Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 56 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 5
E
emaad Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
E
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 5
Year 2012 a very deadly year for Earth..On this day Solar storms will destroy communication system of whole world and will Push us back in the past.............Read
very intresting artcile on this topic by clicking the link below.


http://www.risethemag.com/viewarticles.aspx?aid=173

.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Sounds like we better stock up on transformers and other essential items to restore the power grid. We may experience the sky falling in more ways than one.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
For more paranoid and end of the world inspiring thoughts..
http://www.whowillsurvive2012.com
http://www.instituteforhumancontinuity.org


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Wow! All sorts of doom and gloom scenarios are available. Should we adopt Dr. Strangelove's tactic and start putting people to live in mine shafts to preserve human life. Or would that not protect them sufficiently? What if the stresses on the Earth collapsed all the mine shafts?


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Maybe sell space on the space station, and add RV hookups?? whistle


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
From the sounds of things, the space station would be fried also. All that electronic gear they depend on to keep them in orbit would likely suffer from that big a cataclysm. I want to be on the first ship to Mars and beyond. Maybe if we're lucky the coronal mass ejection from such a large solar event won't be pointed in our direction.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 37
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 37
Isn't this the same year predicted by the Mayan calendar for the world to start over again?


- Kevat Shah
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Kevat Shah
Isn't this the same year predicted by the Mayan calendar for the world to start over again?

Yes; but no need to study the history books to find primitive modes of thought. Alas, there are still very many people on this planet who cling to such ideas. The renaissance...science...education...it all seems to have passed them by.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
This unsubstantiated prediction has the same veracity as all the others that foretell disaster. The thing is that we know if predictions are true only after they have become history. Searching through predictions and then exclaiming in delight that a prophet had predicted the event (usually in amibiguous code), does not validate a prophesy. History does. And there are very, very few cases that can survive investigation. On Dec. 22nd 2012 we will all know if this one stands the test of time, or whether it will join the million or so other predictions of doom resting in the rubbish bin!

Meanwhile I'll stock up on baked beans and bottled water!!!

Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 37
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 37
Yea, I understand that the calls for Armageddon are over the top. The thing I find interesting is that the Mayans actually knew the exact date that the sun, earth and the center of the galaxy line up, which is supposed to be in 2012. Doesn't that make you wonder how a civilization not supposed to be so advanced actually figured out what a galaxy was and where its center was located before the telescope was invented in the Western World? Maybe they had telescopes before, but then lost the technology during some dark ages.

According to some astronomers, this alignment of sun, earth and the black hole at the center of the galaxy leads to an increase in sun spots.


- Kevat Shah
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Kevat Shah
"Doesn't that make you wonder how a civilization not supposed to be so advanced actually figured out what a galaxy was and where its center was located before the telescope was invented in the Western World?

I don't find myself wondering that.

While there's no reason to believe that they were any less intelligent than people of our day - and given a modern day education, they would doubtless have produced their share of Nobel Prize candidates - but they could not have known what a galaxy was. The Mayan understanding of the Milky Way was limited to what they could deduce by naked eye observation, and probably a mass of imaginative speculation. What they would have seen clearly, on dark, moonless nights, would have been a band of hazy light stretching across the sky. They were sufficiently far south to have seen the denser, brighter part of the band, i.e. the galactic centre. They evidently accumulated sufficient data to calculate various astronomical alignments, just as the builders of Stonehenge did.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
What the Mayans saw was thru the spiritual eye, their understanding of astrology still far exceeds the knowns of our current civilized world.
Oh, And I'm not talking of the Mayans as science and archeology believes them to have been, cutting the hearts out of their own kind in blood sacrifice.We would have to go a bit further back than humanity believes civilization existed with any amount of reasonable intelligence.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
T.T. "What the Mayans saw was thru the spiritual eye, their understanding of astrology still far exceeds the knowns of our current civilized world."

That's what I said. A mass of speculative imagination.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
I agree, the majority of todays self conclusions concerning the Maya, Aztec and Egyptian philosophy and sciences are right up there on the same shelf with the extinction of the dinosaurs and human evolution, as speculative imagination.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Each of those belongs on a different shelf.

The theories of dinosaur extinction are supported by scientific evidence. The challenge, now, is to find further evidence to explain the apparent data discrepancy between theory models. There's still room for informed speculation.

Evolution...well, just study it, especially the research of the past decade. If you had done so, then you would realise that speculation has nothing to do with it.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Each of those belongs on a different shelf.
Possibly as a subject of discussion but when it comes down to determining fact, the shelf they sit on is the same.
Originally Posted By: redewenur

The theories of dinosaur extinction are supported by scientific evidence.
The challenge, now, is to find further evidence to explain the apparent data discrepancy between theory models. There's still room for informed speculation.

Data discrepancy is pointing toward scientific evidence as being incorrect or correct but not determined or known to be either. So some speculate....
Originally Posted By: redewenur

Evolution...well, just study it, especially the research of the past decade. If you had done so, then you would realise that speculation has nothing to do with it.
I see, there is no speculation or imagination involved in the study of something that is not determined to have any absolute or verified explanation. frown

Anyway, Like I said:
What the Mayans saw was thru the spiritual eye, their understanding of astrology still far exceeds the knowns of our current civilized world.
The fully functional human instrument still exceeds the boundaries of the mechanical instrument derived from the limitations of the imagination of the human instrument when it is not functioning at its intellectual and spiritual peak, or when blocked by the dogma of belief be it spiritual or scientific.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Making stuff up is still a lot easier than doing the actual work to develop understanding. Good thing there's real scientists willing to question and go back to the lab (or the field).

The product of science: mapping of the human genome, men on the moon, biological taxonomies, laws of physics.

The product of nonsensical blathering inspired by the afflatus of a fake psychic? More blathering.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
I see...

No. You don't see. Because you've chosen to remain totally ignorant of the facts. It would be pointless to attempt a useful dialogue until you have gained at least a basic understanding of the meaning of the term ‘natural selection’.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
I see...

No. You don't see. Because you've chosen to remain totally ignorant of the facts. It would be pointless to attempt a useful dialogue until you have gained at least a basic understanding of the meaning of the term ‘natural selection’.


I've chosen to accept more than the dogmatic approach to the what you can see, hear, feel and touch while in a particular state of intellectual and cognitive evolution. The type of thought approach that says we know what nature is, these are the facts that we claim to be self evident, and we accept nothing else, no other type of thought, and we claim authority. The authority that says, think this way, any other way is un-natural and unproductive.

Obviously dialogue has rules for those who want things to go in particular direction and have no tolerance for any other. The signs are usually the condescending remarks, general statements, and sometimes the childish threats to turn toward the moderators for censorship. C'est la vie.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




S
Steeleagle
Unregistered
Steeleagle
Unregistered
S
If we were to say that Mayans through mathematical and cosmogonic calculation had guesstimated or reached the conclusion that an objet of considerable mass, was to crash agains the Earth and cause a catastrophe, I would be worried. When they say, the Mayans used their third eye and foresee the end of the world, it is just a good laugh.

Last edited by Steeleagle; 05/19/09 06:37 PM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Steeleagle
If we were to say that Mayans through mathematical and cosmogonic calculation had guesstimated or reached the conclusion that an objet of considerable mass, was to crash agains the Earth and cause a catastrophe, I would be worried. When they say, the Mayans used their third eye and foresee the end of the world, it is just a good laugh.
Of course, how could they know about the course of a comet they could not see and calculate its trajectory with complex mathematics? Silly isn't it.

Must be more to it, because we know what is possible and what isn't. sick


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Some people with very poor understanding of actual science will insist that since we don't know everything that we cannot at least tentatively discount unlikely explanations, in favor of more prosaic explanations, because not being familiar with this particular situation, we cannot, of course, have any basis for determining what is likely and what is unlikely. This is because these people have a comic book understanding of the history of science, what it is and how it works.

It's as productive to argue with one of these persons as it is to argue with a rock about composition of stars.

Anybody seen the PBS special on inside a cult? The one about Michael Travessor? See, this guy predicts the end of the world - and it doesn't happen. His cult members find a way to justify this post facto. And of course they think he's very wise and he thinks he's very wise. He's agonizingly dumb, but the followers are as impervious to reason as, say, fake mediums or reptilian conspiracy theorists. Leon Festinger wrote about this in 1956.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Some people with very poor understanding of actual science will insist that since we don't know everything that we cannot at least tentatively discount unlikely explanations, in favor of more prosaic explanations, because not being familiar with this particular situation, we cannot, of course, have any basis for determining what is likely and what is unlikely. This is because these people have a comic book understanding of the history of science, what it is and how it works.
A comic book understanding of spiritual sciences when applied to the absolute understanding of reality as it is applied to a science yet to be defined is comical.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

It's as productive to argue with one of these persons as it is to argue with a rock about composition of stars.
It's as productive to argue as a basis of education and evolution, as it is to be a rock ignorant of the stars and the rocks connection to the stars. Everything is relative to a perspective of opinion. Everything is connected and alive regardless of opinion.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Anybody seen the PBS special on inside a cult? The one about Michael Travessor? See, this guy predicts the end of the world - and it doesn't happen. His cult members find a way to justify this post facto. And of course they think he's very wise and he thinks he's very wise. He's agonizingly dumb, but the followers are as impervious to reason as, say, fake mediums or reptilian conspiracy theorists. Leon Festinger wrote about this in 1956.

I guess this is like insinuating science has created the means to destroy the world 10 times over without considering the potential of the ignorance that would use it. Poisons that destroy the growth and development of babies which are saturating the groundwater we drink and a few other things we could add to the list. Blind enthusiasm without any conscience or insight to the repercussions of choice.

Not exactly a scientific approach. but then.......


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Everything is connected and alive regardless of opinion."
Assertions are not evidence. "Everything is alive???" This is belief - religion, but you're frankly not educated sufficiently to know you're full of crap.

"Blind enthusiasm without any conscience or insight to the repercussions of choice."
Assertions are not evidence. Real scientists don't advocate blind enthusiasm without conscience or insight - particularly when the "conscience" you and your ilk advocate is imaginary.

"Not exactly a scientific approach. but then......."
As if you had the faintest idea what constitutes a "scientific approach."

"Help me Mr. Wizard, I don't wanna be a genius anymore!!!"
That never was any serious danger of that.

Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 05/20/09 01:41 PM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"Everything is connected and alive regardless of opinion."
Assertions are not evidence. "Everything is alive???" This is belief - religion, but you're frankly not educated sufficiently to know you're full of crap.

Actually was referencing string theory...I can understand if you didn't recognize the inference.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Blind enthusiasm without any conscience or insight to the repercussions of choice."
Assertions are not evidence. Real scientists don't advocate blind enthusiasm without conscience or insight - particularly when the "conscience" you and your ilk advocate is imaginary.

Real scientists write on chat rooms and post on YouTube debating the negatives of false science because he must to maintain his integrity?

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Not exactly a scientific approach. but then......."
As if you had the faintest idea what constitutes a "scientific approach."

Mostly I think you have an idea but then everyone has an idea...I've never met someone who would go to such lengths to try and denigrate someone who won't bend over and openly take a penile implant full of opinion with such a vehemence.. It is entertaining!
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Help me Mr. Wizard, I don't wanna be a genius anymore!!!"
That never was any serious danger of that.
Not if it means meeting your expectations, no.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Steeleagle
When they say, the Mayans used their third eye and foresee the end of the world, it is just a good laugh.

Yes. Any rational thinker making the comment would intend it as a joke. What's hard to believe is that in the year 2009 the flat earth mentality is still extant. You'd think that natural selection might have weeded it out smile


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: Steeleagle
When they say, the Mayans used their third eye and foresee the end of the world, it is just a good laugh.

Yes. Any rational thinker making the comment would intend it as a joke. What's hard to believe is that in the year 2009 the flat earth mentality is still extant. You'd think that natural selection might have weeded it out smile
Guess that blows the natural selection theory..

Must be something more imaginative than that. wink


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"Everything is connected and alive regardless of opinion."
Assertions are not evidence. "Everything is alive???" This is belief - religion, but you're frankly not educated sufficiently to know you're full of crap.


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Actually was referencing string theory...I can understand if you didn't recognize the inference.


String theory says that everything is alive? Who in string theory says that? Leonard Susskind? Brian Greene?
Or is it some great scientific genius like Deepak Chopra?

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

"Blind enthusiasm without any conscience or insight to the repercussions of choice."


Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Assertions are not evidence. Real scientists don't advocate blind enthusiasm without conscience or insight - particularly when the "conscience" you and your ilk advocate is imaginary.


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

Real scientists write on chat rooms and post on YouTube debating the negatives of false science because he must to maintain his integrity?


Not to maintain *his* scientific integrity, but to maintain the integrity of science. The idea of intellectual integrity must be utterly alien to you.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Not exactly a scientific approach. but then......."
As if you had the faintest idea what constitutes a "scientific approach."


Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

... I've never met someone who would go to such lengths to try and denigrate someone who won't bend over and openly take a penile implant full of opinion with such a vehemence.


Taking you to task for spouting pompous nonsense to a science group is not "denigrating" you. I heard a joke the other day about not playing chess with chimpanzees - they knock over the pieces, fling poo all over, and then run back to their cohort to scream victory.

You seem to think that any requirement placed on science is an effort to hold back knowledge. Science has been successful for a reason - because it filters the wheat from the chaff, it distinguishing what is knowable (either directly or inferentially) with its methods from what is not. Science is not a world unto itself - there ARE other realms of "knowledge," but they aren't science. It's not because *I* say so - it's because that's what science is.

Now people who want to pretend to do science can spout silly stuff for weeks on end, but that doesn't make what they're saying science - just as they can fling poo and knock the pieces over, but they're not playing chess.


Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 05/21/09 01:11 PM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

String theory says that everything is alive? Who in string theory says that? Leonard Susskind? Brian Greene?
Or is it some great scientific genius like Deepak Chopra?

String theory says all matter is connected including the matter that makes you, you. If we want to qualify any theory that you are alive I am thinking of a reference to a passage from scripture where Jesus said to a would be disciple to let the dead bury the dead. I think the application of this reference will fit in this case.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Not to maintain *his* scientific integrity, but to maintain the integrity of science. The idea of intellectual integrity must be utterly alien to you.

No the idea that one could take something from something that has no integrity is alien to me. And the idea that something of integrity could lose something of itself by some belief or thought followed by its defender is foreign to me.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Taking you to task for spouting pompous nonsense to a science group is not "denigrating" you.

I wasn't speaking of just me, I was thinking of how often you used the line "comic book" understanding to anyone who brought anything here to this forum that you judged as unworthy and how much energy you spend in voicing your disapproval. Some might think you don't have much of a life. By the way I've seen you on Youtube..Seriously you need to change your diet, you don't look healthy.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

You seem to think that any requirement placed on science is an effort to hold back knowledge.

Not at all, my comments are strictly toward you and your beliefs and the lack of any definition of science. I have plenty of respect for science. It's you that I don't feel has much of an intelligent approach to anything that is being said. So far you show no real understanding or experience of Spiritual science other than what you've picked up from judgment of the subject which precedes any objective investigation. Nothing you reference has anything to do with what I Know of spiritual science so if you were to be the example of a scientist I would find you very close minded.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Science has been successful for a reason - because it filters the wheat from the chaff, it distinguishing what is knowable (either directly or inferentially) with its methods from what is not. Science is not a world unto itself - there ARE other realms of "knowledge," but they aren't science. It's not because *I* say so - it's because that's what science is.

Well from what you said before regarding Science as a self correcting entity It stands to reason that to stand behind drawn lines and say we are self correcting is to take a position regardless whether it is a false position until something better comes along. I can appreciate that thought, all superstition is based on that premise.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Now people who want to pretend to do science can spout silly stuff for weeks on end, but that doesn't make what they're saying science - just as they can fling poo and knock the pieces over, but they're not playing chess.

I agree, just as any scientist saying that spiritual science isn't science or that God does not exist because science has no proof does not make it so.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Science is not about God. It's not about superstition. It's not about spirit.

If someone wants to discuss any of the above, they should either do the decent thing and stick to the Not-Quite-Science section, or get out of the forum altogether. Why am I brash about it? Because they are a potential source of public misinformation on a par with the fundamentalist cultists clogging the U.S. education system. The forum administrators, moderators and users all have a responsibility to the younger generation, and to all those who want to understand what science is.

These anti-scientific contributions not only raise the ire of those members genuinely focused on science but must surely also attract kindred 'spirits' and repel desirable prospective members.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Science is not about God. It's not about superstition. It's not about spirit.

These anti-scientific contributions not only raise the ire of those members genuinely focused on science but must surely also attract kindred 'spirits' and repel desirable prospective members.


Science should be about truth and the discovery of truth rather than protecting ones beliefs and dwelling in the ire of dissatisfaction of personal contradictions.

You made a comment regarding "Natural Selection" and God or spirit having no place in Science and Funny fiend makes a claim to this being a scientific community, yet another scientific community has this to say about the above topics.

"In the ultimate analysis" declared the noted British geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, the universe can be nothing less than the progressive manifestation of God"
Recent discoveries in may branches of research are gradually dispelling the long held scientific opinion that the upward evolution of life and intelligence that produced human beings was an accidental process. The very existence of living matter is leading many scientists to acknowledge an inherent design in creation. "Careful analysis suggests that even a mildly impressive living molecule is quite unlikely to form randomly," Time magazine December 28, 1992, reported. And in Newsweek, July 19,1993, asked: How do wisps of gas and specks of clay come to life?....Wherever the ingredients of life first evolved, combining them into something fully alive seems madly improbable. Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer [founder of the Institute for Theoretical Astronomy at Cambridge University] once said the event is about as likely as assembling a 747 by sending a whirling tornado into a junkyard."
"One intriguing observation that has bubbled up from physics," the article in Time stated, "is that the universe seems calibrated for life's existence. If the force of gravity were pushed upward a bit, stars would burn out faster, leaving little time for live to evolve on the planets circling them. If the relative masses of protons and neutrons were changed by a hair, stars might never be born, since the hydrogen they eat wouldn't exist. If, at the Big Bang, some basic numbers--the 'initial' conditions--had been jiggled, matter and energy would never have coagulated into galaxies, stars, planets or any other platforms stable enough for life as we know it.
"One little publicized fact is that many, perhaps most, evolutionary biologists now believe that evolution was very likely, given enough time, to create a species with our essential property: an intelligence so great that it becomes aware of itself and starts figuring out how things work. In fact, many biologists have long believed that [given the fundamental structure of the universe] the coming of highly intelligent life was inevitable."
In the Immense Journey (New York: Random House, 1957), biologist Loren Eisley commented on the supposedly blind evolutionary process of "natural selection" (This was back in 1957) and "survival of the fittest" that fashioned complex living creatures from earths raw materials: "Men talk much of matter and energy, of the struggle for existence which molds life. These things exist, it is true; but more delicate, elusive, quicker than fins in water, is the mysterious principle known as 'organization' ,which leaves all other mysteries concerned with life stale and insignificant by comparison. For that without "organization" life does not persist is obvious. Yet, this organization itself is not the product nor selection. Like some dark and passing shadow with matter, it cups out the eyes' small windows or spaces the notes of a meadowlarks song... IF "DEAD" matter has reared up this curious landscape of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it must be plain to even the most devoted materialist that the matter of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful powers, and may not impossibly be, as Hardy has suggested, 'but one mask of many worn by the great face behind.'"

Dr. Michio Kaku has a video on string theory in which he follows suit with the idea that matter has a force behind it that cannot be explained but from his intimations it has intelligence and organization. A couple of things he says in his video I disagree with, and I find contradictory.
First, he says, theory explains that something can come from nothing, which is similar to the random theory that a something which has structure and organization could suddenly appear. I think this will be discovered to be an illogical premise for a beginning. Since if we want to imagine that organization is intelligence and the force that is unknown which is involved in organization is built into structure it logically points to he intelligence being within the nothing that gave birth to the something.
Secondly he mentioned the evolution of man from apes. This is also illogical, since the DNA of an ape is not the same as a Human and science fails to recognize these two species as having their own path of emergence.
Thirdly, He posits that when his calculations and the calculations made by others of his kind are solved that will be the end. FINIS! all questions answered no more questions everything will be known. This reminds me of a rumor to a statement that came from an official of the U.S. Patent office that was made back in the early part of the 20th century. "Nothing more can be invented, everything that could or would be invented has already been invented." This was a rumor of course and as such so is any idea that the universe has an end to its experience and discoveries.

Such information as I have provided above exists in the Spiritual sciences. The Nothing that Dr. Kaku refers to is detailed in thousands of books and in the actual documentation of experience as the underlying principal of all thought feeling and action that is self awareness and self discovery. Sometimes it is called consciousness but to the average scientist this arouses an ire due to the need to only apply such a word to the synaptic firing of neurons in the pinky/grey like fleshy meat was resting in the bonelike spherical object called the brain....
Spiritual science documents and tests the human instrument as to its cognitive abilities and to a greatly lesser extent the many civilizations yet to be discovered by present day sciences that have risen and fallen prior to our current scientific discoveries of our planets past.
This is why such mysteries of the Mayan Calendar and the philosophies of such civilizations as the Aztecs, Incas, Maya and even Plato's references to Atlantis and Lemuria have yet to be understood.

Mostly we have camps of belief. Scientists who have their own camps of belief as does religion have its many churches. The reference to protecting this particular community/camp from degradation and to sterilize it of non-believers is mirrored in such actions of control and superstition as was evident in the crusades and the Spanish inquisition. Every camp always maintains they hold the true definition of reality and their truth is the only truth and their weapon is their voice and their evidence. But such a battle is the same battle of a debating team and or a pair of lawyers working for their point of view. Each side gathers it own evidence and each side demands to own and win. The proverbial monkey at the chess board approach.

I find it amazing personally the idea that if something is real it can lost. It can be ignored and misunderstood by many but that never takes anything from someone who knows the Truth.

Science is continually discovering itself, and it is said nothing new is ever discovered, what is cognized is that which already exists in potential of discovery. Yet man insists on owning everything and protecting what it understands for fear of losing it.

Spiritual science has a less superstitious foundation tho it is not impervious to the superstitious ego of man and his limited comprehension of reality as he takes upon himself the words and Ideas of others without the actual experience of what he believes.

The loudest squeaks always come from fear and the feeling of being personally invaded, or simply put superstition.
The simple fact is, if something can be taken away it wasn't real to begin with.



I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940

String theory does not say that all things are alive. That's made up stuff you have added. It's not what the theory says.

Science is a social process. Yes. The integrity of science needs to be defended: that's one reason why peer review exists.

It's comic book science, not because I disagree with it, but because it betrays a gross misunderstanding of science. A few years ago I was a judge at a HS science fair. One student's project was to prove that perpetual motion was possible. He got a hand-fan, removed the batteries, and put two magnets on each side of the plastic blades. It didn't move. His conclusion was that perpetual motion was possible, but that the friction was still too great. (In fact, lubricants had been his independent variable, but with consistently poor results.) The lack of understanding of physics, logic, science represented in this young child is scarcely more egregious than represented in some of the posts to this forum.

It would be a different thing if various posters came in and made inquiries. That's not enough. They all think they're going to revolutionize human understanding without actually having done any real homework on the subject.

"Spiritual science" is not science for the same reason that flinging poo is not same as playing chess.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

String theory does not say that all things are alive. That's made up stuff you have added. It's not what the theory says.
It doesn't say matter is dead either. Perhaps we could define"ALIVE"
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

Science is a social process. Yes.
So is judgment and superstitious belief as a process of learning and growth. Gotta have contrast.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

The integrity of science needs to be defended: that's one reason why peer review exists.

Churches, Politics and government, cults, all work the same way.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

It's comic book science, not because I disagree with it, but because it betrays a gross misunderstanding of science.

No it only betrays a personal opinion of science that draws a line in front of what it can theoretically substantiate as real. Everything else in the examples you have made according to your knowledge of Spiritual science wont fit behind that line.\
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

A few years ago I was a judge at a HS science fair. One student's project was to prove that perpetual motion was possible. He got a hand-fan, removed the batteries, and put two magnets on each side of the plastic blades. It didn't move. His conclusion was that perpetual motion was possible, but that the friction was still too great. (In fact, lubricants had been his independent variable, but with consistently poor results.) The lack of understanding of physics, logic, science represented in this young child is scarcely more egregious than represented in some of the posts to this forum.

I hope you didn't slam the poor kid for trying like you slam those who come here with their opinion. Poor kid may never get over the trauma...
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

It would be a different thing if various posters came in and made inquiries. That's not enough. They all think they're going to revolutionize human understanding without actually having done any real homework on the subject.

Ya know I had the same thought about you and spiritual science. Instead of having an open mind and asking questions you like to amuse yourself by insinuating it has no scientific application. The shoot first and ask questions later approach. But then anything I have offered regardless of whether you asked or not has been outright denied and ridiculed.
Mostly I find that you define your science without having ever really given a definition. Which means you are in total control of what you want to fit and what you don't want to fit, and you have had nothing to say that is real about spiritual science, just superstitious, witch burning accusations.
The cardinals of the church used to use the same approach when they would hang someone they didn't like.
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"Spiritual science" is not science for the same reason that flinging poo is not same as playing chess.

Spiritual science is not like the science of your belief and representation, because science as it is represented by you is flinging poo at everything but your own beliefs.
Spiritual science is less dogmatic and church-like and makes use of superstition as a contrast to reality rather than having a need to protect the Übermensch and master race. The Übermensch is always safe for those who want to find it within, and those that don't will....eventually. Such is life. Free will and all that...


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Yes. The integrity of science needs to be defended


Yes , but in this forum it is the integrity of the thread that needs defending more.

why dont you two (TFF and TT) ask if the forum administers can insert a new forum named the

not quite science (Creation or evolution ) forum

simply because neither Creation or evolution is science.

this way all of the other topics wont be strangled by
the evolution vs Creation goings on in this forum.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
on the following movie trailer it is saying that a planet alignment will be the cause of the supposed events of 2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVi_2lHBVhQ




I looked on the microsoft worldwide telescope and checked the planets alignment for the entire year of 2012 and 2013 , there is no alignment ! there is a alignment where all the inner planets will be on the same side of the sun in 2014 , but still no inline alignment.

for further information on the WWT see below links
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2008/may08/05-12WWTQS.mspx
http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/Home.aspx








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Yes. The integrity of science needs to be defended


Yes , but in this forum it is the integrity of the thread that needs defending more.

why dont you two (TFF and TT) ask if the forum administers can insert a new forum named the

not quite science (Creation or evolution ) forum

simply because neither Creation or evolution is science.

this way all of the other topics wont be strangled by
the evolution vs Creation goings on in this forum.





Is "2012 a very deadly year for Earth" A topic of "Science" or projection of "Prophesy"?

Considering the way it was opened under a slightly prophetic premise. Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?
Perhaps a list could be made of what is not included in science so as to sphincter out everything into a neat pile.

Oh and while we're all thinking...Is the discussion of what is or isn't science, science, or is it politics? frown


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
TT
Quote:
Is "2012 a very deadly year for Earth" A topic of "Science" or projection of "Prophesy"?


I personaly dont think that relying on predictions or what is said to be predictions of the mayan calendar made by a civilization of people that used to lop heads off and rip out the hearts of living people to appease their gods so that the sun would rise again is a topic of science.

maybe they just ran out of room for 2012 and decided to wait till then to make a new calendar.

Quote:
Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?


of course , science is data gathering and experimentation
it is the acquisition of knowledge , no two people have the exact same beliefs , although two people can believe in some of the same things you cannot include beliefs , prophesy or any unproven theory into the knowledge we call science.

Quote:
Oh and while we're all thinking...Is the discussion of what is or isn't science, science, or is it politics?


its not science or politics , its a discussion.







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?"

The subject of science is already narrow, but you're apparently not aware of what's happened to actual science since the enlightenment. It's not anyone else's responsibility to tell you what is or what is not science. If you actually did homework on the subject before trying to peddle your atrophied religion as science, you might know this.

But religionists typically don't care about this. Much easier to try to bask in the perceived glory of real science.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: paul


I personaly dont think that relying on predictions or what is said to be predictions of the mayan calendar made by a civilization of people that used to lop heads off and rip out the hearts of living people to appease their gods so that the sun would rise again is a topic of science.

maybe they just ran out of room for 2012 and decided to wait till then to make a new calendar.
Or maybe there is evidence that the Maya that crafted the calendar were the predecessors of the ones who used to lop heads off and inhabited their cities, and the calendar is based on mathematical calculations of celestial position and its effects on conscious evolution. But then if you don't know about something the unknown aint science until it becomes known.

Quote:
Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?

Originally Posted By: paul

of course , science is data gathering and experimentation
it is the acquisition of knowledge , no two people have the exact same beliefs , although two people can believe in some of the same things you cannot include beliefs , prophesy or any unproven theory into the knowledge we call science.

But belief does inhibit the ability to discern data according to how data is identified. If you suppose only certain things are real all other suppositions remain unreal until accepted as real.
Take the story of the pap smear for example. George Papanicolaou brought his idea of taking cell samples from the tissues of the cervix to test for cancer. His peers (peer review in action) laughed him out of the medical symposium he was attending. His peers believed him to be delusional. Yet today his pap test is primary for the screening of cervical cancer.
Humans by default subconsciously allow their feelings and beliefs to distract themselves from what is available and standing right in front of them. Because science is narrow it blinds itself of possibility as it tightens the spaces between the walls of the box.

Quote:
Oh and while we're all thinking...Is the discussion of what is or isn't science, science, or is it politics?

Originally Posted By: paul

its not science or politics , its a discussion.

Ah then nothing is a threat in a discussion and there is no need to defend or command, only discuss.

Dare I ask is discussion unscientific?? sick

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"Should you narrow science even more to exclude prophesy as well as creationism and evolution?"

The subject of science is already narrow, but you're apparently not aware of what's happened to actual science since the enlightenment. It's not anyone else's responsibility to tell you what is or what is not science.

This is the first time you actually got it right. The Truth never needs defense and it remains the truth regardless of personal beliefs and the wasted energy of defending against forces that do not actually know the truth.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

If you actually did homework on the subject before trying to peddle your atrophied religion as science, you might know this.

You still have not identified what real science is nor have you even remotely touched on anything real about spiritual sciences. So to quote you. "Assertions are not proof."



Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

But religionists typically don't care about this. Much easier to try to bask in the perceived glory of real science.


If we change the word religionists to scientists in the above statement. We have a statement that is relatively equal.
Just for clarification, I don't happen to be a Religionist, tho I do understand religion as it applies to spiritual beliefs, and, that system of beliefs as it also also applies to the relative sciences. The Truth stands independent of the unseen and un-experienced as well as any beliefs.
One would have to rise above the subconscious belief systems to actually experience Truth and that is the foundation for the exploration of spiritual science.
Everything is equal since everything can be traced to the same origin. Trouble is relative science, influenced by the personal ideals and beliefs, can't make it all fit, yet.

By the way have we determined what 'alive' means yet?





I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Ah then nothing is a threat in a discussion and there is no need to defend or command, only discuss."
Then you have nothing to whine about.

"You still have not identified what real science..."
Not my job. You could go do some homework on it, but that would require learning science instead of just spouting spiritual blather and calling it science.

"By the way have we determined what 'alive' means yet?"
I have a working, but imperfect definition. Few scientists would claim their definition is perfect, though. If I followed no logic or asinine logic, I suppose we could infer that it can mean anything you wish.
When one isn't constrained by logic or education words can mean whatever you wish.


Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 05/24/09 07:48 AM.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"Ah then nothing is a threat in a discussion and there is no need to defend or command, only discuss."
Then you have nothing to whine about.

Wouldn't think of it!
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"You still have not identified what real science..."
Not my job.

No? Just to defend it then. You might want to skip over to the Have you ever had thoughts of this universe... thread. Socratus just used the "G" word and applied it to his discussion of physics. Looks like a job for the science police...
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

You could go do some homework on it, but that would require learning science instead of just spouting spiritual blather and calling it science.
Or Said another way.."I could spout scientific blather and we still wouldn't get you any closer to a definition of science, because you'd still complain and label it comic book science if it didn't come from an authority of your own and it wasn't qualified as imperfect and most importantly never spoken out loud."
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

"By the way have we determined what 'alive' means yet?"
I have a working, but imperfect definition. Few scientists would claim their definition is perfect, though. If I followed no logic or asinine logic, I suppose we could infer that it can mean anything you wish.
When one isn't constrained by logic or education words can mean whatever you wish.
No we have already approached the definition of science this way and it hasn't really accomplished anything. Not saying anything and calling "that" the scientific approach doesn't really give meaning, let alone clarify meaning. I was hoping for something we could apply to that which creation emerges from and yet is still embedded within creation. That which is and has "Order" or direction, and that which is in all matter and gives human awareness the ability to recognize itself as more than a something or a nothing. That might get us closer to it.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Here's something of interest. An advertisement, an "Of Interest" banner on the forum advertising one to sign up for a free trial to learn Classical Hebrew.

It reads "Classical Hebrew.com" Learn Biblical Hebrew Online, with Israels best teachers.


Could lead to an understanding of spiritual sciences if one could read the language of spiritual studies.

Convenient that it was displayed on this forum and in this thread.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
TT
Quote:
spiritual sciences


you need to go for a long walk in the woods , sit down and think about this , would you really want spirituality to become a science , or to even be connected to science in any way.

to be observed scientifically spirituality would cease to exist.

spirituality would no longer be spiritual but physical.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
It's not my job to do your homework for you - and it defeats the purpose. The compulsion to just make 'stuff' up (MSU) is overwhelming in some people and this tendency is what they think of as science. A friend and former coworker used to play a game with his little brother that started off as shoot-em-up where the brother would say, "Tin-like I shot you" and he would say, "Tin-like I dodged" and his brother would go on with maybe something along the lines of "tin-like my bullet is a missile with computer tracking" and so on back and forth.

If one were genuinely interested in science, one could learn the subject matter, what the limitations of science are, how it works, why it is the way it is and not any other, dissect examples, solve problems, learn the methodology, understand what makes good science and what has failed - and why, study the history of science, form tentative hypotheses, etc. In all of your messages, there is not the faintest hint that you have studied science or that you have any understanding of it. The appearance is that you have read some spiritualist or other supernatural materials that commonly make use of scientific sounding jargon in ways that would be amusing were they written by a child, but utterly delusional when conveyed by an adult. Your every message reads as a game of tin-like. "Tin-like I understand string theory and tin-like I have the truth and tin-like those who don't listen are just mathematical folk who are intimidated by my profound insights of cosmic truthiness."

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: paul


you need to go for a long walk in the woods , sit down and think about this , would you really want spirituality to become a science , or to even be connected to science in any way.

If you knew the depth of what Spiritual science is you could answer the question yourself but you don't so you can't. Besides you don't believe me now so why would any answer I gave you have any meaning? It would appear that without peer review none of your own thoughts or ideas would have any substantial value, due to the scientific claim that a personal definition is imperfect, then unless substantiated by the peer group as a quorum I would imagine it would be an imperfect quorum.
Originally Posted By: paul

to be observed scientifically spirituality would cease to exist.

spirituality would no longer be spiritual but physical.

Actually to be observed scientifically everything material is seen as spiritually derived. Materialists just can't quite grok the concept when it is put in those words, nor do materialists trust their own senses.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
RE: "TIN LIKE"

I have to say that is an imaginative game, and I concur that some people like to make stuff up. If we look at the many ways the human species tends to get lost in its imagination then we can easily discern that without knowledge there follows lack of experience. And without substantial experience knowledge is always suspect to validation. If we must be validated by others before we find our own strength to self validate, then I would imagine the process will always be suspect to the judgment of an imperfect function of perceptibility.

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
"The appearance is that you have read some spiritualist or other supernatural materials that commonly make use of scientific sounding jargon"
I would have to say that by relying on appearances that it would appear contradictory to your lack of explanation regarding the definition of science and consistent with what you insist is not science. If you trust your senses implicitly even beyond any substantial material proof then I would say you are beginning to wander into the realm of personal documentation or that of your own experience. The use of intuition and listening to the voice inside of you without the reliance of peer review to tell you which of your thoughts are real and which aren't. Although without any peer review regarding sense refinement and awareness thru intuition being real it might be scary to remain their for very long without withdrawing to the safety of democratic process. After all could there be a standard or an authority to follow regarding self determination?


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
If you knew the depth of what Spiritual science is you could answer the question yourself


I would think that only spirits would know the depth of Spiritual science , if they have such in the Spiritual world.
Quote:
but you don't so you can't.


How do you know? , are you communicating with Spiritual Scientist through some medium or a quigi board or some other means of Spirtual communication , or do you just know these things?

Quote:
Besides you don't believe me now


would it really make a difference if I believed you , or if I believed who ever you got this Spiritual science stuff from?

I dont know if there is anything scientific about the
spiritual world because.

1) I cannot see-feel-hear it / them .

2) no one else can.

3) you cant.

4) if you are listening to the voices in your head , you are just listening to your head , no one else.

Quote:
It would appear that without peer review none of your own thoughts or ideas would have any substantial value


sure they do , they have value to me , even if no one else finds any value in them.

Quote:
Actually to be observed scientifically everything material is seen as spiritually derived.


Spiritually derived or not is not the point here , by using the term Spiritual science you are suggesting that the physical can observe the Spiritual.

you are constantly asking TFF to provide answers to your questions , now I ask that you provide a example of the physical observing the Spiritual that has been duly noted in a science journal or any other form of documentation.

a picture , a recording , a interview with a Spirit.

if there has been a science that EVOLVED from all the gathered DATA of the evidence of Spiritual encounters then
please allow us to be enlightened.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
If you knew the depth of what Spiritual science is you could answer the question yourself


I would think that only spirits would know the depth of Spiritual science , if they have such in the Spiritual world.

There you go, and to complete this, there is nothing that is not permeated with such. Tho spirit is not exactly a word science would use or accept. Possibly "Order" and maybe something within the working model of FF's imperfect definition of what is alive.
Quote:
but you don't so you can't.

Originally Posted By: paul

How do you know? , are you communicating with Spiritual Scientist through some medium or a quigi board or some other means of Spirtual communication , or do you just know these things?

How do you know when you are in love. Does someone tell you or do you just know, and how many times have you fallen in love?

Quote:
Besides you don't believe me now

Originally Posted By: paul

would it really make a difference if I believed you , or if I believed who ever you got this Spiritual science stuff from?

Sure, belief opens the door to experience. Every thought influences the world around you. But if it helps some things are true regardless of belief.

Originally Posted By: paul

I dont know if there is anything scientific about the
spiritual world because.

1) I cannot see-feel-hear it / them .

You mean you don't. Doesn't mean you can't and we're not talking about ghosts, there is no them per se. More like an absolute presence of permeation within matter.
Originally Posted By: paul

2) no one else can.

Because you don't you believe others can't.
Originally Posted By: paul

3) you cant.
This would answer your question of "how do you know" when I said "you don't so you can't." Disbelief and lack of any experience.
Originally Posted By: paul

4) if you are listening to the voices in your head , you are just listening to your head , no one else.

Absolutely true in one sense, tho I would have to clarify that statement by adding, "there really is no one else."

Quote:
It would appear that without peer review none of your own thoughts or ideas would have any substantial value

Originally Posted By: paul

sure they do , they have value to me , even if no one else finds any value in them.

Good point. We accept those who meet our level of commitment and belief to be those who are our peers.

Quote:
Actually to be observed scientifically everything material is seen as spiritually derived.

Originally Posted By: paul

Spiritually derived or not is not the point here , by using the term Spiritual science you are suggesting that the physical can observe the Spiritual.

Actually I'm saying nothing physical exists without the spiritual. The physical would not be physical, it would be more akin to a nothing, not even random floating particles of no definition if there was nothing to organize it or to support it.
Originally Posted By: paul

you are constantly asking TFF to provide answers to your questions , now I ask that you provide a example of the physical observing the Spiritual that has been duly noted in a science journal or any other form of documentation.

a picture , a recording , a interview with a Spirit.

It can't be contained in a recording, a picture or an interview. It can however be reflected in anything you wish to find it in. But You have to open the door by removing the blocks that keep you singly identified with what you define as real in your current evaluation of the world and the universe. Otherwise without direct experience it is just so easy to deny any example to be of any value. Unfortunately the ego denies many things even of itself and its own experiences if it threatens its self identity.
Originally Posted By: paul

if there has been a science that EVOLVED from all the gathered DATA of the evidence of Spiritual encounters then
please allow us to be enlightened.

You're looking at it all backwards All data evolves from the awareness of self reflection. It exists and or existed prior to any recordings of self reflection, questioning and experimentation. Such data is available and does expand the intellect, but that is only part of the equation. Life is like a job that you created. If you go to work and expect to be paid for not doing anything, you are not likely to go home with anything. So if you are looking for someone to collect data for you so you can reap the benefits without the work, you become absorbed in the material world of the ego where you give all your authority to others experiences and determinations.
There is no real value in living a life filled with other peoples ideas, theories and opinions if you are still left empty inside of the experiences and still seeking fulfillment from outside of yourself.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
OK , well I guess I'll get off now , have fun.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
7
777
Unregistered
777
Unregistered
7
In 2012 year follow the third flood,and then the comet next to the land but not the poke,but mankind will still survive. If people from all over the world and all people not begin to believe in one God who created the world and his son Jesus Christ,God will punish people and unfinished the third world war in 2042 or 2043 or 2044 years. This can prevent if people applied the new concept of a new direction and new and the only true religion, and the direction that is faith is a combination of Marxism and faith in one God.

6
606
Unregistered
606
Unregistered
6
This is also the year that the I-ching predicts a major change in the world....makes ya wonder, ya know?

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
777 wrote:
"the only true religion,"

Which one is that, please tell?
Marx in his holiness or 'the new' thingy? Or God, whoever he/she is?

Last edited by Ellis; 08/15/09 07:00 AM. Reason: clarification
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
The flying spaghetti monster rules!


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Let's hope not, but some are sadly at sixes and sevens with reality.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: sarabon009
its really very worried news for every one.....
If you were to conduct an international survey of people in all walks of life, you might find that the great majority have no idea what you're talking about, and that most others recognise it as the typical fringe foolishness that tends to issue from the least educated and most deluded of minds.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: alainmarsol
You don't even know what will happen tomorrow , then how can Anyone predict about 2012?
We can predict solar eclipses and another things, or not?

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 13
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 13
Originally Posted By: Steeleagle
If we were to say that Mayans through mathematical and cosmogonic calculation had guesstimated or reached the conclusion that an objet of considerable mass, was to crash agains the Earth and cause a catastrophe, I would be worried. When they say, the Mayans used their third eye and foresee the end of the world, it is just a good laugh.


Thats right, but its predicted a cosmic storm to come, maybe in 2012. Personaly i dont think world collapses in 2012, the mayas were owerharwesting lumber and building so many plains the extreme weather killed them. But what woud be a cosmic catastophe woud be if Nemesis existed and came in 2012, but i dont know about any evidence about that. The teorie of Nemesis is a brown dwarf twin star to the sun who are beeing affectet to go throug the orions belt and trowing asteroids upon us.


Everything has a energy. It can be positive ore negative. Sitck to the positive.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5