How Much Do We Really Know

I will just post my general opinion not meant as replay to last posts here, as I do not want to argue about evolution. In my view evolution is evident but it is not as simple as we are explaining it today and is just a part of the story. From my POV there is also involution of spirit back to the source/god. So evolution and creationism coexists - one is the progress of material form, other of the spirit. First life was created then it evolved and it still in/e-volves in never ending process, both ways. Like an infinity loop. And we are just the last civilization to have a crack at it...but I think that we are not the first.

In my opinion we don't know much or better wording - much is not known to general public. I think that we have evidence but is mainly suppressed by some groups of people, for reasons unknown to me - maybe to control, for power, dunno...

But even today with censorship, we have some underwater findings of ancient structures and one can only imagine what lies under the ice, sand or even deeper in earth or oceans. Then there are other build ancient really hard to belief megalithic structures or structures being made from one peace. Then there are wired ancient maps or other ooparts.
I know that many here have an explanation for all of this, but sorry those are just theories. Same are true and I bet some are false, and I really wander which ones?

Then there is the spiritual side, which is utterly unknown to mainstream and totally disregarded. When we will acknowledge that side of our being there will be significant progress in many ways. And maybe even knowledge of our past clear as day...

Who knows, just maybe the akashic records will be someday proven (like another state of our conciousness) and available to many for learning and with them we will known our true history and origins of life.

... I wish

a reply to: peter vlar

Will you please link me to the specific post(s) where I dismissed evolution? Please do show me where I clearly stated "evolution never happened and it is impossible". I do recall the OP criticizing it but not me.

originally posted by: Fer1527
In any case. I do take modern science paradigms with a bit of healthy skepticism, and I do admit that part of it is due to the ultra terrestrial hypothesis. Don't take me for a simple minded believer, though, I only believe what I see. But as long as science does not recognize things I am more than sure exist, I will take scientific theories with a grain of salt, as I am sure you would if you were in my position.

You take scientific theories with a grain of salt despite the abundance of facts that prove them true because you believe in things that there is no evidence for which nulls the scientific method? That's beyond illogical and I'm being generous. Just because something has the word 'theory' in its title does not mean it is not a fact. This just further demonstrates that you don't really understand what a theory is in science.

a reply to: Fer1527

So you can't provide sources or even name drop anyone that supports the statements you continue to make as though they are fact then? Please link a specific post where I said you stated any such thing regarding evolution. I'm using MES as a specific example as my background is in Anthropology and I'm not going to go off on a tangent regarding physics for example, when I'm not well versed in the subject. It's a refutation of your continuous blanket statements against science and theories in general.

a reply to: peter vlar

I have had my own evidence, and I constantly experience things science is yet unable to explain. Therefore I take science with a grain of salt, yes.

Just because something has the word 'theory' in its title does not mean it is not a fact.

Now that is really illogical.

Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, or an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. From: link

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: Marduk

What you just described is the roman catholic dogma, it is not creationism. Creationism is not the belief that everything in the hebrew bible is true.

Creationism: Mankind was created by someone. Creationism itself is not specific as to how that happened or who that someone is.

Religion: Mankind was created by X person, Y time ago by doing Z.

So while religion cannot possibly ever be compatible with anything else, creationism on the other hand is certainly compatible with evolution. Creationism in itself doesn't need to be literal, like religion, as it can be seen as a purely philosophical hypothesis.

Now you are really showing you don't know what youre talking about

Creationism : the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect

www.merriam-webster.com...
So apparently, you are not well versed in any of the subjects you are talking about
Why am I not surprised. Creationsim actually takes its name from the Biblical act or creation, 6000 years ago

The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy.

answersingenesis.org...

Here is something you might find interesting:

Seashells found on Moutains:

evolutionwiki.org...

www.creationscience.com...

It is possible there may have been a flood at some time in history.

Even the sphinx was said to be 'possibly' underwater at one point:

www.ancient-code.com...

a reply to: Fer1527

Does "your own evidence" meet the standards of the scientific method or is it anecdotal experiences for which you personally can't explain or fathom? Do you consider that if that is the case, that there may actually be a scientific explanation for the experience? Or are you being too narrow minded to accept that there are possibilities to explain phenomena that are outside of your own personal paradigm? Much like what you seem to be accusing scientists of now that I think about it.

You're using the incorrect definition for theory. There's the definition you are attempting to force on science, the one that Scooby Doo, Shaggy and the gang use when they have a hunch and then there's the actual definition for a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. They are 2 different things. The only illogical position is not knowing the difference when arguing against the premise- You have simply proven the truth of my earlier statement(and echoing similar sentiments as posited by Marduk as well) that you don't actually know what a scientific theory really is. Due diligence can make up for a lack of proper education in a motivated individual. Your lack of such makes you look rather complacent in trying to understand the science you are so against.

Do you believe gravity is a fact? It's called the Theory of Gravity. Evolution likewise, is a fact and far better understood than gravity and General Relativity combined. Given the advancements in genetics the last decade, there is absolutely no question as to the absolute truth of MES. As a result of these advances, we know more about Neanderthal today than we did about Homo Sapiens Sapiens when Darwin first published On the Origin of Species 156 years ago.

www.livescience.com...

A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask. "The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

dictionary.reference.com...

scientific theory


noun
1.
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:
the scientific theory of evolution.

en.wikipedia.org...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2][3] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.[4][5]The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired and free of confirmation bias. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[6] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g., electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[4] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[7]

And if you're inclined to try to understand the differences between hypothesis, theory and law when used in the context of a scientific discussion-

chemistry.about.com...

Oh and anytime you want to start supporting your statements regarding Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism please feel free. Also feel free to admit you were wrong or exaggerating too if either of those possibilities are the case. It's OK to be wrong. It happens to the best of us from time to time!

originally posted by: Fer1527
Theory: A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, or an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. From: link

Yes, you might want to Google 'Scientific Theory'. Meanwhile, back in the funny papers...

originally posted by: mmirror
Here is something you might find interesting:

Seashells found on Moutains:

evolutionwiki.org...

www.creationscience.com...

It is possible there may have been a flood at some time in history.

Even the sphinx was said to be 'possibly' underwater at one point:

www.ancient-code.com...

Your post is so laughably anachronistic, I'm going to have to assume that its satire

a reply to: Marduk

I think floods happen throughout history. Maybe not a major flood world wide. But there is a possibility of smaller floods at particular times in history.

a reply to: peter vlar

Does "your own evidence" meet the standards of the scientific method or is it anecdotal experiences for which you personally can't explain or fathom? Do you consider that if that is the case, that there may actually be a scientific explanation for the experience? Or are you being too narrow minded to accept that there are possibilities to explain phenomena that are outside of your own personal paradigm? Much like what you seem to be accusing scientists of now that I think about it.

By scientific method you mean, formulation of a question, hypothesis, prediction and testing? If so yes. I did investigate my own experiences in order to determine whether or not they were real or a product of my own subjective perception. To jump to conclusions or make assumptions would have been plain irrational.

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: peter vlar

Does "your own evidence" meet the standards of the scientific method or is it anecdotal experiences for which you personally can't explain or fathom? Do you consider that if that is the case, that there may actually be a scientific explanation for the experience? Or are you being too narrow minded to accept that there are possibilities to explain phenomena that are outside of your own personal paradigm? Much like what you seem to be accusing scientists of now that I think about it.

By scientific method you mean, formulation of a question, hypothesis, prediction and testing? If so yes. I did investigate my own experiences in order to determine whether or not they were real or a product of my own subjective perception. To jump to conclusions or make assumptions would have been plain irrational.

I'm curious, when did you first formalise your theories about ultra terrestrials, do you remember the year ?

a reply to: Marduk

As in publicly announcing my findings? I haven't. What is your point?

originally posted by: Fer1527
a reply to: Marduk

As in publicly announcing my findings? I haven't. What is your point?

No, just when you came up with the idea ?

are we talking 5 years, 20 years, or 50 ?

I figure you are no older than your early 20s, so, after puberty, about 7 years ago ?

a reply to: mmirror

For a rational understanding of why sea shells can be found on mountains I would suggest reading up on various geogix processes like plate tectonics for example and how mountains actually form. The Himalayas for example, used to be the sea floor prior to the Indian Sub Continent crashing into Asia. It's no different than finding fossilized remains of Triassic sea life in the middle of a desert. The amount of flood water required for deposits of sea shells to be found atop mountains is completely unrealistic and beyond improbable.

a reply to: Fer1527

By scientific method I also mean that the results were as to be independently verified and reproduced by others. Has that happened?

originally posted by: mmirror
a reply to: Marduk

I think floods happen throughout history. Maybe not a major flood world wide. But there is a possibility of smaller floods at particular times in history.

On a planet that is 4/5 water, floods happen all the time, that is not even in question
however, your second link where you claimed that the sphinx was underwater you didn't read properly
"

Sherif El Morsi suggests that the Giza plateau was once flooded

That's the basic premise, that the plateau was once submerged, but as he was finding fossils, that was millions of years before the sphinx was created

a reply to: Marduk

But Morsi responded to these claims in a interesting way, and suggested that the creature was cemented, or petrified, in a relatively recent time, citing evidence that the creature was found placed gravitationally on the floor, that the fossil was in almost perfect condition and was located within the intertidal range of the lagoon, which is a big contrast to the small fish typically found in limestone blocks.

“We can clearly see the pristine condition and the details of the perforations of the exoskeleton, this means that the sea creature must have been petrified in recent times.” -Sherif El Morsi

a reply to: Peter vlar

Yes I agree. It is unlikely that the sea rose to the height of the mountains. But the sea was however in the place of the mountains at one time. How high it rose I'm not sure.