There is no evidence of visitation from some other solar system, galaxy, or whatever. We have unexplained events - unidentified objects. That's not evidence of ET visitation. I said perhaps religious, because it isn't science. OK, you're making assumptions and proposing physics is wrong without posing any evidence. Why? What's wrong with what we know today that is based on evidence?
No, it is not a valid scientific question as there can be no possible method of addressing ANY question of a "creator"with science. ANYTHING about a creator/god is religious, and science can not addrss it. You are still failing to rationally divide science and religion.
Yes, you put that in religion/philosophy because it is religion and philosophy - not science. In science, hypothesis has a specific definition including requirements to qualify as such. Your cite is to religion that can not possibly result in a scientific hypothesis.
No, the mods moved it to promote the narrative. It is bigotry and progressive Indoctrination, nothing more.
Tons of evidence: * Sightings dating back prior to the 20th century, including mass sightings by multiple people & large populations, by scientists, police officers, politicians, pilots, military personnel, and astronauts * Air Force Project Blue Book (1947 - 1969) concluded most sightings with quality data could be explained by known phenomenon, but a percentage of those sightings (with quality data) could not be explained by any known phenomenon...which were labeled "Unknowns" * Video footage (and audio telemetry) of UFO's in space by NASA spacecraft, particularly the STS (Space Shuttle) missions (see youtube for numerous videos of unequivocal UFO's speeding up, slowing down, and making turns) * Hundreds of crop circles, including footage of low flying 'orbs' making them in a matter of seconds, and farmers leaving and returning to the field minutes later to find a perfect, intricate, large crop formation, plus the many unexplained properties within the formation itself; additional testimony comes from human crop circle makers who report encountering glowing orbs in the field * Alien abductions & ET encounters corroborated by other witnesses, physical evidence (implants, unexplained skin lesions, instant healing of acute illnesses, landing tracks/marks, missing time, radiation burns, etc.), information given by ET's to abductees about the future events that came true, and post-abduction visitations by military personnel and/or MIB types * Close up encounters with alien craft, supported by radiation burns/injury, and audio recordings by military personnel during an investigation (eg, the UK Bentwaters incident) * Ancient manuscripts (in books, clay tablets, and stone) referencing flying craft, advanced technology & ET's, including ancient stories, tribal folklore, and myths/legends that reference non-earthly races that descend and impart advanced knowledge, technologies, procreative hybridization, and even genetic tampering; some tribal folklore even proclaims an ET race as its ancestors/progenitors * Ancient cave paintings, stone reliefs, and stone carvings of a non-earthly race of people * Ancient megalithic ruins demonstrating advanced technologies & scientific/mathematical knowledge; stone reliefs also depict the use of advanced technologies * Blatant, systematic UFO coverup (including mysterious deaths) by the government * Testimonies by credible first-hand witnesses to alien craft & technologies at secret sites (eg, Area 51/S-4, Wright Patterson AFB, etc.) --- eg, David Adair & Bob Lazar * Testimonies by insiders/whistleblowers (some mysteriously killed) on government secrecy/knowledge of aliens (eg, Phil Schneider, William Cooper, Boyd Bushman, Ronald Garner, Morris Jessup, Philip Corso, etc.) * UK computer genius, Gary McKinnon, hacks NASA files and claims he saw images of what looked like ET craft * Canadian ex-Defense Minister, Paul Hellyer, claims aliens have been visiting earth for thousands of years, and admits to long-standing UFO/alien coverup * Russian government released some Soviet-era KGB UFO files revealing real alien visitations & encounters * Belgium government released Air Force F-16 radar HDD recording of UFO chase, supported by Belgium locals, police, and photos * U.S. Navy admits to having UFO encounters, plus numerous testimonies by Navy and military personnel while on active duty; and former U.S. nuclear missile command workers report of UFO's showing up and deactivating their systems * Iranian fighter pilot testimony of cat-and-mouse chase (and momentary deactivation of specific weapons system) with UFO * Death bed confessions by insiders * Crashed UFO's complete with debris, bodies, government coverup (and threats to silence the locals), and testimonies by intelligence agents, military personnel, and local officials * 'Past-life' regression (via hypnosis) reveals a dynamic human history of interactions with ET civilizations, and pre-historic highly advanced civilizations Again...ask yourself: If aliens are/have been visiting earth, then what kind of evidence would you expect to see? Well, don't we have this evidence? Physics/science is never 'wrong'...it's just data. But interpretations of the data can often be wrong, short-sighted, and/or colored by personal bias. The methodologies and limitations of the scientific method can also contribute to faulty interpretations given to personal bias.
What is most extraordinary is that any-thing even exists...including 'God' (Oneness). Science has a lot to say about it. It is scientists that are lacking in their interpretation of the science before them. Their perspective has been severely limited by social conditioning/programming...even to the point that they have become self-policing. For parapsychology, see research conducted by: Dr. Dean Radin, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Dr. Peter Fenwick, Dr. Kenneth Ring,, the Windbridge Institute, Dr. Raymond Moody, Dr. Melvin Morse, Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Bruce Greyson, Dr. Michael Newton, the CIA's Project Stargate & Soviet KGB parapsychology spy programs (eg, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/us-and-soviet-spooks-studied-parano-2008-10-29/), and many many more studies, researchers & research groups around the world. For UFO/aliens, see research conducted by: MUFON, Dr. David Jacobs, Dr. John Mack, Dr. Steven Greer (CSETI), Linda Moultan Howe ('cow mutilations'), Nick Pope, Project Blue Book, crop circle research groups, and many many more researchers & research groups. Occam's Razor is not only useless & unnecessary to invoke, but it also bears no automatic relevance to the truth. The notion of 'simplest' explanation is vague and vulnerable to personal bias and ignorance of data. The simplest explanation based on the fewest assumptions will yield the wrong answer if (1) the given assumptions are wrong in the first place (eg, based on faulty interpretation of data), (2) it discards or is ignorant of critical data, and (3) the correct explanation is discarded in favor of one that doesn't contradict the investigator's paradigm. If a primitive native witnesses an airplane flying over and dropping food for the first time, would not the application of Occam's razor by the native lead to the conclusion that the airplane was some kind of God? Afterall, it's a 'simple' explanation to the native, it doen't introduce unnecessary assumptions, and it doesn't contradict his paradigm. Yet, the native is dead wrong. It's just a machine manned by a human. But from the native's limited perspective, it's as good as a God. After some time though, when the same native encounters outsiders entering his village, he soon learns of the visitors' technologies, including the airplane. From then on, the airplane is no longer a God...but a machine. But prior to all this, the notion of a machine manned by a human would've been far too fantastic to believe in...though it was always the correct explanation. In modern times Occam's Razor has been used as an academic weapon to discredit paranormal claims/evidence on the grounds that paranormal claims posit 'unnecessary' or 'untennable' assumptions, and so, they do not satisfy the criteria for 'simplist explanation'. (You might notice the similarity to the saying, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.") Can you see the elephant in the room with this approach? It gives the skeptic a huge exit door to escape back into his mental comfort zone. As long as uncomfortable ideas can be swept under the rug, more comfortable ideas can be continuously recycled. The BEST (not 'simplest') explanation based on ALL known (not ignored, buried, or distorted) data is what should be sought. UFO/alien evidence listed in earlier post. Your argument requires at least SIX important presumptions, each of which MUST be true for the argument to hold up: (1) ET's are less than or as primitive as humans, or simply don't have the technology to travel to earth from their planet. (2) ET's don't have the technology to travel to earth from another timeline, parallel dimension, or our future/past (3) ET's did not visit/inhabit earth prior to human habitation. (4) ET's did not create humans. (5) Ancient megalithic ruins and ancient descriptions of flying craft, advanced weapons & technologies, and visitations by non-earthly beings that impart advanced knowledge to humans have nothing to do with ET's. (6) Absolutely NONE of the UFOlogical evidence to date supports the possibility of ET visitations now or in the past. Can you see again the flaw with Occam's Razor? What happened to eliminating 'unnecessary assumptions'? Here, only certain assumptions that fit the investigator's personal bias are accepted, while all other assumptions (even if supported by evidence) are discarded. Again, there's no basis for making an assessment about potential ET technology with our current knowledge base. Right now we can only go on the available evidence to date, which is still substantial despite govt. secrecy. No doubt the 'ruling elite' knows the full truth about ET's, as well as human history & its origins, but has given the people the dumbed/watered down version of the story to chew on (ie, to buy time, truth is dished out incrementally to the people). It is likely also that an ET group stands as the authority above some world governments, and manipulates the populations through various high-level political clubs (eg, secret societies, the Vatican, CFR, Bilderbergs, etc.), which in turn hands down orders to lower government figures (elected officials, intelligence agents, etc.). We are fortunate that some ET groups have decided to show themselves to the general population in ways that the ruling elites cannot prevent...like crop circles, abductions, mass sightings over heavily populated areas, NASA space missions, and so on...but without forcing those who are not ready to accept an ET presence. Crop circles are a particularly clever method of overt contact with the people of earth. It is available to view for all to see (along with the many inexplicable properties within the formations), the govt. cannot hide it, it is ongoing...and ample evidence exists to prove it is of non-human origin, but not so much as to FORCE ALL people to accept it as proof of ET. All is One, so accidents/randomness/chance do not exist. They only appear to exist due to our limited awareness that every moment (now) represents a nexus of infinite causality. Every cause has infinite effects. Every effect has infinite causes. All beings of this universe/timeline/dimension are co-creators, experiencing the Reality of their own collective creation. The observer and the object are extensions of one another. Every-thing is alive and aware.
Thank you for establishing that you DO NOT have any VALID hypothetical model for your position. Have a nice day!
Here is the problem. You find imperfection in science just as scientists do. Science provides explanations for observable phenomena. You don't accept those explanations. Instead you offer up belief about what is not observable. In other words, science has a far stronger argument. You can believe what you like but it makes no sense to counter observations and measurements with nothing but belief. It is very weak and personal. It simply doesn't work as a description of reality.
No, that is just ad hominem to evade the issue. 'Science!' .... .. does not provide ANY explanations. Human beings with beliefs, do. Science can only deliver cold, hard facts. And there are no cold, hard facts that support abiogenesis, common ancestry, or 'billions of years!' Those are religious beliefs. ..extrapolations and conjecture based only upon plausibility, not science. It is the progressive religious hijacking of science, that is the real problem. And no, i do not accept the religious interpretations of agenda driven ideologues, masquerading under a pretext of 'Science!' I'm sick of the phony narratives, the 'More sciency than thou!' arrogance, and the complete dependence on ad hominem and other logical fallacies as 'scientific!' argument. I'm a skeptic, and an empiricist, and these new age, mumbo jumbo fantasies do violence to the scientific method. It is anti-science, that relies on mandates from elites, and indoctrination. Open inquiry and critical thinking is not allowed, in Progresso World. 'Anti-God = science', to progressive indoctrinees. It is transparently absurd, and is just a religious belief, attempting to vilify the competition with labels. 'Creationism is religion! Atheism is science!' ..and bobbleheaded indoctrinees pull the muscles in their necks, nodding in dutiful unison.. Fine. I don't care. Believe whatever you want. But don't pretend it is science. Real science has been a positive, boon for humanity. This imposter is just pseudoscience with a religious agenda.
Was away for 2 weeks communing with nature. We are on the same page with respect to awareness. - What needs more flushing out is the claim that this = intelligent design. There are definitely rules by which the forces operate - as you suggest - there is no such thing as something without an external or internal force acting on it. The question is whether or not these forces are self aware and have a will. Regardless of the answer to that question = awareness is embedded in the stuff we are made of. There rules are designed (or of such a design) that matter/energy will organize into configurations that are self aware. Not sure what this Oneness you speak of is. Obviously we live in an interconnected universe .. a universe with which we are one. We may have that ability - or the ability to develop tat ability. Agreed. There may be other entities that have abilities much greater than ours .. I agree that there can be such a thing as a collective energy - and perhaps focusing of that energy.. but - you go way to far and much of what happens in the revival meetings is charlatanism. Of course it could fit the definition. An entity that can control matter/energy externally - is having "Godlike" powers. - this does not conflict with some "oneness" or "one source" definition The Gnostics and others - including some of the early church fathers - looked at the Godhead as a multiplicity of emanations - sometimes referred to as "Aeons" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon_(Gnosticism)
In the Dover, PA court case hard evidence was produced PROVING that "intelligent design" EVOLVED from debunked "creation science". Through the process of discovery various copies of the "Pandas and People" manuscript were supplied. When these copies were compared it was discovered that over time they had edited all references to "creation science" and replaced them with "intelligent design". Another thing that was produced as evidence was the debunking of the fallacy of "irreducible complexity". The Conservative Federal Judge appointed by Bush sr ruled that "intelligent design" was just a rehashed version of "creation science" that already been banned from public schools science curricular by the Supreme Court because it was an attempt to impose religious beliefs on children in violation of the 1st Amendment.
While much of creation science has been debunked ( and is utter abject nonsense on par with "flat earth" claims) - this does not debunk "intelligent design". When you think about it - what does "intelligent design" even mean ? Sure to creationists it means one thing - some sky God decided to create the universe one day - but intelligent design could mean numerous other things. Point being - evidence for an intention in the universe is not evidence that the creation story in the Bible is true. Not sure exactly what you mean by "irreducible complexity" but I am guessing it is the argument " how would all these molecules come together to form DNA" - that is statistically impossible" and it is true that this argument is logically flawed. Scientists have now proven that complex molecules such as RNA form in primordial earth conditions. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02622-4 More on how this was done can be found in other articles but in a nutshell - the latest experiments simulated the wave action on pools - dessication/drying and then re-wetting (like happens under real environmental conditions). Prior to this - scientists had shown that simple amino acids were produced by a spark in a chamber with various chemicals. What was missing were "self replicating molecules" - and these are requisite for life. Now it has been shown that self replicating molecules arise naturally in nature.
So you are the definer of perfection?? The motivation was a desire to have "fellowship" with His Creation. Fellowship requires a "give and take". You don't get that from a robot. The creation wasn't made to understand every motivation of the Creator. The creation was designed rather to partake and enjoy fellowship with the Creator. Apart from that, you have disunion and heartbreak.
Just because science understands (or pretends to understand) certain processes used in the creation of life, does not in anyway give them possession of eternal knowledge. That will always require a deal of "Faith" to which mankind, in his pride, is generally opposed.
I have no idea what "eternal knowledge" is supposed to mean. Regardless - The fact that Science does not know everything - does not refute the fact that there are things that science has figured out - and does not change the fact that science has debunked many creationist claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity In essence one of the bogus foundations of theist "intelligent design" is to disingenuously point at something complex like an eyeball and claim that it is so "irreducibly complex" that is MUST have been "designed" by some "intelligence". The REALITY is that the eye EVOLVED from cells specializing in different functions that eventually combined to what we have today. There are species with interim forms of the modern eyeball. The bogosity of "intelligent design" comes from the same source as all religion. Something that is too complex to understand "must" have been "created" because it is too complex to have occurred naturally. A lack of knowledge and comprehension on the part of fundamentalist theists is NOT evidence for "intelligent design".
Nothing in your illustrations or in your comments actually refutes "intelligent design". Neither do I see anything in your posts to indicate how you think the miracle of an eyeball, to stick with your example, was all put together. How do you think it all came together? Why would it? Your analysis -- no quotes please. I have to say I did learn a new word -- "bogosity", complete with examples. Good one. Why are you so intent on taking down God when there appears to be absolutely nothing to be gained by doing it?
Thanks for the clarification. "Irreducible complexity (IC) involves the idea that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection." Its worse than I had suggested originally. We know the above to be demonstrably false. At least with the statistical reductionism - there is some semblance of a defendable position - albeit that defense fails. The above is abject nonsense - akin to denial that water is wet. Every time some gamma ray goes through your body (which happens to all humans once in awhile) -"Natural exposure to gamma rays is about 1 to 2 mSv per year" - there is a chance that that ray will "die" as it passes through you. When this happens there is a small explosion. If the gamma ray happens to explode on the DNA in one of your cells - a small change can occur in your DNA - a "mutation" Sometimes these mutations can go on to mean something - effect a change - sometimes not. That is one way mutations can occur. Sometimes these changes impart a trait a small change to that individual - and that change is sometimes passed. Changes that confer a survival advantage to the organism - have a greater chance of passing those genes on. If we look at bacteria - something I specialize in - there are different kinds of mutation paths. Bacteria contain small packets of nucleic acids known as "Plasmids". Bacteria are cannibal's - when a bacteria is killed another bacteria can ingest these plasimids and gain new traits. I have used this bacterial capability in past projects I have managed - bioremediation being one example. Getting bacteria to degrade hydrocarbons in hydrocarbon contaminated soil and groundwater for environmental clean-up. In some cases - one uses "lab bugs" - bacteria with a known hydrocarbon degrading ability are introduced into the environment. When you do this - then test the soil a few weeks later - all the "lab bugs" are gone. You have introduced fat sheep into the wild - and those who are better adapted to that environment have killed them - and eaten them All is not for naught however - because 2 weeks later the community now has the abilities of these lab bugs. I can continue but - Mutation is real - it is a demonstrable fact - and one can give a gazillion other examples - because these mutations are happening a gazillion times a day The claim that biological systems can not evolve through mutation is preposterous nonsense on steroids - of the highest order.
Imagine that there are bunch of blind critters swimming around in the ocean and they are little more than a food source for any predator that swims by. A mutation occurs so that a cell becomes sensitive to light and dark on the skin of one of these blind critters. This sensitive light cell enables the critter to detect the shadow of a predator above so that provides it with a warning to swim away. Because it does not get eaten it manages to breed and spawn other mutated critters with the same light sensitive cell that enables them to avoid becoming a meal for predators. Then another cell mutates next to the light sensitive cell and it has the ability to move the light sensitive cell so it no longer just points upwards but can point backwards and forwards too. This mutation enables greater survival odds so it doesn't get eaten either and goes on to breed more of it's own mutation. Add in mutated cells for side to side and now you have the prototype for a movable eyeball with the ability to detect light and dark. Continue the process to detect color and to achieve focus and all of the other attributes of eyes and eventually given enough time and mutations and you have critters with eyeballs. In essence that is what was being described in the link that I provided about how cells adapted to grow in complexity over time WITHOUT the need for any imaginary "intelligent designer".
Eternal knowledge? That would be that if you could find the origination existence then you could proclaim yourself God. You'll never do it.
Since I was not claiming to know what the origin of existence is - your comment is pointless to my claim - which is that Science has debunked many creationist claims - some of which were being discussed. I have not claimed "Science has debunked intelligent design"
