I'm FED UP with conventional science.

thank you both for clearing up that... it was an idea that came to me at work so i didn't have much chance to follow it up or to research it deeper and as this is my homepage i though i would choose to submit my personal idea here.

i am not a skeptic in anyway i know what i believe in and i also read deeper into 90% of the interests i have, but as i am new to the ATS world i was just submitting a thought which had crossed my mind

i would like more info on Global Warming and also the whole NWO and Planet X so if you would kindly point me in the right direction to continue my research would be very helpful

reply to post by Grant123


I'm far from uninformed, I know how science works and I am not against it.

If you we're to read what I blatantly sited, I am not against science and skepticism, what I am against is fools that think they know everything and can wash anything without evidence to something as acceptable as a Chinese Lantern.

Well, friend, you who call yourselves scientist, believe and rely on these simple answers to the paranormal, yet, you cannot prove one way or the other that's what it is, you're making a hypothesis on no evidence(outside of blatantly hoaxed videos), and yet...



you expect everyone to cater

to your belief



[edit on 26-4-2010 by Revolution-2012]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by Revolution-2012]

reply to post by Revolution-2012


Science is still developing and ever-changing trying to find answers. It is much the same way in which people like you are trying to look for ghosts. However to this day we haven't found any significant proof these things exist. So if the yeti has been disproved by ecological analysis. We die thats is what makes us different than any other animal.

Tesla thought what if and tested it thats correct. All scientists do that. However like Tesla, scientists have knowledge of previous information on their subject allow them to test uncertainties.

Scientists don't viciously tear into every subject a tad out of the ordinary. Most real scientists who are innovating wouldn't waste their time on this subject matter. Why explain things that have no solid evidence. When evidence does come than they can work with it. But as it stands there is no evidence.

The universe is not in perpetual motion. We exist through space and time and we are currently trying to understand that.

No scientist thinks they know more than what they don't know. they don't think what they know matters more than what they don't. Or else they wouldn't want to be scientists, discovering and learning new and exciting things.

There are only two answers to the paranormal existence... yes or no. I use logic based upon education to assert that we do not have any concrete evidence of their existence.

There is no support of your hypothesis. The lack of evidence supports the hypothesis that ghost don't exist. Much like flying pigs.

You haven't had much experience with the scientific community have you?

reply to post by Grant123


The universe is so extremely close to perpetual motion, that it's a hair off.

Let's see, we're "ever expanding" from the force that that once exploded all matter into space.

I'm not hunting for ghosts, stop making assumptions you can't prove. Once again a classical skeptic trademark.

You're still completely avoiding the entire point of this thread, you all hate to admit to anything you don't understand, you hate it, that's why you persist on debating the subject, you can't even debate the subject I am presenting because you don't agree with it, therefore, anything you do not agree with you must rationalize in some "professional"(which by the way, is completely subjective and in the eye of the beholder.) analysis.

The way you rationalize is my definition of ignorance, where as, when I see something I do not understand, I simply state I do not understand it, and I may or may not agree with the typical skeptic analysis.

I've seen a UFO. It disappeared, reappeared, darted across the sky at impossible speeds, stopped, made 90 degree turns, and so forth, with my own eyes, when I was 10. Long before I had ever drank alcohol, or done any drugs. I was not alone when I saw this, my grandfather and mother also witnessed it.

Now, when someone makes a claim like this, it's completely unsubstantiated and I agree that it's probably not worth anymore discussion. However, when videos are posted of these things, you're so quick to find a rational explanation that you don't allow yourself to even consider the possibility it may very well be something that is unexplainable.

If you somehow reverberate what I just said in your own off-shoot, completely missing the point, and stating things such as "I'm not familiar with the scientific community", then you're not seeing the point of this thread, which, as in the original post, you should try and see something besides your own fine-knitted warm cushy jumpsuit of safety and science.

If, you do believe there is things that cannot be wish-washed away, and you agree that you've witnessed certain videos that more than likely would be something besides bugs in a camera lens, then I don't have a further debate with you.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Revolution-2012]

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by FAQAmerica

 

If your kid asks you if he can survive a gunshot wound to the head, are you going to say "don't be skeptic" because medical science says he won't?

You're making a mockery of yourself. You don't need science to figure that out.

In fact, you could create a human and leave him from contact from all other humans, and place him in the outside world, and by INSTINCT he'd KNOW not to jump off the edge of a cliff. Pain is instinct, not a scientific analysis you fool.

Would he know by instinct that if he puts this "gun" next to his head and pulled the trigger that a bullet would explode his face?

Didn't think so, but nice try anyway.

reply to post by FAQAmerica


You know what.

Here's a prime example of ignorance.

If the subject fired a firearm before placing it in his hand, I think he'd know better than to put it to his head.

Also, guns look fairly sinister in origin anyways, so I think the subject would be cautious.

The best part of what you just said, completely reaffirms the fact that people who are out to deter the purpose of a thread do so by nit picking at certain subjects of which the matter exists, and then running it into the ground, ALAS

DERAILING THE THREAD.

Please, do continue, you're making a prime example for my sociological principle:

People who are single-edged skeptics can be complete idiots.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Revolution-2012]

reply to post by Revolution-2012


The universe may be perpetually changing with time. But is not in a perpetual repeating motion.

You don't really get it. Science uses facts to prove or disprove a hypothesis. The paranormal doesn't have substantial empirical evidence. Once it does than you can analyze it. Science uses the exact same method to which you are trying to prove the paranormal. However there is no evidence so you can't do much with that.

I think scientists agree there is a potential or chance for life beyond earth. Space is infinite showing infinite possibilities within the restrictions space and time. The earth however is finite and does have boundaries.

I got what you said. But you made some pretty outlandish comments on the scientific method. You can believe in something with just faith but you can prove it. Your logic and argument are random and unorganized.
Essentially what you saying is that because scientists don't agree with your views its petty and worthless. That you yourself a skeptic can judge people because they are skeptic of your ideas is just hypocritical.

You should try spending your time on something that is worthwhile and not a waste of time. If ever we do get empirical and significant evidence of what you believe in than go for it. But for now stop wasting your time with something you can't prove.

Science isn't subjective. That's why there are peer reviewed journals...so other people can read and criticize any weakness in factual evidence. Science uses facts. And again they try to understand what they don't know by testing it.

Example:
I didn't know the affects of caffeine, DEET, and triclosin on wood frogs. I tested it using various concentrations based off of highest natural levels found by the USGS in 2002. What I learned was that these chemicals significantly decrease survivorship. Facts.

Your the one making assumptions based of ignorance lacking significant proof. Don't be ridiculous. Stop making grand generalizations of a logical method of learning and discovery.

P.S.
Gun wouldn't look sinister to anyone who had never had any knowledge. Thats why you keep them out of reach of kids.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Grant123]

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by FAQAmerica

 

You know what.

Here's a prime example of ignorance.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Revolution-2012]

I'm glad you warned us before you started your post, saved me a lot time I would of spent reading it.

reply to post by Grant123


Your empirical evidence supporting the idea that every UFO is a Chinese Lantern or weather balloon is not empirical evidence by any means,

It's speculation.

reply to post by Revolution-2012


I don't think any "real" scientist would bother too much with UFO sitings. Also you can't prove its true because the lack of evidence. Ballon or not.

reply to post by Revolution-2012


Right but what of no mention on your side that the Earth is experiencing an extinction crisis on par with the worse in the history of the planet? Science looks to the Universe yet humans evolved from Earth and we have about 20 years left of freshwater on the planet -- not to mention the oil crisis, global warming, overpopulation, nuclear waste and radiation fall out, etc. All this is FROM SCIENCE!!!

naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com... is my explanation for this reality.

Originally posted by Grant123
reply to post by theo86

 

I would trust the guys putting in years of work on the subject.
The ice-caps also contain a lot more water than ice in a pint glass
[edit on 26-4-2010 by Grant123]

Bravo Theo. Don't trust anyone. Do the experiment, Grant. Ice melting in your Coca-Cola never did and never will raise the level in the glass. It lowers the level.

The percentage of pack (floating ice) to glacial ice is key. Glacial ice melt will run into the sea. But remember, volume of water will be less than volume of snow/ice. So how significant will glacial melt be? Its a big ocean. And the solar cycle could freeze us tomorrow, if it wants. And pack melt can offset glacial melt.

I'm not selling my beach house just yet.

The key with science is to learn HOW to think, learn what HAS been thought, then VERIFY and EXTEND knowledge through experiment and evaluation. If you aren't fed up, you won't fight back. And fighting back is what Einstein and others did. They aren't the last word, nor will we be, and the quest will go on forever. Question! Always!

Great thread!!

It can surely be said that anyone who thinks science can explain everything or even a fraction of things in the universe is ignorant to reality.

Originally posted by drew hempel
reply to post by Revolution-2012

 

Right but what of no mention on your side that the Earth is experiencing an extinction crisis on par with the worse in the history of the planet? Science looks to the Universe yet humans evolved from Earth and we have about 20 years left of freshwater on the planet -- not to mention the oil crisis, global warming, overpopulation, nuclear waste and radiation fall out, etc. All this is FROM SCIENCE!!!

naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com... is my explanation for this reality.

but why your blog of your own explanation for this reality is empty?