get creationists. We can all believe what we want to believe and move on with our lives. Some people will not believe things until they have valid proof right in front of their faces regardless of what evidence is already there. But what real verified evidence is there that these are somehow creators tracks? One scientist sais he made a huge discovery. Logically, that doesn't mean we should simply take his word for it. I don't necessarily need solid proof right under my nose to see for myself, though some people do, but somehow coming to the conclusion that these are tracks of the "creator" makes absolutely no scientific sense (especially coming from someone who sais he is a scientist himself).

As I said before, some people just want to feel that their spiritual ideaology is validated by something more tangible than faith. I understand that, but you also have to remain skeptical and consider the facts (especially since we are dealing with what might, for all I know, be an actual archaeological discovery of some kind). Even if it is some kind of actual discovery, what evidence would we ever have of this somehow being the "creator"? It just seems silly to me that if god really is omnipitent, why would he/it need to walk in human form at all (or want to for that matter)? And even if it were somehow the footprints of the creator we would never know. It's basically like finding a dinosaur footprint and saying "this must've been our creator in the form of a dinosaur". It just seems crazy to me to come to that conclusion without actually having any facts to back it up.

-ChriS

[edit on 11-5-2008 by BlasteR]

Scientists are always studying the supernatural. The supernatural is only that which is currently beyond the natural.

Sciencetists won't research paranormal activities because it's a joke. Some whacked out people with nothing better to do in life than give themselves some thrills and scares.

Everytime scientists study paranormal activity the conclusions are always to the dismay of the enthusiasts. Why? Because science goes on universally objective evidence, not superficial subjectivism.

There is quite a bit of objective evidence that is pretty solid. But wait, it's not captured by a scientist so let's all ignore it. You can't turn your face from reality because the scientists do the same. The truth is the truth. This is why I believe that science in our modern world isn't always necessarily a search for truth (as it should be). Science is largely a search for the next big grant. That's really why there is little attention on the paranormal as well as very little actual scientific objectivity focused on the paranormal.

Ignorance is not a virtue, neither is denial. True skepticism and denial are two different things.

-ChriS


[edit on 11-5-2008 by BlasteR]