reply to post by Hanslune
I'm sorry I don't know how to do that neat thing that you guys do, quoting like that, so I'm gonna have to do it this way if you excuse me.
1-science discard those theories that don't fit their preconditioned ideas, or, the only ideas that they have set to be the only facts without
2-Do you think that is the only one? Read the book, or the beginning of the book, supernatural for another reference for what I'm talking about, so
you don't have to take my word for it.
3- They look at their facts and the only one they have set without looking for alternatives. Much like religion (Christianity in this case) deciding
what books were good to compose the bible with and which were not.
4- I don't know how you can fake painting on caves, from thousands of years ago, depicting and even narrating a different story of the official
history, nor the skeletons and bones and artifacts found; and using the scientific method of carbon dating, shows something different to what is
believed ind the scientific community ( I did post links above, so I'm not going to go into those details again) Misinterpretation is whatever don't
fit their version.
5-Physics, like I said, theories and speculations. We don't even know how old the human race is, much less the universe. Scientist KNOW they don't
know most things, it's only theories, but when some one comes with a new theory, not supporting the official theory, well, we know what happens.
6-So, you mean to tell me that the school you went to, they gave you different views of reality. If that is so, I applause that school!
7- What I mean to say is that nothing is certain in science, and they should say that more often. What was a fact or believed at one point has changed
over time, and for that reason alone, NOTHING should be discard or labeled as "mass hypnosis".
8- Carbon dating...read the link I posted about carbon dating.
9- Like I said, the method use to dating is not accurate at all.
10- Not to say the the world is 2 mil years old but to say they don't know either, because their method is not accurate and it's just a
11- Who are they? Ha, and I thought you weren't funny...there you proved me wrong!
12- Maybe those agriculturist used water to build what they built and to know what they knew, even thought they make no reference at all about
building anything of that magnitude (just for starters).
13- It doesn't matter the amount of evidence, there would never be enough for you. If the ufo case was taken to court to prove its reality, I don't
think skeptics would stand a chance.
14- My point?? There again... You are funny, I give you that!
15- I guess, the same way you dismiss conspiracies despite the unbelievable amount of evidence. To start an argument about evolution we would have to
start another thread with evolution being the main subject. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that evolution has happened in this planet, but not for
humans, or at least, not they way is presented. In other words, not without intervention ( and I don't mean divine)
16- Do you really think that the UFO and ET phenomenon is new? Guess again then, UFOs are as old as the oldest accepted civilization on earth, and
that is just being conservative.
17- Oh, but we do attack you but it just happen to happen that when a well respected figure (like an astronaut for example), who was held in a
respectable position decides to come forward about, let's say, UFOs, that person becomes not credible anymore and ways are found to discredit that
person and even ridicule him.
I apologize, again, for not being as neat as you quoting ( I must learn) but science is just like religion, "it is my version or none". Why can't
just science admit that they don't know everything, that in fact, what they know is only a version and there could be other possibilities?