On "Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?

John casts:

I will present a page and let someone respond to it so as to continue the discussion.

Q bites:

What would be the point of continuing a discussion ? After all, you've clearly stated:

...no one can ever shake my belief in it or out-argue me on the subject of it

Besides, your link is not working. I receive a 'page not found' error.
 
I just went back and tried accessing that page twice, Q, and it worked both time for me. After supper I'll look for another copy of it somewhere.
 
<i>Corporate/government science continues to direct what is permissable to be published in their ever ongoing agenda of controlling society. None of them have any science supporting their Ultimate Creation Theory, yet they continue to support it and simultaneously continue to supress any science that refutes it, which is all the scientific evidence they've gleaned since they came up with their quasi-religious set of theories.</i>

Corporate/government science invented this internet that you are currently using. You are free to publish whatever you like concerning any theory you might have. If you search the internet you'll find thousands of anti-big bang sites. It doesn't seem to me that "alternative" theories are being suppressed. Quite the opposite in fact. It is now easier to distribute such theories widely than it has ever been before.

<i>But further discussion on the validity of the Ultimate Creation Theory as opposed to the Unified Field Theory is not necessary at this point.</i>

You're right. We can't discuss something which doesn't exist, and the Unified Field Theory does not exist.

You're still covering your ears and crying "I'm not listening!".

Well, good luck to you.
 
John MacNeil:

Why is it you never answer James R's questions? If we, for the moment, presume that you possess capabilities superior to his, surely his questions represent no challenge to, or strain on, you. If you have some sort of problem conversing with James R, you are quite free to imagine instead that I have asked those questions of you.
I believe a sufficient amount has been stated about Unified Field Theory so that we all know that no one can ever shake my belief in it or out-argue me on the subject of it,....
Click to expand...
Yes, I supppose you can state such, since you couch your arguments and proofs in terms without common scientific meaning or known scientific utility. And the fact that you can cling to your beliefs with such tenactity is not evidence of anything other than the tenacity with which you can cling to your beliefs.

Answer James R's questions--er, my questions. Demonstrate how well you understand, and are experienced with, the formal Sciences that you decry as being so intolerant of your ideas. Surely you are not so intolerant of formal Science's working ideas and concepts that you never bothered to find out exactly what they are, how they inter-relate, and how formal Science's terminologies are intended to be used according to their commonly accepted meanings and descriptive utility?

Answer the questions, before we move on.
 
It is amazing how you religionists continue to support your Ultimate Creation Theory on nothing and then claim others do not have an understanding of basic concepts of science. Am I to really believe that James, who says he studies physics, has never read a book by Einstein? And that he, after studying physics, does not know what equivalence, the state of being radiant, or the conservation of energy are? Am I to believe that James, or you, Mr.G., have never heard of the particle/wave theory of light? Or has religion changed physics so much with their Ultimate Creation Theory that even scientific terms have been changed to mean as nothing as the very theory which you so inadequately defend?

The Unified Field Theory has been talked about enough for the moment, and we should let it simmer so that the truth of it has time to blend in your thought so that when we come back to it later on in this discussion, it will be with a fuller knowledge of it after our examining other evidence which supports it. I understand why you creationists are reluctant to move on to the next evidence which I present. After all, if you expend so much time and energy suppressing and denying the existence of it, you surely must shudder at having to confront it with someone defending it who is not the least bit intimidated by your corporate/government's secret services.

The tall skulls of the people from Peru and Mexico, which Robert Connolly photographed and which are presented in the article on the web which I have referenced in my previous post, are clearly the skulls of people with no anatomical resemblance to modern humans and are far larger and different from all other skulls that the scientific community has admitted to finding. They are of an age that places them well within the age of modern human, as is evident by their fine state of preservation. These skulls of people so radically different from us are found throughout Peru and Mexico in numbers that prove they were not some strange mutation but a viable species. Their large brain cases, which range from 2500 to 3300 cc and are almost double the size of modern humans average brain cases, prove that they cannot be the result of having their heads being squished between boards, as some 'reputed' scientists have stated in the past. Since it is obvious that these skulls are from people that contemporary scientists deny ever having existed, the question must be asked, where did they come from and why is corporate/science trying so desperately to keep the knowledge of them secret?

It is true, James, that corporate/science invented the internet, but they also invented nuclear weapons and look at the pickle they've gotten themselves into with those.
 
While I cannot comment intelligently on the elongated skulls, I believe that the onion-shaped skull is that of a young child, not an adult. The first thing I noticed were the large eye sockets - a tell-tale sign of infant skulls in many species, including humans. But an even larger clue is that the plates of the skull aren't fused together yet; there are even openings at the temples, where three plates come together.

I am not an expert, but the onion-head looks like an example of infant hydrocephalus.

Peace.

_____________
Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace.
It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man;
it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him.
  • -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
 
John MacNeil:

I should have been more precise. I had in mind the questions in several of James R's previous posts--like his 09-16-02 at 03:01 AM post on the previous page:

* There is no Unified Field Theory to think through, as far as I am aware. If you think that Einstein created such a thing, please provide a reference to where we can all read about it.

* You are using some terms in a way I am not familiar with. To make sure that we're talking about the same thing, I'm going to ask you to define some of those terms as you understand them. The first of these is the "law of equivalence". What does that law say?

* Please explain what you mean by "heat". That is another term which has a somewhat technical definition as far as I am concerned, and once again I need to know if we are talking about the same thing.

* Does this mean that you are claiming that photons have a finite size? How big are they?

* As I understand it, photons do not interact with one another. Please explain your conception of how a photon might be "constrained" by other photons.

* Another undefined term. What is the "self-preservation principle"? I have never come across this in my studies of physics.


As for the skull photos from your link to one of the websites of David Icke, truth teller, one can also find this bit of wisdom at his main site:
Four commercial airliners had to be simultaneously hi-jacked in American air space via American airports and flown into highly specific targets within 45 minutes of each other. How was this possible? Because it was an inside job, that's how, orchestrated by forces WITHIN the United States and planned by the highest levels of U.S. "Intelligence" in co-ordination with other strands of the Illuminati spider's web worldwide...."benefits" to the agenda from the death and destruction in New York and Washington that was, I repeat, co-ordinated by forces within U.S. borders. Those responsible are possessed by non-human entities....The reptilian mind....
Click to expand...
So, how many of Mr. Icke's books and 'lecture' tickets have you purchased over the years? And, what you seem to be getting at, without coming right out and saying (alien ark hpothesis, and gov/corp science conspiracy) it explicitly, is: that government/corporate scientists are mind-controlled, or at least manipulated, by reptilian-alien-human-hybrid spawn who came here millions of years ago and took over the Earth for their own nefarious, if not evil, purposes?

Frankly, I find Mr. Icke to be one very disturbed individual, indeed. And having spent much time today reading his thoughts in print, I now am forced to devote much of the rest of the day cleaning out my bullshit filter.
 
Actually, Mr.G., I never heard of davidicke before last night when I hurriedly searched for a replacement of my original reference site which quit working. I will now go and find Robert Connolly's photos from a different site so that you don't think I am endorsing a mind control conspiracy. Still, the skulls are real so why don't you address that subject?
 
Just because I am convinced of my position, Q, is no reason to end the discussion.

As are alien abductee's convinced of their abductions with no reasonable evidence ?

I haven't exactly heard anyone else endorsing any of what I had to say..

That should come as no surprise since little of what you've claimed is even comprehensible. You've yet to qualify those claims, at the very least with some sort of explanation of terms. I would gladly go back through this thread and identify those claims and terms in question if you so wish.

Still, the skulls are real so why don't you address that subject?

Are they real ? Of course, there is no reason to believe those skulls were "cosmetically doctored" in any way. Can you produce any links to these findings from a reputable source ?
 
Both "J" and "M" types are bordering on biological impossibility... Any conjectures that what these specimens represent are simply deformations or pathological cases can be hardly substantiated.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree, I have provided a plausible explanation for the type “M” skull, so what makes him think there is none for the other?

Peace.

_____________
Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace.
It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man;
it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him.
  • -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
 
At first observation the onion-shaped head looks hydrocepahlic, but when you look closer at it, Goofyfish, you see that it can't be the skull of a child. The jaw is slightly larger than an adult human's and the teeth are adult type teeth.

The elongated type of skulls represent a type of people different than any we've known and there are far more examples of them than there are of Skhul V or Neandderthals. They are found from Mexico to central South America and many example of them are in local museums. Here is one such museum presentation:

www.nohoax.com/Peruvian skulls.html

and, no, Mr.G., I am not affiliated with that website or it's authors, nor am I endorsing any product for sale contained within that website.

If Darwinian Theory of Evolution is true as a viable theory, then the believers of that theory should have no trouble placing these skull within the phylogenic family tree of humans. If they can't do that, then their Darwinian Theory of Evolution is defunct.
 
John MacNeil:

Have you any links to verifiable CAT scan images by which it has been determined that the skulls pictured are internally consistant with hominid skulls and are not just fashioned lumps of clay. Anecdotal claims of cranial capacities are insufficient evidence.

Certainly there are extant linkable anthropological studies of these skulls that are not associated with sources devoted to UFOs and New Ageism? Surely actual SETI researchers would have been all over these skulls ages ago, too. What have they determined from first-hand analysis of the skulls? How about some reports from studies by forensic pathologists?
 
My,..My,.Mr.G., do we sense a little panic? Made of clay? You think? The old religious house of Ultimate Creation seems to be crumbling before our very eyes. It must be quite a shock to realize you've devoted a large part of your life to a scam that is not going to be perpetuated throughout your lifetime. If you're falling apart already, what are you going to do when I advance the discussion to the next level? And the next after that? Why, I'm just getting started, Mr.G. I'm not even warmed up yet.
 
John MacNeil:

Illusions of panic has nothing to do with anything except your propensity for still more fantasy.
 
John,

I've asked what I believe to be very reasonable questions, which should be very easy for you to answer given your profound comprehension of your subject. Yet strangely, no answers seem to be forthcoming - only further claims. Why is that?
 
John McNeil:
The pictures of those skulls are neat. I've seen some big skulls in my time, still inside breathing people. One guy I saw in the navy had a huge head that looked like the monster from Alien.

Basically, you're saying you don't think the Skhul V skull is a homo sapien, but a neanderthal or something else. It looks human to me, and I don't see why the Smithsonian would claim (or present the scientific research of those who make a living doing this) they weren't, unless, of course, they are under orders from the Vatican.

On the physics/photon thread, you've been quick to try and establish that I'm not an expert on Cosmology, which is true, but I was only trying to reiterate what I thought I knew from reading about it. I never claimed any authority. However, I have had physics training, nuclear and reactor physics, specifically, in the Navy, and I know enough about physics in general to know that you're laying down a long line of horse oil with your photons pushing each other through the light stream. I began to think perhaps you're making all this stuff up just to piss off people who are under the impression this is a forum for semi-serious aficionados. But perhaps you are serious. In that case, argument is most likely a waste of time. The mold is set, as it were.

The only serious physicist I have read of that talks about photons interacting is David Deutsch, who proposes that interference patterns in double-slit experiments are photons cancelling each other out from multiple universes. Any comments from the physically able?

John Le Coq
 
Some of you guys are so funny. Do you think you can carry on your charade forever? You people obviously know very little about physics. In the Navy? Is that the same as in a nuclear reactor? Where they intentionally get people who don't know much about physics so they will just operate the controls according to directions and not be able to think for themselves about the processes involved?

And if James had an aptitude for physics, wouldn't he already know what conservation of energy is? Wouldn't he have heard of the particle/wave theory of light? Wouldn't he know about equivalence and heat? Is it perhaps true that James intent is just to steer the discussion around in circles to avoid having to discuss the reality? Is it possible that Jame's extensive study of physics actually is the study of the Ultimate Creation Theory (big bang!) and the equally ridiculous infinite density, Black Hole Theory? Or is it possibly the even dumber 6 dimension String Theory? Or it's even more outlandish 8 or 10 or 12 dimension Super String Theory? If James hasn't already read:
Essays on Science--Albert Einstein
The Evolution of Physics--Einstein
The Meaning of Relativity--Einstein
The Principle of Relativity--Einstein
Investigations on the Theory of Brownian Movement--Einstein
Relativity: The Special and General Theory--Einstein
then he hasn't studied real physics for he would then know the answers to the questions he keeps insisting he doesn't know the answers to.

If James and Mr.G. or anyone else were able to defend their phony Ultimate Creation cum Evolution theory, (or is it vice versa), they would be doing so instead of trying to divert the discussion onto definitions of terms that are well known and understood. That diversionary tactic is just a simple ploy of the religionists, in which category I lump those in the science community who intentionally supress truth for personal or professional gain, whenever they feel confronted by truth that their previous lies cannot supress.

The fact is, those skulls that I presented the pictures of are real and there are examples of them in museums and private collectons all over the planet. Those particular pictures were taken in 1995 and the skulls were on display in many places long before that. The Smithsonian Institution has known about them for a long time and purposely supressed the knowledge of them so that they could continue with their bogus Evolution Theory. Can anyone doubt that with pictures all over the Internet and with examples of the skulls in museums and private collections, no one has brought the knowledge of them to the Smithsonian's attention in all these years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top