I really don't care one way or the other Jeannie.

I'm just calling you on your false implication that "The Law of Attraction" is scientific.

It is not scientific at all, and it would in fact fail a scientific investigation based on the scientific method of inquiry.

That's all I'm saying.

The so-called "Law of Attraction" is not a scientific law of this unvierse.

It's a faith-based philosophy.

I see no reason for trying to make it out to be anything other than what it actually is.

Aren't things worthy of consideration for what they are without trying to prop them up with false claims of scientific support?

There is no scientific evidence for the philosophical notion called "The Law of Attraction".

That's a real catchy name, but that's all it is. It's just a title of a philosophy, not an established law of science.

It's just plain wrong to claim that it's science. It's not.

In would require reincarnation to be true, and science certainly can't provide that necessary part of the picture. So science could never back it up without proof of reincarnation.

Finally something i agree with you on Abra

The law of cause and effect is indeed scientific.

The law of attraction is indeed science.

Just because this scientific community cannot get a handle on it (and probably never will) does not mean it is not science.

There is no Magic Abra. There is only science.

If what you define as "science" is something that has been "proven" and "agreed upon" by this scientific community on this earth, then okay. Its not science to you and to those people who agree that it is not science.

But as far as I am concerned, I see it as science.

Everything has cause and everything has an explanation. That we cannot explain it just means that we haven't figured it out yet.

YET.

I disagree, that it is philosophy, but then everything is opinion. It is not faith based because it can be proven. Not to you of course. One can only prove this sort of thing to themselves.

Science on the other hand claims to be able to prove things to others. But do they? Is everyone convinced? Of course not, because most people believe it on faith too, simply because they don't understand the science. They simply trust the authorities.

If we seek answers to the secrets of existence then why not call that science? Do you seriously think that I care what the a local society decides to call science? Why should I?

You say that you don't care one way or another. Then why even stir the pot? If you really didn't care one way or another you would not waste a second's time talking about it.

But you do care. You care enough to say that you "..don't really care... <-----you being nonchalantly not caring.

Saying that something is "not science" or even "not scientific" flies in the face of science. (It's like deciding what is or isn't art.)

It all boils down to an opinion of what you agree science means to you...or art.... or whatever..

Same goes for Christianity or any other religion....one can only prove it to themselves


Science also claims to disprove things as well..Ie Creationism etc..but does it? is everyone convinced? umm no..are you the only one that understands the science? more so than the authorities? hmmmmm


why would we call it science? isn't seeking the secrets of existence the foundation for almost every religion? why change the word?


Why should you care about religion one way or the other? but you do...after all you started the post.


hmmmm again sounds like a lot of faith-based science, or whatever your opinion of it may be. It all boils down to what faith means to you...or religion...or whatever.

Science has clearly substantiated the premise behind Biological Evolution. Whether the individual chooses to understand it or not is incidental. We do not possess Draconian bones or Draconian DNA unfortunately. We also dont have any skeletal remains of Adam and Eve. If we came across something like this, it would open up an entire new area of study.

I find that the folks who generally reject the theory behind human anthropogeneis dont understand it or refuse to understand it and once questioned, they will admit to not understanding it. Thats been my experience.

I was not aware that the study of DNA had gotten that far or that science had identified any "draconian bones or draconian DNA" that could be compared to humans.

Well unless you want to dream them up, I guess not.

I have never stated that "I didn't care" about religion.

"Religion" is difficult to avoid in this society. People practically expect you to believe what they do and if you don't, they treat you like an alien or an enemy. (We of different faiths and different beliefs than yours or theirs are people too.)

It is time for people to speak out and speak their personal truth and stop being like the sheep to think as they are told to think. I look for people who stand out from the flock and think for themselves and strive to be individuals in their own right.

Well you made the statement or assertion that "We do not possess Draconian bones or Draconian DNA unfortunately."

How would you know? If these things have not even been identified by science, then how would you know?

Well how would you know that the existing skeletal remains we have unearthed of early hominids are not conclusive evidence to support human anropogenesis?

I wouldn't. I was only addressing your statement about draconian bones and DNA.

((And even if scientists were in possession of Adam and Eve's bones or DNA, they would never know it. Same with any draconian bones or DNA. They have no way of knowing what it is or who it belongs to, because they have not identified any specific characteristics of them.))

And I was merely pointing out that your comment seemed to be implying that those who accept the theory of human evolution do so simply because they "do not understand" the science so they just take the words of those that work in the field such as Paleontology to be irrefutable fact.

Clearly I would disagree as my experience has shown me that generally those who in fact dont understand the science tend to choose to dismiss it. Quite the opposite.

I agree. They do so probably because they already have something they want to believe and are not interested in straining their brains with the facts.

But there are also those who simply just choose an authority and trust them with their conclusions. You can just pick what you want to believe and there will be an authority ... somewhere ... who agrees with you.

Well yeah, that I would agree with. There are probably people out there that think that dinosaur bones conclusively prove that dinosaurs existed. They wont question it beyond that point. They may not even be interested much beyond that initial understanding. Its all the same really.

Some people believe in human evolution.

Some people believe in aliens.

There are countless "theories".

Certain ones carry more weight than others.People define "weight" and "legitimacy" in different terms also. I personally would feel that physical evidence carries more weight for me than speculation.

Yes physical evidence is always the best evidence.

In court or otherwise.

If I assemble a team of alien evidence gatherers to collect evidence of alien existence, would you be willing to join the team?

It could be very dangerous. We would have to breach a top security facility. If we get caught, we will never see the light of day again.

Want to go with me?