posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 12:12 PM
Just popped in to get the thread rolling. Nothing heavy to say.
But when you cite 'science', are you referring to the same science/scientific community that claimed HRT would 'save' women from 'going insane
and being locked away in asylums in middle age' like their mothers and grandmothers' supposedly were?
The same 'science/scientific community which claimed women used to shrivel up and suffer senility due to menapause and used to die young' ? THAT
When almost all of us can find within our family-history women who lived well into their 80's and 90's WITHOUT the scientific-miracle, HRT?
The SAME 'science' that promised HRT would alleviate/prevent hot-flushes, stroke, cancers, hirsuteness, etc? The same 'science' that then KILLED
thousands of women world-wide and gave thousands more strokes, mental confusion, heart-irregularities, varicose veins, obesity, etc. FROM the
scientific 'miracle' drug, HRT ?
Oh --- really? It WAS that same 'science/scientific community' as the one you're citing in your OP? Oooops, huh?
You'll need to accept that I have NO reason to accept a word that comes out of THAT 'science/scientific community's' mouth.
Because wasn't it 'science' that ostracised and ridiculed Velikovsky's catastrophe-theories ? And yes, it WAS that same 'science/scientific
community' which AFTERWARDS STOLE and PLAGIARISED Velikovsky's theories and who NOW posit them as their own !
'Science' cites its unproven theories as fact.
'Science' refuses to accept anything that doesn't conform with its unproven theories --------- even THOUGH 'science' reserves the right to ALTER
its theories without notice at any time, despite that those now discarded theories continue to be taught in schools and universities.
'Science' is the puppet of State and Church (and Big Business AND anyone else with enough folding-money).
'Science' is bought and paid for; it's a prostitute with attitude !
The 'scientific community' bickers amongst itself continually, like fish-wives.
'Science' -- due to its backers in State and Church etc. --- believes it never has to say it's sorry; never has to admit it's wrong and believes
that it alone may cite mere opinion (flawed as it so often is) as 'fact'.
'Science' claimed aeroplanes would never fly; that it was 'impossible'. See what I mean? And 'science' states that the bee should not be able
to fly either. Do these guys ever step out into a real world? A child can refute 'science', for a child is able to attest that yes, planes DO fly
as do bees.
'Science' dismisses the paranormal and there was a huge bitch-fight recently when Sheldrake broke ranks and announced that for people IN a real
world, paranormal experience is far from rare. How did Sheldrake reach this controversial conclusion? Simple, he listened to what real people in the
real world, had to say.
Isn't it 'science/the scientific community' who sit around alternately giggling, sulking and fighting and throwing up their hands in confusion re:
String Theory, M-Theory etc. ? Why is that, if 'science' is undiluted proven scientific 'fact' ?
'Science' can't even date something as simple as a carved stone-head within 20,000 years or 100,000 years. I can tell you that for a REAL fact,
because 'science' dated two such heads (described 'scientifically' as Celtic Carved Stone Heads) as being in the region of several thousand years
Those heads were displayed in pride of place at the entrance to a museum. They remained there for 20 or so years, before my uncle decided he'd
better put the record straight before he died. He PROVED, beyond dispute, that those allegedly 'several thousand year old carved stone heads' WERE
in fact carved in the early 1940's by his brother as part of an art assignment. And the joke (at 'science's' expense) was revealed in several UK
Science has NEVER even come close to explaining how/where human life began. Oh sure, it can chatter on about primeval soup, but it CANNOT tell us
where the universe commenced or originated. Life on earth may be attributable to a number of causes: cosmic dust for example. But WHERE did the
cosmic dust originate? And from where -- in turn -- did THAT originate? And from where -- in turn --- did THAT originate?
WHAT was the very beginning of absolutely EVERYthing ? Has 'science' provided the answer? Nope.
Nothing comes from nothing. 'Science' knows that, but it doesn't stop 'science' from pronouncing nonsensically and illogically.
If EVERYthing began from one tiny spark ----- ask 'science' to tell you from whom, what, where, that spark emerged? But of course, 'science'
CANNOT provide you an answer.
So until it can, 'God' (or whatever term you prefer) is still very much a contender. In fact, at the moment, 'God' is the ONLY explanation.
It may BE that the Multiverse and everything it contains (the 'scientific Theory of Everything) had its beginnings in one tiny bit of excreta
expelled by something, somewhere.
Yes, our entire Enormous Everything may be no more than bacterial decomposition taking place within one nugget of poo that fell from the backside of
something totally beyond our comprehension.
'Science' is still struggling to come to grips with the common cold.
I'm not expecting 'science' to arrive at anything near a believable explanation for the origins of All ----- not for quite a while at least.