It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eilohom: Is creationism real yet misunderstood or interpreted?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I was browsing the net and happened upon this web site: RAEL.org
Interesting story. It seems to me that this individual is just trying to make a quick buck fusing UFO/Ancient Astronaut Theory with aspects of religion. For some reason a craft from an advanced civilization came to earth to dictate a message to this frenchman.





He tells this guy that beings from his world created humanity. This group of scientist were banned from creating life on their world or they decided to take their research out of the public eye to the planet earth. They enact the story of genesis. At first they were banned from creating intelligent life. However a group decided to be defiant and do it anyway. Further regulations were set to keep the new life ignorant however the one portrayed as the great deceiver satan decided to tell man the truth. Here is where I have a problem with the story.

THE CREATORS are supposed to be the scientist. GOD is supposed to be represented by members of this faction making arbitrary rules. If we were made genetically similar and they could genetically design us then surely they wouldn't make up arbitrary rules. They could dumb us down genetically. The story also simply follows judeo christian lore and doesn't tie in other religions members of their species made up. The humans from the ADAM and EVE story for that one of 7 races created. Meaning that the representatives from the other races created as far as we knew did not sin. You would think it would be easier to eliminate the defective models and the scientist (satan who wanted to spill the beans) Yet a few of these alien scientist whom weren't doing what the mother planet officials wanted them to do anyways decides to continue with the farce and create the propaganda we know as religion.

Too many holes in this plot to me. And the question still stands who created them and if the cycle of creation continues with our development then do they know their species creators... if so and they know they were genetically created by a master species then how could they reasonably expect the race they created not to eventually become aware. You would think if these scientist broke the law by creating clones on another planet that this project would be eliminated by the planetary officials and the the scientist as well to avoid any threat because basically we are a potential threat if they were peaceful enough not to pull the plug.

Now from this guys story the officials of the aliens planet are open to peaceful resolutions even after they could see humanity as a whole and instead of sending a broadcast around the planet and promoting their message to a broader audience.... they decide to choose a random french guy to sell their message in a book and build an embassy?

They have had a few thousand years to advance. They can simply show up in droves come out and speak to OBAMA or something... This story doesn't quite add up to me. What do you guys think?

Was human life create by:

A) A multi-dimensional being with control over time and space and can poof things into existence with a mere thought or twinge of his nose.

B) A group of alien scientist that look like us with advanced genetics that were banned from creating life on their planet so they create it on another one. When the officials of the home world find out they are outraged so they figure that they would create a bunch of propaganda... i.e. religion to dumb our cloned species down and perhaps altered our designed DNA to keep our species a little inferior. A rogue group of scientist decides to defy the home world authority and they decide to teach and continue their scientific work. The home world authority brands this man as a rebel and evil and is banned to the earth never to return to his home world and to await the destruction of this rogue evil planet.

As soon as the population reaches a point in development that is a true threat to the home world. We will be wiped out and only a few specimens that fit criteria will be spared from the destruction of this experiment along with rebel scientist that broke the law... assuming that the home world species population can live for a very long time. If they can create genetic beings it stands to reason they can alter their own life spans.

C) Nothing. Humanity is the result of random evolution. Evolution can not take place anywhere else in the universe but the planet earth.

D) Nothing. Humanity is the result of evolution. Evolution occurs on various planets in our universe however a species that has advanced well before humanities inception couldn't possibly have any influence over or lesser species development.

E) There is no such thing as random evolution. We just believe that an Spiritual being who isn't an alien (however is alien because he couldn't be from what he created) created us and a series of events happened and will happened. Since a book only goes back 5000 years. Existence has only taken place for 5000 years. We are dead set in this belief. We believe in God without questioning what he is or his origins yet for some weird reason we do not believe in aliens.




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelknives52
 


Satan and all those that chose to follow him were the ones who became attracted to the women. They influenced people captivating them with their magic and knowledge of how things worked that could benefit those that did what they wanted them to do. The ones with the most of that knowledge being of course the Masons. The fallen ones wanted to be Kings and Gods forever but we kept getting smarter and we started to Kill them because we feared them. They are always ahead of us though because they have gotten smarter to in how to deal with us that is. They want to control us because if they wanted us dead I am sure that would have happened a long time ago. They still think they can hypnotize everybody on a large scale and sometimes I feel that they might actually succeed but then I am starting to have more faith in my fellowman. We aren't going to go down as easy as they thought even with Project Blue Beam in full affect. I find it harder and harder to focus but I think death is what it would take to make me want to quit at least trying to be good and true to my fellow neighbors.

Well I just took it to the extreme of course, but you are welcome to dilute it as you see fit so you can relate it to your own lives. It rings in my head every night though. I don't want anybody to die and I get disgusted when I see things happen in Japan and wonder if there is anything I could have done to prevent that kind of loss of life and you know what..........I think we can! I think we can learn to build better and more durable homes. I also think when we think of energy in the future lets not think about something that could potential take us all out in the long run like nuclear power plants........I mean come on, we can do better than that. Besides they already know how to tap into free clean and clear energy. They just dont want us to have access to that because they want us to NEED them! God knew we would grow into knowledge and that we didn't need them to give it to us. He just wanted to see who was truely loyal to him regardless of what they could get out of it from their own selfish desires. God said do not throw pearls before swine. R you hearing me now neighbor??????

AWAKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
edit on 18-3-2011 by iLoGiCViZiOnS because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
The idea that human beings were created or helped along the road to sentience by aliens is not exactly fresh and new, is it? The first time I heard it was in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, which came out in 1968. The writer of that movie's screenplay, Arthur C. Clarke, had already toyed with the idea in earlier stories like Childhood's End and 'The Sentinel'.

Nowadays, this once-provocative idea has become part of the common mulch of western popular culture. Everyone from the Raelians to David Icke has their own version.

It's a bit pathetic that watered-down versions of these exciting science-fiction ideas, mind-stretching but familiar to my generation, are now being peddled by cultists as if they were the truth. Have these people no imagination as well as no shame?

It is perfectly clear to any educated person that human beings are native to this planet. Molecular biology makes it clear that we are related to all other living things. Actually, we don't need molecular biology – the evidence of our own eyes tells us this. We look and act just like other animals. There is no need to invoke aliens from outer space to explain the small differences that exist. The theory of evolution does it perfectly well.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelknives52
 


Interesting, to say the least, intriguing to say the most. I have given a great deal of thought and research into exactly what the Elohim are, and I too came to the conclusion that they are ETs from another, higher world, they had scientists, engineers, and military. They had incest, backstabbing, deceit, and murder among themselves, but they did manage to do one thing right, us. The made us in their own image, so they are human, no doubt of that. The Spirit, which brings Emotions, is another thing altogether. This I cannot define, or know from whence it came, or from what it came. Humanity calls this force "God," a job description at best, and in Ancient times man wrote down the history of these beings as far as their creations could tell. I believe there were seven root races of people, from seven different races of Elohim, (ET Beings) and these still live today. Our creators watch us all of the time, they are watching right now. They wish to see what we will do in the face of coming disaster, and they wish to see how many can, and will ascend to stand before them. In later years, other races of ETs came, and performed their own experiments, which included planting hybrids, and altering the DNA strain in humanity. I think each is trying to overpopulate the others, and some are in danger of being wiped out, as a people. You think a people, a race of humans cannot be wiped out? Ask the Montauk Tribe about that sometime. They are extinct by an Act of Congress....



The second part of his ruling was designed to eliminate any possibility of the Montauk Tribe of Indians seeking further redress beyond his court. Although he had absolutely no anthropological credentials, he ruled “…There is now no tribe of Montauk Indians. It has disintegrated and been absorbed into the mass of citizens. If I may use the expression, the tribe has been dying for many years…”
source link



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
It is perfectly clear to any educated person that human beings are native to this planet. Molecular biology makes it clear that we are related to all other living things. Actually, we don't need molecular biology – the evidence of our own eyes tells us this. We look and act just like other animals. There is no need to invoke aliens from outer space to explain the small differences that exist. The theory of evolution does it perfectly well.

Scientists have now discovered non-carbon based life forms unrelated to us.

We are also different to most, perhaps all, other (known) species on Earth. One possible explanation is that we are the result of intelligent intervention.

We may be related to all life but it may not even have originated on Earth.


Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by andre18
 


Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 




Hybrids can be created from any creature which shares a DNA type structure in theory


Yes, exactly. You're then saying aliens may share our DNA to a degree that would let a hybridisation occur. That's impossible. The evolution of DNA itself came about on this planet by a natural process that must be and would be different on every planet - the chemical reactions that caused molecules to form must differ on every planet. The fact you don't know that shows how much you don't know.

Sorry Andre18, but you clearly know less about this topic than you think.

There is the hypothesis of panspermia which is the idea that life exists throughout the universe and may be distributed by asteroids etc. See en.wikipedia.org... and the internet encyclopaedia of science. There is also the related hypothesis of exogenesis where life originated outside earth. These are serious scientific hypotheses not crackpot ideas.

Equally fascinating is the the hypothesis proposed by Francis Crick (who co-discovered DNA) and Leslie Orgel called directed panspermia. The theory goes that as life may be unlikely to have reached here by chance that organisms may have been transmitted here deliberately by intelligent being on another planet.

Basically the hypothesis that life originated on earth by chance natural processes in a primordial soup is also just a hypothesis too. Even if it can be shown that DNA based life could originate in a primordial soup in a manner like that (which is unproven so far) it could have happened anywhere in the universe(s) with the right conditions and then been seeded (deliberately or not) to other worlds.

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 

NO i dont. Because, drum rol me plz..... there is enough scientific understanding of the evolution of man that there is no doubt in the science community how we came to be - fun fact: there are no missing links.

There is no need to imply a hand in our evolution in order for man to currently be around, for you to imply there is, means you know nothing of biology or evolution - how bout you go ask your relatives where man came from and you'll find you entire belief in aliens will go out the window.

In fact, Homo sapiens are one of the species where how it evolved is difficult to explain and there is lots of doubt in the scientific community which is why entire conferences have been held to look at the topic. For example if humans evolved on the African savannah why are they hairless? If it was an advantage to be hairless then Savannah mammals would all be that way and they aren't. Look at the problems we get with sun-burn. Also bipedalism is difficult to explain as there are many disadvantages including problems for the back, knees and internal organs. It is a distinct advantage to be able to use your fore-legs (arms) when you need to run fast. That is very different to saying we were created by an alien race of course.

However, just because we are reasonably adapted to earth does not mean that some of these unusual traits in humans which are awkward to explain may be a result of alien intervention. That was not me saying that is what I believe but it is entirely possible... It may have escaped your notice but most descriptions of aliens seem to be mainly of bipedal, hairless, large headed humanoids which are the very things that set Homo sapiens apart.
(snip)
Of course there may be alien species. Your limited knowledge as a person extends as far as your own experience. Humanity has little real experience of what lies beyond our atmosphere let alone in the billions of Galaxies and possible parallel realities. It looks to me like it is you who might be lying to yourself. The truth is - you don't know. Until you become party to the truth about ET contact or are able to explore the entire universe in the search for life try showing a bit of humility about how much you know. You're claim to know that 'there are no alien species' could easily come back to bite you on the ass... THINK ABOUT IT!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Scientists have now discovered non-carbon based life forms unrelated to us.

Untrue. All life known to us is carbon-based.


We are also different to most, perhaps all, other (known) species on Earth.

Please name even one human attribute (other than complex language) that is not shared by other animals.


We may be related to all life but it may not even have originated on Earth.

Panspermia is a stupid hypothesis for which there is not the smallest shred of evidence.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
That was a poor post. Sorry guys, it was late in the UK so I did a lazy post. I think I need to clarify.

Astyanax, I know you are only here to debunk creationism. That appears to be your 'mission' on this thread. Well I am not a 'creationist' - please don't identify me a such.


Originally posted by Astyanax
All life known to us is carbon-based.

Possibly. However, Erzilia Lozneanu and Mircea Sanduloviciu have done some fascinating research. The have found that in certain conditions plasma can self organise and replicate and therefore has all the characteristics of life.

Physicists have created blobs of gaseous plasma that can grow, replicate and communicate - fulfilling most of the traditional requirements for biological cells. Without inherited material they cannot be described as alive, but the researchers believe these curious spheres may offer a radical new explanation for how life began.
www.newscientist.com...


Although the plasma complexes do not have genetic material like DNA, the above article fails to mention that, they do have the ability to replicate and communicate.

After its formation, the CSCC (complex space charge configuration) is able to replicate, by division, and to emit and receive information.
Erzilia Lozneanu and Mircea Sanduloviciu: Cell-likespace charge configurations formed by selforganization in laboratory

See also Erzilia Lozneanu, Sebastian Popescu and Mircea Sanduloviciu: Ball Lightning as a Self-Organized Complexity.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Please name even one human attribute (other than complex language) that is not shared by other animals.

This deserves more attention but I am pushed for time. Look at our impact on the environment for a start. We are more like a pathogen than an integrated part of the ecosystem. Why do you think it is that human creations are so instantly recognisable and distinguishable from everything else on the planet (all the straight lines etc)? We build things and change our environment like no other species. We also build space-ships and planes. Kind of unique methinks.


Originally posted by Astyanax
Panspermia is a stupid hypothesis for which there is not the smallest shred of evidence.

I almost ignored this baseless proclamation but changed my mind. Your proclamation is both ignorant and insulting. It may be your opinion but it is not a sceptical position.

Do you really think that all scientists who have taken the panspermia hypothesis seriously would even consider a 'stupid hypothesis?' That would include Carl Sagan and Francis Crick. The co-discoverer of the structure of DNA is no crank. There is little evidence regarding the origin of life. It's that simple and is the reason why the topic is still debated.


It may simply be that some scientists are more comfortable with the one concrete observation (life on Earth - even though its origin is not understood), rather than with considering theoretical possibilities such as Panspermia. Nevertheless, given our lack of understanding of the origin of life it can reasonably be argued that this is a preference rather than anything more fundamental.
journalofcosmology.com...


As for evidence for panspermia, you really need to do some homework.


However, in the last decade data have begun to accumulate suggesting that panspermia may in fact be a natural and frequently occurring process. Recent paleomagnetic studies on Martian meteorite ALH84001 have shown that this rock travelled from Mars to Earth without its interior becoming warmer than 40ºC (Weiss et al. 2000) (Fig. 1). Experiments aboard the European Space Agency’s Long Duration Exposure Facility indicate that bacterial spores can survive in deep space for more than five years (Horneck et al. 1994; Horneck 1999), and laboratory experiments demonstrate that bacteria can survive the shocks and jerks expected for a rock ejected from Mars (Mastrapa et al. 2001). Finally, dynamical studies indicate that the transfer of rocks from Mars to Earth (and to a limited extent, vice versa) can proceed on a biologically short time scale, making it likely that organic hitchhikers have traveled between these planets many times during the history of the Solar System (Mileikowsky et al. 2000; Weiss and Kirschvink 2000). These studies demand a re-evaluation of the long-held assumption that terrestrial life evolved in isolation on Earth.(emphasis mine)
Joseph. L. Kirschvink and Benjamin P. Weiss MARS, PANSPERMIA, AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE: WHERE DID IT ALL BEGIN?


If you just respond to this with proclamations and no evidence then I will not bother to make this kind of effort in my next response. The readers can decide whether I am a crank - but we both know that I am not.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 

Lazy or not, your post only serves to prove the points I made in mine.

Artificial plasma entities are not life; as you may have been taught in junior-school science class, a candle flame has most of the attributes of life too – it uses energy to live, can replicate itself, etc. To call such entities ‘living’ is mere semantics. All true life known to humanity is carbon-based.

Environmental impact? All life has that. The impact of life-forms like earthworms, plankton and blue-green algae massively exceeds anything human beings have achieved or, probably, can achieve. Whenever a species prospers opportunistically it does so at the expense of other species in its environment; this is true of everything from ant colonies to beavers. So: no, there is nothing exceptional about human environmental impact. As for straight lines, spiders spin them. The predominance of straight lines and sharp corners in human artifacts reflects only the limitations of our technology; the technology used by other animals, such as crows and apes, is far more limited.

As for panspermia, it is stupid not because it is implausible (it is not) but because it is trivial. It matters not a whit whether the planet was ‘seeded’ with life from outer space or developed it indigenously. Development from that seed has been entirely terrestrial. Since there is no evidence for panspermia (what you have posted is not evidence, it merely supports the possibility) and no reason to invoke it in order to explain anything we cannnot otherwise explain, panspermia is a hypothesis rendered null by Occam’s Razor. Null hypotheses, clung to, are stupid hypotheses.

You are mistaken in what you imagine to be my mission on ATS. I am not here to squash creationists in particular, and I neither know nor care whether you are one. I am here to oppose – if not necessarily to ‘deny’ – ignorance. And nonsense.


edit on 20/3/11 by Astyanax because: 'panspermia’ sounds so messy.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

Plasma entities are alive - if you use most definitions of life from a text book or journal. We could just ignore that fact but it doesn't make you right. They also occur spontaneously in nature and are not just artificial.

You're simply making proclamations that are nothing more than your opinion - which of course, you are welcome to. You have refuted absolutely nothing that I just stated and have not produced a shred of evidence for what you have proclaimed. Which is why it is not possible to have a proper debate with you on a scientific level. You may sound as though you proclaim with authority to some readers but not to me.


Originally posted by Astyanax
It is perfectly clear to any educated person that human beings are native to this planet. Molecular biology makes it clear that we are related to all other living things. Actually, we don't need molecular biology – the evidence of our own eyes tells us this. We look and act just like other animals. There is no need to invoke aliens from outer space to explain the small differences that exist. The theory of evolution does it perfectly well.


Well here is an very well educated person who disagrees with you. I also happen to be an expert in the use of the techniques of molecular biology for research.

The above quote is an example of your narrow minded approach. Just because you don't "need to invoke aliens" is not evidence one way or the other whether they (aliens) have had a hand in the development of life on Earth. If we are genuinely interested in getting to the truth then molecular biology may have important evidence. You may believe that the theory of evolution is adequate to explain the existence of modern humans. However, as I mention above, there are many mysteries regarding specifically human evolution that have not been solved.


Originally posted by Astyanax
As for panspermia, it is stupid not because it is implausible (it is not) but because it is trivial. It matters not a whit whether the planet was ‘seeded’ with life from outer space or developed it indigenously. Development from that seed has been entirely terrestrial.


You here state that "development from that seed has been entirely terrestrial" without a shred of evidence. It may have done. There may also have been intervention - we simply do not have enough evidence to say.

Finally, regarding panspermia, it is not in any way trivial whether life was seeded here from space. It is hugely important to this topic because if life was seeded here then it exists elsewhere in the galaxy. If life exists elsewhere in a genetically compatible form - which is likely if it originated from a common source - then it would completely possible for an advanced species to intervene in the development of life on Earth using recombinant DNA technology (I should know). It is surprisingly easy to create new life forms.

In answer to the OP. Yes creationism is misunderstood, in particular by most 'creationists'. Intervention by an alien presence in the development of modern humans DOES NOT IN ANY WAY WHATEVER imply that evolution by natural selection is not true. In fact both 'sides' of this debate seem to throw out the baby with the bath water. It is entirely possible that both evolution and the intervention hypothesis may be true. They are not mutually exclusive so the ridiculously polar nature of the debate is unnecessary.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 

What exactly have I to supply evidence for?

That ball-lightning is not alive?

That all species affect their environment by their behaviour?

That panspermia, an unproven hypothesis based on no evidence, is wrong?

Don't waste my time.


edit on 25/3/11 by Astyanax because: of poppycock.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

If you weren't so closed minded, you might admit that you haver just learnt that there is evidence that the the theory of panspermia is not without foundation. You could also admit that, perhaps, you are wrong and panspermia is not a trivial theory. I won't be holding my breath though.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 

Yes, best keep breathing, I think. To accuse others of having closed minds is the first recourse of any gullible fool confronted with the proof of his own gullibility.

You have posted evidence that panspermia is not impossible, just as the existence of life on other planets is not impossible. That is not the same as posting evidence that panspermia happened, any more than evidence that life can exist on Mars is evidence that it does exist.

If you can’t see the difference, how the devil can you call yourself a scientist?


edit on 26/3/11 by Astyanax because: evidence is not proof.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

With respect, I don't call myself a scientist - I am one.

I haven't posted that panspermia happened. My position is that as there is little evidence as to where life originated so your dismissal of the theory is simply a preference. I am open minded as to whether the hypothesis can be supported by more evidence and so I am on the lookout for it.


Originally posted by Pimander
There is little evidence regarding the origin of life. It's that simple and is the reason why the topic is still debated.


It may simply be that some scientists are more comfortable with the one concrete observation (life on Earth - even though its origin is not understood), rather than with considering theoretical possibilities such as Panspermia. Nevertheless, given our lack of understanding of the origin of life it can reasonably be argued that this is a preference rather than anything more fundamental.
journalofcosmology.com...



I have done exactly what an open minded sceptic would do. See whether the theory is possible, then look for evidence. It's called scientific enquiry not gullibility.

I accused you of being closed minded because you dismissed a theory with no evidence. Of course you are probably open minded about many things so I apologise if you found it insulting.
edit on 26/3/11 by Pimander because: first line added



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Yes...........Astyanax get's his butt kicked by a REAL Scientist, brilliant, Pimander you have just made my day. Although beware his friend's i.e maddnessinmysoul etc. will be along soon to round on you..............lol.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   


Scientists have now discovered non-carbon based life forms unrelated to us.

We are also different to most, perhaps all, other (known) species on Earth. One possible explanation is that we are the result of intelligent intervention.


But that would be contradictory to what is inside, the similarity of all living animals, we all got lungs, hearts, brains, livers. It all looks the same on the inside.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Rael is an ex reporter he is the one who a few years ago said that he had cloned a human, it around the same time where they cloned dolly the sheep. rael is the leader of that sect.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


Scientists have now discovered non-carbon based life forms unrelated to us.

We are also different to most, perhaps all, other (known) species on Earth. One possible explanation is that we are the result of intelligent intervention.


But that would be contradictory to what is inside, the similarity of all living animals, we all got lungs, hearts, brains, livers. It all looks the same on the inside.

That is a bit of a straw man I'm afraid.

I have created novel species by inserting a gene into bacteria. The bacteria still functions in a recognisable 'Earthly' manner. That does not mean that there has been no intelligent intervention in the development of its germ line. We can grow ears on the back of a mouse but it only happens if there is intervention from an 'alien' intelligence.

Do you see how it is possible that a species other that Homo sapiens might do the same?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkkkay
Rael is an ex reporter he is the one who a few years ago said that he had cloned a human, it around the same time where they cloned dolly the sheep. rael is the leader of that sect.

Yes, this thread might just be an attempt to promote that sect. Plenty of reason to hammer home a few truths IMHO



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to posts by Pimander and Uncle Gravity
 

 


Originally posted by Pimander
With respect, I don't call myself a scientist - I am one.

And – by my own account – I’m the murdered son of the Trojan hero Hector.

But never mind. At least one person here takes you at your word, and is delighted to do so:


Originally posted by Uncle Gravity
Yes...........Astyanax get's his butt kicked by a REAL Scientist, brilliant, Pimander you have just made my day. Although beware his friend's i.e maddnessinmysoul etc. will be along soon to round on you..............lol.

When the adulation is so heartfelt, what do poor spelling and the inability to correctly deploy an apostrophe matter?

*



I haven't posted that panspermia happened. My position is that as there is little evidence as to where life originated so your dismissal of the theory is simply a preference.

No. Panspermia is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that multiplies entities unncessarily. It therefore fails the test of Occam’s Razor.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Oh so petty! How i laughed at you wonderful demise, it was magnificent. It must be so painful for an ego such as your's.



Ego is the biggest enemy of humans

Rig Veda.




Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego goes with it



Mind Firmly Closed.......Yes that just about sum's you up!




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join