John: I commend you for having the balls to stand up for your position; unlike Warren who sensed he was in for some critical scrutiny and ran away like a panty-bunched, Titanic crewman pushing women and children aside to get to a life boat.
But at least you are willing to stand up and be accounted. I respect you for that.
A block of stone is just a rock until the disciplined mind of the sculptor frees the statue from its imprisonment. What good for all can come of a statue you might imagine in rock if you haven't the proper tools and operational skill sets to release it?"We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."--Einstein
Surely the TOE, the SCM (Big Bang) and the TOPT (plate tectonics) are each, and together, the result of many others who also believe in science -- people who also hold qualifying opinions quite contrary to your own. You don't know personally most, or any, of them, so you cannot say with any certainty that any one of them is less intuitive than you.I am the one who believes in science and has stated throughout that empirical description must be applied to all state of matter.
Alien design is your claim. As there isn't a single alien in evidence for any of us to see, it is up to you to show us how to come by alternative observational evidence. But, it can't be subjective evidence obvious only to yourself. It has to be objective (requiring real tools and real skill sets) evidence, obvious to everyone regardless of one's personal world-view.You think that talking about the requiremnts of scientific observation is the same as making some.
Anecdotes are evidence only of one's ability to quote the words of others. None of your quotes, nor all of them, is evidence for alien design. It's just more talk.I have given you several examples from scientists to illustrate the falseness of your creationist theories, and you totally ignore all of them in favor of your diatribe.
Our kind? As opposed to "Your kind"? And where do "their kind" fit into your equation? Or, the "Other kind"?You think you "creationists" and "evolutionists", proponents of "God" and the "Big Bang", can hide your association, but there are plenty of people who are on to your kind.
Do you suspect the Vatican is where the aliens are hiding? Now, there's a testable hypothesis!!The....Vatican....over the centuries....they have been amassing their power and influence...could teach the modern secret services a thing or two about "secrecy"."
The Standard Cosmologic Model is just a conceptual framework for organizing information and drawing tentative conclusions. It has no power to do things like initiating the Rapture, or cause you to feel obligated to put money in the collection plate so that the priests can afford some leisure time with the alter boys.The "big bang" is as creationist as the god creating the earth and the heavens and if you don't knowingly perceive that then perhaps you have been duped as well and are just following along like any wooly member of a herd of sheep.
So? Oberth's & Von Braun's expertise was rocketry/engineering, not genetics or cosmology. Einstein's expertise was not genetics or engineering. Each of them had opinions, yes. But, science's knowledge base is not built from opinion. It's built from reproducible data. Halton Arp has very little independently reproducible data.Herman Oberth was assistant to Werner Von Braun,....Einstein,...was perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived on this planet.
Quotes are just more talk. Talk is not motion. Motion is not always action.I've used these people's work and opinions to illustrate the falsity of your creationist orientation....
Empirical connotes experience. For you to suggest that you have empirical evidence of alien design further implies you have experience with alien engineering. Have you probative experience to back up your claim?....and to reinforce my position that matter and systems constructed of matter can best be described with empirical methodology,
Might that actually be my estimation of appropriate addressing?....you steadfastly refuse to address any of the reality of the evidence I've proffered....
You do know what is said about beauty?...and continue to avoid all subjects of reality in favor of obfuscation.
John, no more beer for you. Have some more pizza. And let me have your car keys.If you are unable to discuss the subject in a logical manner, I'll understand that, since neither your "creationist theory" nor your "ultimate creationist theory" are defensible.
John. Why don't I just call you a cab.While joining up with the fringe element may give you persuasive power, by sheer volume of your chatter, in some circles, it advances your creationist position not one single step towards reality.
From the Smithsonian Institution's own website: ....the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago.I never said that Aliens made us, but that they may have been instrumental in bringing different species of us humans to this planet. I pose that hypothesis on the fact that there is no phylogenic record that proves our type of human were here before 30,000 year ago. The fact that we can't prove such a record is corraborated by the Smithsonian Institution.
If we can't prove aliens exist, or have existed -- there are no alien fossils or DNA from specimens in amber or peat bogs -- than "how can we be so certain that our interpretation of evidence"...."is conclusive evidence that the...." Alien Ark hypothesis "....holds true for" modern humans "...on this planet?"If we can't prove our genetic evolution past a mere 30,000 year ago, how can we be so certain that our interpretation of evidence from several billion year ago is conclusive evidence that the Theory of Evolution holds true for all life on this planet?
Current scientific evidence allows even less support for the Alien Ark hypothesis.....the current evidence does not support the theory that everything evolved on this planet....
Testable hypotheses and their falsifiable predictions is how science examines 'possibilities'. Of course, such testables and predictions must first exist in order to be examined.Therefore that leaves open other possibilities that must be examined or we are not being faithful to science.
But scientific proof of aliens is non-existant. Crop circles, lacerated bovines, hearsay and anecdotal story-telling is not scientific evidence that aliens exist or brought us here in their space ark.The proof of Aliens having been among us or having visited us for thousands of year is abundant.
The The National Institute for Discovery Science is one more 'fringe' group tring hard to be scientific-like.The National Institute for Discovery Science....
Then it is good that the National Institute for Discovery Science is looking into such things. That frees all other scientists for the study of everthing else.From what I've been able to read on their website,....there is plenty....that....scientists have no explanation for, nor can they duplicate the procedures. That....whatever is going on is worth exploring....that is....the whole jist of my argument....
When I question the veracity of the....[Big Bang theory]....it is because [it] is[n't] verifiable and....impedethe advancement of real science.
I can't respond to this without resorting to unscholarly mannerisms.....there are plenty of people who regard science more objectively....
Since no credible evidence for "a species that is far more advanced than us" currently exists, you're building assumptions atop one another--turtles, all the way down.If the [Big Bang] Theory is factual then that rules out the necessary evolutionary development time needed for a natural selection process to formulate a species that is far more advanced than us.
No. Because it isn't: "refute...idea...isn't" means, "prove idea is". And it isn't. No refute necessary.What this description describes is that all the known matter in the universe,....was once confined to a space of 1 inch.... Are you able to refute that that idea isn't creationism?
Just as James R. pointed out to you earlier, you quite misunderstand the very basics of a theory you would like people to believe ou understand well enough to know that it cannot possibly be true.When they say that the thimbleful of matter, that in the beginning was everything, finally exploded in what is called the "Big Bang", that it was blasted out into space in every conceivable direction. If that is so then the center of the universe must be completely empty.
All points in space-time were the center of the universe. Some points in space-time currently appear vacant. Some points in space-time currently host human brain cells. The National Institute of Discovery has scientists looking for a correlation....if there truely was a big bang, we should be able to observe the vacant center of the universe because it would be visible from whichever position we ended up in.
The next important assumption, the one behind the Big Bang theory, is that at every time in the Universe, space looks the same in every direction at every point. Looking the same in every direction is called isotropic, and looking the same at every point is called homogeneous. So we're assuming that space is homogenous and isotropic. Cosmologists call this the assumption of maximal symmetry. At the large distance scales relevant to cosmology, it turns out that it's a reasonable approximation to make.Another refutation of the big bang is the Cosmological Principle which states that matter in the universe is homogenous and isotropic.
You are correct that the universe evolves. You are correct that the universe didn't first explode. But what you have used to come to those conclusion is inaccurate characterizations of the very theory you say you know and that it must be wrong.It is therefore my contention that the universe evolved rather than was created by an explosion.
Therefore, I've taken to refering to your hypothesis as the "Alien Ark" hypothesis. And because it doesn't really deal with 'design' issues, AAH is largely off-topic.I never said that Aliens made us, but that they may have been instrumental in bringing different species of us humans to this planet.
Please do. I would like several of us to tackle the formulation of testable hypotheses and falsifiable predictions for non-supernatural design (mainly for the mental exercise) because its proponents seem quite unable to do it themselves.I am going to reread it several times before I weigh in more on various specifics.
Arp has made some useful contributions, and rebels aren't to be automatically dismissed because sometimes they are right. But I do tend toward general agreement with your assessment. He's not in Velikovsky's league, however.The rantings of a classical crackpot.
Yes, as you state it and understand it.Are you saying that all the sources that state that the "big bang" was the result of an outward explosion at criticality are wrong and that you are right?
Um, for much the same reason you call it the "Ultimate Creation Theory. You see, before the SCM there was the "Steady State Theory: This theory, which dominated prior to Big Bang cosmology, asserts that the Universe has no beginning or is temporally infinite. Although the Universe is expanding, its large-scale features have remained relatively the same. New matter is continuously created out of nothing to fill the space in between galaxies as that space stretches with expansion. Fred Hoyle was the well-known advocate of this theory at the time that Laimatre, Hubble, and others were proposing Big Bang cosmology. Hoyle actually coined the term "Big Bang", a term he used in derision of the theory."Why on earth do you think they would call it a "big bang" if there was no "big bang"?
31 qualifying characterizations.....obfuscation, ...immature, ....harping, ....not_worth, ....speculations, ....laborer, ....fanatic, ....dogma, ....avoid, ....religious_zeal, ....creationist, ....specious, ....vacuous, ....misleading, ....fooling, ....spout, ....your_kind, ....phony, ....faith, ....conjecture, ....least_intelligent, ....vacuous, ....divert, ....limited, ....perihperal ....wish, ....nothing_to_do_with_reality, ....evasive, ....unable, ....bully, ....rhetoric....
Only 5. You aren't giving yourself enough credit.....renowned....cornerstone....mature_intelligence....factual_science....utmost clarity....
Um, I started the thread, defining the 'real dicussion' as being about hypotheses for non-supernatural design. In fact, your 'real discussion' is an entirely different, off-topic topic.You seem to be making a slow transition to the real discussion.
Sure. If I must translate "Yes, as you state it and understand it" from the English: I said, I have a different, more accurate & more authoritative understanding of the Standard Cosmological Model than do you.When you say that you have a different perception of the Standard Cosmological Model than do Stephen Hawking, NASA and all the others, could you explain that view more fully?
I imagine you can. Do you also realize that mother's milk is a gateway drug?I can imagine how revelatory it must be to realize that the Standard Cosmological Model you'd been taught in school was nothing but a fraud perpetrated by the catholic church.
It before hasn't gone unnoticed, just uncommented, that quite obviously your are better orientated toward, and better read up on, conspiracy theories than scientific theories.....fraud perpetrated by the catholic church, ....Lemaitre, ....catholic priest, ....Hubble, ....cristian,....
So? Hawking believes "God not only plays with dice, he sometimes throws them where they can't be seen."Einstein believed "God does not play with dice"....
I am disturbed to observe that worthy credence due many individuals' science-applied intelligence can be so easily, and so universally, discounted by you due to irrational, conspiracy-driven paranoia. An atheist, I'm certainly no friend of organized religion, nor of metaphysics, but I am quite able to appreciate that a person's religious beliefs don't necessarily conflict with the person's ability to accomplish outstanding science. That you are motivated to search under conceptual rocks for hidden conspiracies is insufficient reason for anyone else to presume that under anyone's rock you are finding one, other than your own.The religionists were afraid that Einstein's recent theories could undermine their creation theory and so they invented the "Ultimate Creation Theory" as a backup.