Religon VS Science

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Based on what, No offense but I seriously doubt you sat down and refuted every piece of evidence that support a pseudoscience. Like everyone else you most likely heard what a scientist had to say and accepted it as fact. I can make this assumption about many people on this forum since I debated them before.

No, I have not sat down an personally looked at every pseudoscience. But I have looked at a few, and in my uni studies (those with psychology) there have been plenty. Now, I guess it is possible that I have been unlucky and just over the next rise their is the Vally of "true pseudoscience" - but I figure that is unlikely.

That wasn't my point, Most free Energy research originates from tesla's late work and theories. The same theories the Scientific community Shuned. The point I'm trying to make is that "The Scientific Community" has shuned and Critisized theories they call "pseudoscience and turned out to be successful The story of Cold Fusion is an example and countless others.

http://www.alternativescience.com/cold_fusion.htm

And I still say there is a difference between just not following a line of research and actually trying to put it down.

Tesla shaped the 20th century and was a hundred years ahead of his time, so my answer is hell yes he can!

Any real reason other then he was a great scientist in his own time? Considering how far science has advanced?

And you act like this is not the case in science, Try showing work that deals in psychokinesis,Flame Proof,BioEnergy,Ether Drift,Ghost and see how serious your work is taken. Science has a shameful record itself
[B]Slash,Burn,Poison Cancer treatment andTuskagee Tragedy are just a few.[/b]

Work with bioenergy will be taken seriously, it is a known thing, but since at this point in time there is little theoretically valid applications for it one wouldn't expect much in the way of grant funding (come up with a reason though, and they would get it.) There is a good reason why psychokinesis and ghosts wont be taken seriously - because they have been around for a long time, and governments (including the US and Soviet) have looked at them before. And what little evidence found was no where near conclusive (hell, I was and in some cases still am fascinated with the paranormal, but even I admit that even the most impressive, as yet non-debunked evidence is really not that impressive.)

So despite the fact we still use ancient symbolism, it doesn't mean anything 🙄

I call Mars Mars - I don't believe it is a God. If I bought a Mazda I would be buying a car, not the Zoroastrian deity. If and when I became a medical practitioner, I would know the symbolic relevance of the symbol (well, I do now) but I wouldn't be believing in anything. Crosses, names whatever. The human mind has an affinity with symbols - images associated with concepts. That is all, concepts. Just because we use symbols that ancient cultures once used in religion doesn't mean that we are worshipping, or that ancient cultures we doing something relevant to your argument. We assign symbols to something, if they last long enough they comes to carry connotations of what it represents. The Nazi swastika carries connotations of the Nazi regime, despite the fact it once was used in Persian and Hindu religion as something totally different.

We use symbols, yes. We even use ancient symbols that once carried religious connotations... so what? They aren't religious anymore. We aren't attributing God/gods to medicine or the stars anymore (well, most of us aren't)

I disagree, considering how little the ancient people had the sun and moon would be divine, since it was responsible for their calendars. Agriculture was very important back then, predicting weather and seasons helped them know when to plant. because lost of crops could mean death so yes it makes since that they give praise because life was alot harder than it is now.The ancients could only answer so much, they didn't know whatthe sun and stars were so they called them gods. but they weren't wrong when they put these dietes at the center of their civilization. You seem to think because they weren't 100% right about dieties you have a point, yes they weren't 100% but neither are we science is about progress and there exsist sao many we don't know.

Not sure where you are taking this. Once again I reiterate - common historical view that much of ancient religion was a method for ancient cultures to attempt to explain the natural world. They didn't have the necessary science to understand it scientifically so they attribute it to the supernatural/divine. How does what you say change that fact? That the sun and rain were important no body is they were not, simply that they for most part lacked scientific evidence of their workings or even what they really were is also not considered in doubt. They attributed them to gods, and by way of this felt they understood what was happening, and it gave them some control, as they could appeal to the gods - when in reality no matter how much you appeal to Osiris, if the flood isn't coming, it isn't coming. If you are in a famine, it is hardly wise to waste valuable food sacrificing it in the hope that some hunter/animal aspect will bring the herds back. But they believed that Gods moved the sun and Gods moved the clouds and gods moved the herds - when they didn't. Gravity, orbits, migration patterns, the precipitation cycle, the laws of the natural world. Not religious, but religion was often the only way they could be explained in the absence of science.

Yeah these claims are absurd compared to a theory whcih claims we came from lifeless matter and transformed into intelligent men.

Uh, uh. uh. Don't change definitions now. We are not talking about how life started, your claimed it was absurd to believe man came from apes, I claim it is far more far fetched to believe God took some dust and made man, or that some great big guy got some clay and baked it. This based on there being 0% scientific evidence for divine man making, yet a great deal for man evolving in the homo family. Yes, I expect to be called a flukist and you to say about how evolution is based on hoaxes and to thouragly show your bias.

I was right, because Prof.Dickery say's it's not true you agree, tell me havve you sat down and looked at the facts and come up with a refuting thesis or did you just read some Scientist opinion on the matter and agreed,I'm guessing the later.

You really do have a thing against scientists, don't you? There is no evidence, archaeologically, that Egyptians had light bulbs - just because some modern chap sits down and can make one out of simple materials. Hear what I am saying - archaeologists. The people who spend there lives locating the artifacts of lost cultures. Now I could make a mortar out of a pottery tube, a flammable liquid and a wooden plug. It is a crap, dangerous thing, but the lemon flies far. Materials available to all ancient culture. Yet there is no evidence the egyptians had combustion artillery. Saying "but they could of" does not equal proof. Proof. Proof.

Your attitude seems to be "If science says it, it must be a lie or wrong" - that seems to open a can of worms, as you wont be satisfied by anything.

"The Egyptians had the light bulb" you say.

I say "actually that is a popular myth, where as archaeologists have found no evidence this was true, and while modern day cultures could make a primitive light, that does not prove the Egyptians did or..."

You respond "Your just buying into the lies of science. Have you actually looked at the evidence etc etc etc."

I respond "What bloody evidence? A guy making one today? That is not evidence. Take me to the museum where they have on display the light bulb. Get me the survey log where the archaeologist found evidence of it. Find me a single reputable historian who will argue it with conviction."

And what do you do?

I just posted a link showing egyptian light bulb and you just disagreed because the establishment does. I bet you if they told you were descendented from a dinosaur you will agree.

That link is not proof. That link does not show anything that approaches historical/scientific fact. That link shows an interpretation of some art (dodgy, I might add) and someone demonstrating how the Egyptians might have done it... if they had. It doesn't matter if you change the if to when.

And no, humans didn't evolve from dinosaurs. We evolved from mammals that existed with the dinosaurs.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
No, I have not sat down an personally looked at every pseudoscience. But I have looked at a few, and in my uni studies (those with psychology) there have been plenty. Now, I guess it is possible that I have been unlucky and just over the next rise their is the Vally of "true pseudoscience" - but I figure that is unlikely.

So tell me what makes Itelligent Design Theory a pseudoscience, and don't give that crap about their is no proof. refute ONE claim that ID has made.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

And I still say there is a difference between just not following a line of research and actually trying to put it down.

Despite the fact it could change the way we live completely, sorry but if someone found the cure for cancer and his work isn't published no matter how accurate his findings are then somethings up.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Any real reason other then he was a great scientist in his own time? Considering how far science has advanced?

How far Science Advance, were using a fuel source that has been obselete close to 100 years.Tesla proposed theories like weather manipulation, Wireless electricity, EarthQuake machine. H.A.A.R.P. is based completely on the work of a man that lived in the late 19th century, and your telling me science has advance to far for him 😆

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Work with bioenergy will be taken seriously, it is a known thing, but since at this point in time there is little theoretically valid applications for it one wouldn't expect much in the way of grant funding (come up with a reason though, and they would get it.) There is a good reason why psychokinesis and ghosts wont be taken seriously - because they have been around for a long time, and governments (including the US and Soviet) have looked at them before. And what little evidence found was no where near conclusive (hell, I was and in some cases still am fascinated with the paranormal, but even I admit that even the most impressive, as yet non-debunked evidence is really not that impressive.)

Please link me to any government site that has said telekenisis and other mind science's were found to be a dud. Despite the fact that most government agencies have admitted in many reports to have done experiments in these feilds and found results. hell there have been several programs that have tested techniques such as "Remote Viewing"
And they pass. So I dunno where your coming from claiming it's a dud.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

I call Mars Mars - I don't believe it is a God. If I bought a Mazda I would be buying a car, not the Zoroastrian deity. If and when I became a medical practitioner, I would know the symbolic relevance of the symbol (well, I do now) but I wouldn't be believing in anything. Crosses, names whatever. The human mind has an affinity with symbols - images associated with concepts. That is all, concepts. Just because we use symbols that ancient cultures once used in religion doesn't mean that we are worshipping, or that ancient cultures we doing something relevant to your argument. We assign symbols to something, if they last long enough they comes to carry connotations of what it represents. The Nazi swastika carries connotations of the Nazi regime, despite the fact it once was used in Persian and Hindu religion as something totally different.

We use symbols, yes. We even use ancient symbols that once carried religious connotations... so what? They aren't religious anymore. We aren't attributing God/gods to medicine or the stars anymore (well, most of us aren't)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Not sure where you are taking this. Once again I reiterate - common historical view that much of ancient religion was a method for ancient cultures to attempt to explain the natural world. They didn't have the necessary science to understand it scientifically so they attribute it to the supernatural/divine. How does what you say change that fact? That the sun and rain were important no body is they were not, simply that they for most part lacked scientific evidence of their workings or even what they really were is also not considered in doubt. They attributed them to gods, and by way of this felt they understood what was happening, and it gave them some control, as they could appeal to the gods - when in reality no matter how much you appeal to Osiris, if the flood isn't coming, it isn't coming. If you are in a famine, it is hardly wise to waste valuable food sacrificing it in the hope that some hunter/animal aspect will bring the herds back. But they believed that Gods moved the sun and Gods moved the clouds and gods moved the herds - when they didn't. Gravity, orbits, migration patterns, the precipitation cycle, the laws of the natural world. Not religious, but religion was often the only way they could be explained in the absence of science.

and I keep telling you, that they simply gave natural phenomenon names and titles. just like we call mars mars. The difference is that they worshipped these phenomenon and at some point attributed them to human characteristics and made it seem as if their sentient. I already told you why they did this, it was because they played a very important role in their lives, since survival in ancient times was much harder than now. If you lived in those times you would be thankful too.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Uh, uh. uh. Don't change definitions now. We are not talking about how life started, your claimed it was absurd to believe man came from apes, [B]I claim it is far more far fetched to believe God took some dust and made man, or that some great big guy got some clay and baked it. This based on there being 0% scientific evidence for divine man making, yet a great deal for man evolving in the homo family. Yes, I expect to be called a flukist and you to say about how evolution is based on hoaxes and to thouragly show your bias. [/B]

So it's more probable that this lifeless dust gained life out of the blue, You belive in the exact Same process of something lifeless gaining life. yet the ONLY Difference is choose you substitute GOD with nothing, how hypocritical. By the way Abiogenesis has been disproved.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

You really do have a thing against scientists, don't you? There is no evidence, archaeologically, that Egyptians had light bulbs - just because some modern chap sits down and can make one out of simple materials. Hear what I am saying - archaeologists. The people who spend there lives locating the artifacts of lost cultures. Now I could make a mortar out of a pottery tube, a flammable liquid and a wooden plug. It is a crap, dangerous thing, but the lemon flies far. Materials available to all ancient culture. Yet there is no evidence the egyptians had combustion artillery. Saying "but they could of" does not equal proof. Proof. Proof.

I have Nothing against scientist, I never said I did. I DO however dislike the Scientific Community which I openly admitted. Science has become a tool against the people, Where favorable theories based on Solid Opinion dominate. Mordern Science claims to know all,since whatever they can't prove doesn't exsist.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

Your attitude seems to be "If science says it, it must be a lie or wrong" - that seems to open a can of worms, as you wont be satisfied by anything.

"The Egyptians had the light bulb" you say.

I say "actually that is a popular myth, where as archaeologists have found no evidence this was true, and while modern day cultures could make a primitive light, that does not prove the Egyptians did or..."

You respond "Your just buying into the lies of science. Have you actually looked at the evidence etc etc etc."

I respond "What bloody evidence? A guy making one today? That is not evidence. Take me to the museum where they have on display the light bulb. Get me the survey log where the archaeologist found evidence of it. Find me a single reputable historian who will argue it with conviction."

And what do you do?.

That Chap is Erich Von Daniken, he's a researcher. The lightbulb was made from specifications which he read from the heiroglyph's he studied

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

That link is not proof. That link does not show anything that approaches historical/scientific fact. That link shows an interpretation of some art (dodgy, I might add) and someone demonstrating how the Egyptians might have done it... if they had. It doesn't matter if you change the if to when.

And no, humans didn't evolve from dinosaurs. We evolved from mammals that existed with the dinosaurs.

It's a myth based on somebody else's word, that's the best you have. How much research have you done on the subject. what evidence do you have to support that it's a myth please PM with yourlinks and info please. otherwise your just taking someone else's word.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet another person who is ignorant of what constitutes a scientific theory.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
So theirs nothing wrong with a view point you don't verify for yourself?
And when the HELL does anyone need credibilaty to do research,

There is no faith involved.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yet another person ignorant of what IDT is.

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't think thats the case. I know quite a bit about the theory...or more apporpriately phrased: vague untestable almost-hypothesis.

Originally posted by Alliance
😆 I'm sorry I don't have time to redo and reinterpret every experiment done throught history. I'll satisify myself with the people who have done them a hundred times already. Really. I wonder if you know anything about science. How are you supposed to do a test on postranslational regulation of iron regulating proteins if you know nothing about it? Could you start by reverifing quantum mechanics for me? You might need to discover the electron first. 😉

There is no faith involved.

Your taking a leap of faith in someone's research, yet you say thier's no faith involved okay.

I never said to retest everything By yourself, just get a second opinion and keep yourself educated. instead of falling back on someones research, if you read or several books instead of taking in only what you heard than you will develop your own sense.

Originally posted by Alliance

I don't think thats the case. I know quite a bit about the theory...or more apporpriately phrased: vague untestable almost-hypothesis.

Clearly since you can't even give a solid reason except "It's a vague hypothesis" nice rebuttal 😆

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Your taking a leap of faith in someone's research, yet you say thier's no faith involved okay.

I never said to retest everything By yourself, just get a second opinion and keep yourself educated. instead of falling back on someones research, if you read or several books instead of taking in only what you heard than you will develop your own sense.

No. Clearly this is just beyond your comprehension. Published research has stood up to the scrutiny of peer reviewers. Research is more than just looking things up. Scinetific Theories have mounds of information backing them up. Its reviewed by everyone. Even moreso...its challenged by everyone...becuase, trust me, everyone wants to be the scientiest who overthrows it and get to be the parent of the new one. If the Theory is still there...no one has effectivly challeged it.

If you have no idea how a plane flies how are you to effectively judge how its flown? No. I didnt' think so. So stop making stuff up like you are qualifies to have a valid opinon on anything and everything.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Clearly since you can't even give a solid reason except "It's a vague hypothesis" nice rebuttal 😆

Originally posted by Alliance
No. Clearly this is just beyond your comprehension. Published research has stood up to the scrutiny of peer reviewers. Research is more than just looking things up. Scinetific Theories have mounds of information backing them up. Its reviewed by everyone. Even moreso...its challenged by everyone...becuase, trust me, everyone wants to be the scientiest who overthrows it and get to be the parent of the new one. If the Theory is still there...no one has effectivly challeged it.

If you have no idea how a plane flies how are you to effectively judge how its flown? No. I didnt' think so. So stop making stuff up like you are qualifies to have a valid opinon on anything and everything.

Excuse me. No one ever asked for a reason. Fece-man simply attacked my knowledge of the subject. This is not an ID thread. There already is one. If you want to discuss it in there, I'd be happy to. Intellignet design isnt a Theory...its not even a theory...its as I said vague untestable almost-hypothesis.

And you don't know how the real world works, maybe in make believe land it works like that. Why don't you ask a scientist to debate darwinsim in public or Announce their free energy research. You won't jack squat about the experiments that show fusion is possible at room temperature, and in a jam jar.

And as usual ID is not a theory based on what, I'm gonna bet 100$ You can't refute 1 theory proposed by ID, rather you just wait for some Scientist with high credentials to say it's BS and you agree completely with him. yeah that's real science 🙄

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And you don't know how the real world works, maybe in make believe land it works like that. Why don't you ask a scientist to debate darwinsim in public or Announce their free energy research. You won't jack squat about the experiments that show fusion is possible at room temperature, and in a jam jar.

And as usual ID is not a theory based on what, I'm gonna bet 100$ You can't refute 1 theory proposed by ID, rather you just wait for some Scientist with high credentials to say it's BS and you agree completely with him. yeah that's real science 🙄

I really can't believe you. You can rant all you want, you are ignorant of what scinece is, how the scientific community works, and how real life works. Crock ideas get published...if there's evidence. Get over it. Fusion hasn't been done in a jam jar. I have no idea what half the sentances you wrote are saying.

If you want to debate ID, you have my offer. The thread is here.

But grow up and stop simply slandering me because you don't have valid points. You have no I idea who I am or what I do. YOu have demonstrated that you have no idea about what science is or how it works.

Originally posted by Alliance
I really can't believe you. You can rant all you want, you are ignorant of what scinece is, how the scientific community works, and how real life works. Crock ideas get published...if there's evidence. Get over it. Fusion hasn't been done in a jam jar. I have no idea what half the sentances you wrote are saying.

If you want to debate ID, you have my offer. The thread is here.

But grow up and stop simply slandering me because you don't have valid points. You have no I idea who I am or what I do. YOu have demonstrated that you have no idea about what science is or how it works.

😆 You just claimed you know the inner workings of the scientific community, as if your a part of it. Yes Fusion was done in a jam bottle at room temperature, if you don't believe I won't try to convince you since some guy with credentials didn't announce. 😆

And it's you that doesn't understand what science, do you honestly believe that the most important discoveries were founded by some institution that got it's support from a peer supported magazine. Scientist are human to, so is the community. their have been times a theory was thrown a way because it did not fit some consensus. you can rant all you want about me being ignorant. The fact is most of the biggest achievements have been made by eccentrics who went against the orthodoxy I wonder why?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
😆 You just claimed you know the inner workings of the scientific community, as if your a part of it.

Ignorance is bliss huh? You may be talking to an avatar, but there si a person behind here. I do things in the real world.

You're all talk.

If you want to actually discuss something, like ID, go ahead. BUt if all your going to do is make sh*t up....quit wasting my time.

Originally posted by Alliance
Ignorance is bliss huh? You may be talking to an avatar, but there si a person behind here. I do things in the real world.

You're all talk.

If you want to actually discuss something, like ID, go ahead. BUt if all your going to do is make sh*t up....quit wasting my time.

Calmdown, you act like your being fisted. there's no point of debating someone who say's "I'm making shit up" do the research and than make a conclusion.

Get a grip. You're all talk. I have done endless research. I've made a clear conclusion. If you don't like it, debate me on it. If not, then drop it. Sexual references are clearly not approprate.

Originally posted by Alliance
Get a grip. You're all talk. I have done endless research. I've made a clear conclusion. If you don't like it, debate me on it. If not, then drop it. Sexual references are clearly not approprate.

When you claim someone is ignorant, than outright say I'm making shit up is rude. I'm not making anyhting up Robert Huggins duplicated a "Hot fusion" experiment using ordinary water in a jam jar at room temperture.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
So tell me what makes Itelligent Design Theory a pseudoscience, and don't give that crap about their is no proof. refute [B]ONE claim that ID has made.[/b]

I never said ID is a pseudoscience. I know it is a theory put forward by some who feel uncomfortable with the idea we exist on pure chance (ooo, inflammatory) that relies far to much on uncertain areas of evolution and things like probability (ooo, inflammatory)

Despite the fact it could change the way we live completely, sorry but if someone found the cure for cancer and his work isn't published no matter how accurate his findings are then somethings up.

I feel there is a difference between something like the cure for cancer and things like alternate power sources. And don't you remember, just a couple of weeks ago scientists announced they had come up with a vaccine that will protect women against cervical cancer?

How far Science Advance, were using a fuel source that has been obselete close to 100 years.Tesla proposed theories like weather manipulation, Wireless electricity, EarthQuake machine. H.A.A.R.P. is based completely on the work of a man that lived in the late 19th century, and your telling me science has advance to far for him 😆

Foucoult proposed the sea could be turned into lemonade. Key word: proposed. Proposed. Tesla didn't really achieve anything with them while he was alive. People had been dreaming of weather control long before Tesla came up with it, and none of it has materialised - why, because if it is possible we are not at that point yet. Fact: Just because you dislike how science is handling itself does not mean that that science is somehow holding down things like cars that run on air and the cure to aids. Fact: Just because you like the sound of theories Tesla made does not in fact mean they can be, or ever will be realised - quite possibly because they are absurd of pipe dreams. Edison, Da Vinci, many great scientists came up with theories about things that, in retrospect, turned out to be little more then fanciful hopes, or down right madness.

But I am pleased you think that if Tesla and the set up from his time got dropped here that he would be trouncing the massive scientific organisations of today. Seems realistic. Then maybe we could drop a Roman legion in to do battle against a battalion of US armor. I imagine you would like to put $100 on the Roman Legion winning yes?

But anyway, to the original question stemming from Bertrand Russel: do you truly believe that scinece has been shown to be more violent and oppressive then religion?

Please link me to any government site that has said telekenisis and other mind science's were found to be a dud. Despite the fact that most government agencies have admitted in many reports to have done experiments in these feilds and found results. hell there have been several programs that have tested techniques such as "Remote Viewing"
And they pass. So I dunno where your coming from claiming it's a dud.

Technically since it is you claiming it is real it is up to you to provide the proof. Governments and scientific institutes had been testing those kind of things since the late 40's. And most of those programs had been mothballed or completly discontinued by the late 80s. Why? Because none of them produced tangible evidence that it was true, or that there was even any reason to continue research. So why don't you post some info from government agencies and scientific institutes that supports your claim? And I mean actually evidence, not the circumstantial stuff Deano and others post. Research reports, testimony of chief scientists... that kind of thing. Make me wonder why if there was so much evidence the research was mostly cut off?

and I keep telling you, that they simply gave natural phenomenon names and titles. just like we call mars mars. The difference is that they worshipped these phenomenon and at some point attributed them to human characteristics and made it seem as if their sentient. I already told you why they did this, it was because they played a very important role in their lives, since survival in ancient times was much harder than now. If you lived in those times you would be thankful too.

And that makes no sense. We give a planet a name, or we leave it with one it was given before - we aren't calling it a god. We need to name things for the purpose of understanding and education, we can't just go "that thing in the sky next to the other thing in the sky near another thing in the sky." Much easier to name something. And there is a difference between worshipping something you know is a natural phenomena, and worshipping something you think is the act of a God, or the god itself. Natural phenomena are not acts of god, nor gods themselves.

So it's more probable that this lifeless dust gained life out of the blue, You belive in the exact Same process of something lifeless gaining life. yet the [B]ONLY Difference is choose you substitute GOD with nothing, how hypocritical. By the way Abiogenesis has been disproved.[/b]

Once again you are trying to change the argument. You claim it is absurd man came from apes, I say it is just as absurd, if not more so, to say that man was the result of some god spitting on some dust.

That Chap is Erich Von Daniken, he's a researcher. The lightbulb was made from specifications which he read from the heiroglyph's he studied

Oh yes. Erich Von Daniken. Author of "Chariots of the Gods." The man who believes that human affairs have been influence bu ETs since before history began. The man whose interpretations of hieroglyphs do not match up with those of any other reputable epigrapher or archaeologist.

It's a myth based on somebody else's word, that's the best you have. How much research have you done on the subject. what evidence do you have to support that it's a myth please PM with yourlinks and info please. otherwise your just taking someone else's word.

How much research have I done? I am currently in the third year of university for my course in psychology/psychiatry, and I get a certain number of elective spots which I dedicate to history (Roman and Chinese being my favorites.) I like to think this makes me well read. And I am afraid to say that the historical community as a whole finds Danikens claims as unproven and down right absurd at times. They accuse him of operating from an erroneous hypothesis based upon incorrectly interpreted facts, they claim he is far to willing to draw his own conclusions from vague historical sources. They note he has been caught up in many frauds (including the falsification of archaeological artifacts.) They note he operates under the outdated historical stance of eurocentrism, and possibly a theological one.

Now I have put up with you again and again saying I am just following someone else's claim. That to express any support of a historical or scientific stance is an expression of ignorance. Tell me.... how is what you are doing here any different? You seem to have chucked you support firmly behind Daniken who can claim virtually no support from the historical community. Who, as Sagan noted "needs extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims" - evidence he can't produce. Other then his hieroglyphs which no body has been able to say support his stance. Seems to me you are being hypocritical:

I never said to retest everything By yourself, just get a second opinion and keep yourself educated. instead of falling back on someones research, if you read or several books instead of taking in only what you heard than you will develop your own sense.

Oh yes. Get a second opinion - how about the fact that the vast majority of the historical community do not support his claims? So why don't you just make a nice long list of all the people that could be called credible who do, and all the evidence you base it on? I know he has supporters, but they are no where near as many or as credited and reputed as the veritable legions who think he is a crank. Because it seems to me you are just following what someone else says.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
How much research have you done on the subject.

Enough to be apparently oblivious that more people probably know of Tesla than they do of the woman who helped discover the structure of DNA?

Enough to not know what constitutes scientific theory, to not care that there is no proof behind and still claim its somehow science?

Enough to know absolutely nothing about the processes involved in submission of scientific literature?

Which esteemed institute did you obtain your credentials in order to be such an eminent authority on the scientific process and community?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And as usual ID is not a theory based on what, I'm gonna bet 100$ You can't refute 1 theory proposed by ID, rather you just wait for some Scientist with high credentials to say it's BS and you agree completely with him. yeah that's real science 🙄

While Freud had some valid theories, he came up with a lot of crap. His crap cannot often be refuted. It is still crap.

The inability to test something does not make something true. It just makes it fun to talk about. ID is an example of this.

Fact, Freud is one of the greatest known fathers of scientific crap. Yet the majority of society still think the whole psychological community respects his work. Little known fact, a large portion of us do not. Freud was a crackpot that was able to monopolize the naïvity of society.

And, despite what you may think, some of us on this forum are a part of the scientific community. I have a large number of articles published in scientific journals from physiological journals to behavioral journals. I have been a part of the peer review process, and I can tell you from experience that it is a difficult process for an article to go through. There are always peers that have as their goal to show that work sent to them for review is in error, particularly if it contradicts their stance. They don't want to look like fools when it is easily shown that an article was wrong. Some of us are a part of the scientific community.

Science

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Enough to be apparently oblivious that more people probably know of Tesla than they do of the woman who helped discover the structure of DNA?

Extra credit for knowing the technique she used. 🙂