100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The reality of Extra-Terrestrial or Inter Dimensional life! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
A lot of David Ickes research makes complete sense if you actually listen to what he says. He even makes shape-shifting sound plausible. i usually spend a lot of time on his site and listening to the stuff he does. Doesn't not mean i believe bull crap about the moon being hollow! I love David Icke. Most people who criticize him and put him down don't really ever listen to him. He is a very spiritual man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 12/30/12 10:54 AM
|
|
To understand the difference between science and "Mystery Stuff", you have to understand the science first. You don't. I understand science just fine. I recognize its boundaries. Never in the history of the universe has a more untrue statement been made. Seriously? In the History of the Universe? A little over board I think. You claim to have knowledge of all statements uttered in the entire history of the Universe? Very funny. And absurd. I speak the truth. You seem to be inside of a box and perhaps you just can't see the boundaries. And here, you seem to be calling me a liar. Why not just stick to the subject?  You make up bizarre statements and try to pass them off as the truth. You have proven in hundreds of threads that you make factual statements about topics (this or any other topic) about which you know nothing. There is no reason to think you know any more about cattle mutilation than you do about explosives at 9/11. In this case, since you are claiming factual knowledge, your credibility is a major factor. Chances are you have never has anything to do with cattle mutilations in your life. I make bizarre statements and pass them off as truth? Really? Hey, you are free to regard everything I say as my own personal experience and opinion. You are not bound to believe a damn thing I say. This is not the science thread anyway so what is your beef? It is for the purpose of discussion and you just come here and attack the messenger. If you know nothing about the topic then you have nothing to say to or about me. I live in Colorado and have for most of my life. I have lived in Pueblo and Colorado Springs. Its true, I don't "have anything to do with" actual cattle mutilations but I have seen the mutilated cows after the fact and in person, and I know people who have lost several of their cattle. I have also seen un-explainable and unknown (bright) lights in the sky over prairie and ranch lands that were certainly not airplanes. I know for a fact that the military just collects the cows and the rancher never hears from them again. The existence of black helicopters back then WAS DENIED. And yet they were seen by ranchers paroling their ranches. I have no reason NOT to believe them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your post is a great one and you raise many excellent points.
An important issue is how science treats paranormal phenomena. Skeptics are important to have on hand, but I've found that many otherwise intelligent skeptics are simply closed-minded. When faced with a truly unexplainable event, they will begin to concoct evermore complex and unlikely "natural" explanations. Using "Occam's Razor" (choosing the simplest explanation first) is great, but skeptics often ignore it--sometimes hypothesizing that an event is paranormal is the simplest & best approach. Further, many skeptics pose as rational and open-minded, when in fact they are the opposite. Their response to a possibly supernatural experience is to reflexively deny it, and there is nothing rational or open-minded about that. All too often skeptics are ignoring exciting, potentially new avenues of scientific inquiry. We also need to keep in mind that many paranormal events have a consistent nature: They are often personal in nature, and they are often one-off, or, non-repeating. These two qualities make the paranormal very resistant to the scientific method. Please note that this exposes a serious weakness in the scientific method and shuts off all sorts of fascinating events to rational inquiry. Because a strange event is mostly subjective and because it can't be repeated on cue, does NOT make it irrational, impossible, etc. If anyone is interested in my take on paranormal, I've got a blog about my own odd experiences you might want to check out: http://www.spooklog.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 12/30/12 07:26 PM
|
|
One of the problems with the observations on the "Skin Walker Ranch" was that each phenomena was unique and took them by surprise and never happened again. If strange phenomena involves parallel and unknown universes, which could be infinite, non repeated events would naturally be the norm.
In this world, events are also unique, but they can be explained because we know what our laws of physics are. We have no such knowledge of the laws of physics that might exist in another universe or alternate reality. We try to understand or explain events according to our own laws of physics and say "that's impossible" because we (our scientists) refuse to consider that they may be dealing with different laws or even a different universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We know for a fact that human life is possible, and if the universe is infinite then there are infinite possibilities, therefore there is probably another earth-like planet somewhere in the universe and therefore human life could develop there. They could also be in another time, perhaps the distant past or the distant future. Probably so far that the light from their star has not even reached us yet. I think that machine-intelligence could also be likely as well. Perhaps so advanced that we can not perceive them. After all, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Someone2callmyown
on
Sat 05/18/13 08:32 PM
|
|
I wonder what it would be like to meet more advanced beings. Beings higher on the Kardeshev scale. I wonder how the interactions would be. Would they even care to interact with us? Would we worship them as god-like beings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several new satellites to add to Hubble such as WMAP and Kepler, that are bringing in tons of data about where habitable planets may exist. The most exciting new find is that the universe is chock full of red dwarf stars that are actually much longer lived for creating life than our yellow dwarf Sun. They don't put out a lot of light so we are just now finding many of them but they are perfect for keeping an Earth sized planet warm for billions of years. There are a lot of drawbacks to planets around Red Dwarfs such as tidal locking and low radiation but the shear number of them makes up for the disadvantages.
Our Sun will swell into a red giant and destroy the Earth eventually. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jan/08/kepler-satellite-461-new-planets The knowledge base is growing exponentially. On a side note, exobiology scientists are finding living bacteria in places where it was never thought to be able to exist such as boiling water and deep underground. The chances of extraterrestrial life existing are virtually 100%. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several new satellites to add to Hubble such as WMAP and Kepler, that are bringing in tons of data about where habitable planets may exist. The most exciting new find is that the universe is chock full of red dwarf stars that are actually much longer lived for creating life than our yellow dwarf Sun. They don't put out a lot of light so we are just now finding many of them but they are perfect for keeping an Earth sized planet warm for billions of years. There are a lot of drawbacks to planets around Red Dwarfs such as tidal locking and low radiation but the shear number of them makes up for the disadvantages. Our Sun will swell into a red giant and destroy the Earth eventually. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jan/08/kepler-satellite-461-new-planets The knowledge base is growing exponentially. On a side note, exobiology scientists are finding living bacteria in places where it was never thought to be able to exist such as boiling water and deep underground. The chances of extraterrestrial life existing are virtually 100%. Yes. It's fascinating. I recently read about a double planet orbiting a double star system that they sighted. That's amazing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic, therefore any sufficiently advanced lifeform would (seem to us) to be supernatural in nature...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic, therefore any sufficiently advanced lifeform would (seem to us) to be supernatural in nature... I am not supernatural. I am just a flying pig. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic, therefore any sufficiently advanced lifeform would (seem to us) to be supernatural in nature... I am not supernatural. I am just a flying pig. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is said that mathematically a poem offers more information than a political speech. Does your argument and evidence rest on the premise that science can't explain this? Science can't explain how aspirin works either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is said that mathematically a poem offers more information than a political speech. Does your argument and evidence rest on the premise that science can't explain this? Science can't explain how aspirin works either. That's a clever statement but it is merely hyperbole. No offense. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is said that mathematically a poem offers more information than a political speech. Does your argument and evidence rest on the premise that science can't explain this? Science can't explain how aspirin works either. That's a clever statement but it is merely hyperbole. No offense. Wait til you get to know me, I am a firm believer in the use of er, poetic license. But the point remains, I find no information in her arguments, no proof or evidence. She argues as a True Believer with only her intrepretation of personal experience as evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your post is a great one and you raise many excellent points. An important issue is how science treats paranormal phenomena. Skeptics are important to have on hand, but I've found that many otherwise intelligent skeptics are simply closed-minded. When faced with a truly unexplainable event, they will begin to concoct evermore complex and unlikely "natural" explanations. Using "Occam's Razor" (choosing the simplest explanation first) is great, but skeptics often ignore it--sometimes hypothesizing that an event is paranormal is the simplest & best approach. Further, many skeptics pose as rational and open-minded, when in fact they are the opposite. Their response to a possibly supernatural experience is to reflexively deny it, and there is nothing rational or open-minded about that. All too often skeptics are ignoring exciting, potentially new avenues of scientific inquiry. We also need to keep in mind that many paranormal events have a consistent nature: They are often personal in nature, and they are often one-off, or, non-repeating. These two qualities make the paranormal very resistant to the scientific method. Please note that this exposes a serious weakness in the scientific method and shuts off all sorts of fascinating events to rational inquiry. Because a strange event is mostly subjective and because it can't be repeated on cue, does NOT make it irrational, impossible, etc. If anyone is interested in my take on paranormal, I've got a blog about my own odd experiences you might want to check out: http://www.spooklog.com Skeptics often have taken a stand on most things and therefore they have a position to defend. Thus they are not true skeptics. "Believers" can fall into this category also. Where it concerns the existence of aliens (extra terrestrials or the like) People can fall into three possible categories. One, the "skeptics" (who are really non believers), and the "believers" who don't have real proof or experiences, and the people who do have personal knowledge and experience with them directly and who 'know' they exist. If non human aliens from another dimension or outer space do exist, then they have been here longer than humans. If they don't exist, then someone has a lot of explaining to do -- and are not able to do that so they resort to scoffing at the idea and working hard to discredit and discourage and prevent any real scientific inquiry into the phenomenon. I have weighed a lot of information and if I had to choose I would say that yes, they do exist. I hope someone finds the proof and discloses the truth. Until then, I have to say yes aliens exist. And I don't trust any of them.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Someone2callmyown
on
Mon 05/20/13 09:55 PM
|
|
There are good reasons to be cautious when dealing with otherworldy intelligence according to Stephen Hawkings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is said that mathematically a poem offers more information than a political speech. Does your argument and evidence rest on the premise that science can't explain this? Science can't explain how aspirin works either. That's a clever statement but it is merely hyperbole. No offense. Wait til you get to know me, I am a firm believer in the use of er, poetic license. But the point remains, I find no information in her arguments, no proof or evidence. She argues as a True Believer with only her intrepretation of personal experience as evidence. Fair enough. But it's a lot of fun to discuss. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts are going in many directions on this post. Im enjoying all the input from the others. This is truly one of the best threads I have seen on mingle great job Jeannie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts are going in many directions on this post. Im enjoying all the input from the others. This is truly one of the best threads I have seen on mingle great job Jeannie. I agree! It's a fascinating discussion topic. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Jeanniebean rocks!  She is a former Companion of Doctor Who and used to be a science officer for Star Fleet aboard the starship Enterprise. 
|
|
|
|
|
