I have read a couple of books about einstein but I dont think i read that one in particular, I am going to the library tomorrow and Im going to look for it. I need something interesting to read.gjm wrote:^^Talking about Albert, as an aside, have you read this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/mc2-Biography-W ... 0330391658 ? I found it really neat, filling in some historical gaps and people.
I would agree with these statements 100% if it where limited to all of the Pseudosciences. However, i have to call bullshit once evolution and other well established disciplines such as Newtonian and Einstein physics are dragged into the fray and treated in the same way while ignoring all of the very sound and thorough research and verification that goes along with those aspects of science. I kind of loose faith in the people i share this board with and start to question their intellect once we start up on Atlantis, lost civilizations, alien intervention and undiscovered planets while choosing to accept only the flimsiest of empirical evidence to back these ideas up and then go on to treat them as any thing more than just entertaining speculation.ThrowAway wrote:I agree. +1gjm wrote:
Don't be too quick to pigeon hole people based on their reply's in a thread like this. It's a fairly limiting medium (time wise) and lacks other communication subtleties. Also, not everyone leaves everything on the table in terms of their positions, or willingness to take on board newly presented information or perspectives. The process of being introduced to differences of opinion, mulling them over, sifting through the words and assumptions also take differing amounts of time depending on previous experience and practice. I for one am happy to have been a part of this thread as I have learned some new concepts that I have to find room for, regardless of how daft the initially sound.
When the guy before einstein published his theory of atoms he was ostracized and ridiculed to the point of hanging him self. Two to three years later einstein enjoyed rock star status because he proved it, among other things.
Puzzled. All I said was that not everyone spills 100% of their guts, nor is it wise to assume someone knows everything, when they wax it up here. Its also equally wise not to assume that you have accurately analyzed someone intellect simply by the way they express themselves here. I also suggested that it can take a little bit of time to filter through it all, and in the process you can learn something. Pretty simple really.Homebelly wrote:I would agree with these statements 100% if it where limited to all of the Pseudosciences. However, i have to call bullshit once evolution and other well established disciplines such as Newtonian and Einstein physics are dragged into the fray and treated in the same way while ignoring all of the very sound and thorough research and verification that goes along with those aspects of science. I kind of loose faith in the people i share this board with and start to question their intellect once we start up on Atlantis, lost civilizations, alien intervention and undiscovered planets while choosing to accept only the flimsiest of empirical evidence to back these ideas up and then go on to treat them as any thing more than just entertaining speculation.ThrowAway wrote:I agree. +1gjm wrote:
Don't be too quick to pigeon hole people based on their reply's in a thread like this. It's a fairly limiting medium (time wise) and lacks other communication subtleties. Also, not everyone leaves everything on the table in terms of their positions, or willingness to take on board newly presented information or perspectives. The process of being introduced to differences of opinion, mulling them over, sifting through the words and assumptions also take differing amounts of time depending on previous experience and practice. I for one am happy to have been a part of this thread as I have learned some new concepts that I have to find room for, regardless of how daft the initially sound.
When the guy before einstein published his theory of atoms he was ostracized and ridiculed to the point of hanging him self. Two to three years later einstein enjoyed rock star status because he proved it, among other things.
Its one thing to have an open mind and to be prepared to accept new ideas, but then that becomes an entirely different kettle of fish when you leave all reason and logic behind and take a completely blind leap of faith into a whole new world of misguided naivety where you are prepared to put aside all of the facts and start accepting alternative ideas as facts.
Ultimately though i don't really give a shit because it is as this point that Darwinism takes over and so while those of you that buy into the hidden knowledge and lost civilization rhetoric are spending time indulging in your pseudo intellectual debates waiting for Planet X to turn up, the rest of us will just get on with getting on and carry on living in the real world. In fact, So silly is this thread that at this point i'm surprised the Moorish Orthodox Church of America/Moorish Science Temple hasn't turned up.
To me your post seemed to be suggesting we should give the same kind of credibility to those that are putting forward unorthodox ideas now as we should have been when this person that preceded Einstein was putting forward his idea and theory as in hind sight this persons original idea was sound. The trouble with this statement is i have no idea who this person you are eluding to is and so it seems to me that this person may well be another example of some one holding up another kind of irrelevant jaw bone postulating over the nonexistence of an unimportant "Missing link".... I apologize if i am wrong in my assumption and i am also wide open to being introduced to this person you have mentioned as i thought i had read about most of those that came before and who's work had paved the way before Einstein.ThrowAway wrote:What flimsy science have I referred to(besides joao's)? Everything science related Ive talked about is mainstream belief in the scientific community. Earth being seeded by alien bacteria is a prominent theory. Are you thinking Im comparing joao to einstein I wasnt, but if he turns out to be correct, hell be bigger than einstein. Am I off base here?
Like i said..gjm wrote: Puzzled. All I said was that not everyone spills 100% of their guts, nor is it wise to assume someone knows everything, when they wax it up here. Its also equally wise not to assume that you have accurately analyzed someone intellect simply by the way they express themselves here. I also suggested that it can take a little bit of time to filter through it all, and in the process you can learn something. Pretty simple really.
Oh. And Pluto was once a planet.
My apologies. Again, my original involvement in this thread was to highlight a thought process (often called faith-a generic word) that is similar with these three topics. The similarity is that as each of these subjects is presented/developed/ researched etc, there are gaps that require "post rationalization", jumps in thought, or assumptions that are feed to the world as fact. Specifically, even with the theory of evolution, things change from time to time as new evidence is discovered. The youtube Tone Deft cited earlier in the thread is the perfect example of the assumptions (leaps of thought) that were held to be true until a recent discovery changed the 'Theory' somewhat. For the record, I have no problem with the Theory of Evolution. However, as the rigors of scientific research continue, things change, hence my mention of the former planet Pluto.Homebelly wrote:Like i said..gjm wrote: Puzzled. All I said was that not everyone spills 100% of their guts, nor is it wise to assume someone knows everything, when they wax it up here. Its also equally wise not to assume that you have accurately analyzed someone intellect simply by the way they express themselves here. I also suggested that it can take a little bit of time to filter through it all, and in the process you can learn something. Pretty simple really.
Oh. And Pluto was once a planet.
I'm quite prepared to agree..
But i find it hard to do so when some one like your self puts forward the idea that evolution, like religion and space aliens, requires a leap of faith.
I would agree with this 100% if you had left the evolution aspect out, but i'm afraid you lost some credibility, at least with me.. when you didn't, as there is absolutely no aspect of faith involved in evolution.. it is a sound and well documented scientific theory that is backed up by hard facts.
All the rest of it i'm quite prepared to play with and speculate over.. its a whole world of fun.. MK-Ultra,,Area 51.. Denver International Airport.. Planet X.. Mayan Calendars.. Brahman creation and reality theology.. all of it.. bring it on.. I've read probably as much about this stuff and probably more than most on these things.. the problem with them all though is that you do need to make huge leaps of faith and none of them are based on any thing but dodgy unverifiable and inconclusive empirical evidence.
Not quite,, :wink using the example of Darwin, we know he lived, we also know where and how he traveled and have conclusive evidence that the work he performed was recorded and verified by his contemporaries, we also know that aspects of this work created controversy and that this controversy was also acknowledged by Darwin and cataloged. Your right that there is a degree of faith required in accepting Darwins theories and the work that has continued to build on them, but this isn't blind faith, it is simply the personal acceptance that as individuals we do not know enough about this subject to do the conclusive work our selves and so we rely on people with more experience and knowledge in these fields to assure us the the work is sound and is based on hard facts that can be verified and corroborated. This work is also published, and so if we want to we can apply our selves and learn this knowledge our selves...gjm wrote: In reference to God or Jesus Christ, to have faith in his words and overall message of salvation IS EXACTLY THE SAME as having faith in the words of another messenger with a different story (you choose)
Like i said.. no one knows every thing.. but you should realize that there is a very distinct difference between the kind of blind faith that is required of Religion and Aliens and the informed faith that is required for Evolution...gjm wrote: if you yourself do not have the skill, time, experience or knowledge to prove otherwise. Because I don't know everything, I have to exercise 'faith' in all sorts of things on a daily basis from business to relationships. Specifically with God, Aliens and Evolution, all three topics I admit that I have not exhausted the study of any of them. I therefore have to make leaps of trust (have faith in peoples words) while at the same time filtering through what I currently know. The identical process of thought, acceptance or rejection takes place.
Nahh..gjm wrote:I am sorry that I have lost some credibility with you.
gjm wrote:But I again must restate, these 'boards' are not the place to make fundamental judgments of people's character. Yes you can see traits, but its not the big picture. There is more than meets the eye (on a laptop screen).
Cheers. Greg.
Sorry, again I must clarify my point. Regardless of the subject, Jesus or evolution, the human brain, in place of knowledge must exercise a concept I called and referred to as faith. If you have knowledge of something, then you can be sure of it, and boldly not require faith. If you have to take the words of someone else as truth, with no previous experience or knowledge to reference this to, then I call the thought process 'faith.'Homebelly wrote:Not quite,, :wink using the example of Darwin, we know he lived, we also know where and how he traveled and have conclusive evidence that the work he performed was recorded and verified by his contemporaries, we also know that aspects of this work created controversy and that this controversy was also acknowledged by Darwin and cataloged. Your right that there is a degree of faith required in accepting Darwins theories and the work that has continued to build on them, but this isn't blind faith, it is simply the personal acceptance that as individuals we do not know enough about this subject to do the conclusive work our selves and so we rely on people with more experience and knowledge in these fields to assure us the the work is sound and is based on hard facts that can be verified and corroborated. This work is also published, and so if we want to we can apply our selves and learn this knowledge our selves...gjm wrote: In reference to God or Jesus Christ, to have faith in his words and overall message of salvation IS EXACTLY THE SAME as having faith in the words of another messenger with a different story (you choose)
On the other hand all we know about God and Jesus is given to us completely on faith,, every single aspect of the concept is all about inconclusive and unverifiable information. There is no first person account of Jesus, there is no physical evidence. There are plenty of records from the period that might hint at the possibility of some one who might have been Jesus (The Qumran scrolls for example), but then again, there are also plenty of examples of records that should have some kind of reference but don't.. this neither confirms or denies his existence of Jesus the man.. indeed there are records of plenty of people taking on the roll of a Rabi during this period..he might have been any one of them.. this aspect is easy to believe,, the part that require blind faith is where it all starts to go off into supernatural territory.. at this point a giant leap of faith is required.
cmreal04 wrote:Is this post really a build up for the new X-files movie coming out......
CM
i hear brainac is a good show if you like science.ThrowAway wrote:Totally unrelated to aliens god and bitterness, JOÃO MAGUEIJO’S BIG BANG THEORY is a pretty good show to get your quick science fix. A little too dumbed down in some parts for my liking but overall it was thought provoking.
I didnt mean to come across like I think people throwing all kinds of theories out should be given credit, My point is that sometimes the world is convinced someone is wrong and they are attacked, then later to be proven correct. I understand how when people throw out silly ideas they lose credibility, its natural( personally, i assumed the atlantis theory was silly but then again I didnt ask exactly what they meant as it doesnt interest me in the least) but personally the only one of my beliefs that doesnt make people lose (for lack of a better word, I dont think Im incapable of being wrong, i keep an open mind) crediblity with me if they dismiss it is my belief in god.Homebelly wrote: To me your post seemed to be suggesting we should give the same kind of credibility to those that are putting forward unorthodox ideas now as we should have been when this person that preceded Einstein was putting forward his idea and theory as in hind sight this persons original idea was sound. The trouble with this statement is i have no idea who this person you are eluding to is and so it seems to me that this person may well be another example of some one holding up another kind of irrelevant jaw bone postulating over the nonexistence of an unimportant "Missing link".... I apologize if i am wrong in my assumption and i am also wide open to being introduced to this person you have mentioned as i thought i had read about most of those that came before and who's work had paved the way before Einstein.
Einsteins theories, as they are, are sound scientific theories based on accumulated fact and as such can be proven correct, They can also be proven incorrect by altering the facts that back them up, this is also an important aspect of science as this method then proves the facts that back up the theory are also correct and so strengthens the theory so that others can continue on from that point and expand on it. In the example of Physics this is how people like Hawkins have been able to explore the world of quantum physics, it is also why anthropologists and geneticists no longer need to rely solely on archeologists to provide them with fossil evidence..
I completely agree with everything except the records of jesus not existing. I was taught in school that the romans kept excellent records(just names and dates), of him appearing in court and his execution.Homebelly wrote:Not quite,, :wink using the example of Darwin, we know he lived, we also know where and how he traveled and have conclusive evidence that the work he performed was recorded and verified by his contemporaries, we also know that aspects of this work created controversy and that this controversy was also acknowledged by Darwin and cataloged.gjm wrote: In reference to God or Jesus Christ, to have faith in his words and overall message of salvation IS EXACTLY THE SAME as having faith in the words of another messenger with a different story (you choose)
Your right that there is a degree of faith required in accepting Darwins theories and the work that has continued to build on them, but this isn't blind faith, it is simply the personal acceptance that as individuals we do not know enough about this subject to do the conclusive work our selves and so we rely on people with more experience and knowledge in these fields to assure us the the work is sound and is based on hard facts that can be verified and corroborated. This work is also published, and so if we want to we can apply our selves and learn this knowledge our selves...
On the other hand all we know about God and Jesus is given to us completely on faith,, every single aspect of the concept is all about inconclusive and unverifiable information. There is no first person account of Jesus, there is no physical evidence. There are plenty of records from the period that might hint at the possibility of some one who might have been Jesus (The Qumran scrolls for example), but then again, there are also plenty of examples of records that should have some kind of reference but don't.. this neither confirms or denies his existence of Jesus the man.. indeed there are records of plenty of people taking on the roll of a Rabi during this period..he might have been any one of them.. this aspect is easy to believe,, the part that require blind faith is where it all starts to go off into supernatural territory.. at this point a giant leap of faith is required.
Possibly..ThrowAway wrote: I completely agree with everything except the records of jesus not existing. I was taught in school that the romans kept excellent records(just names and dates), of him appearing in court and his execution.