Audie
Veteran Member
You are a scientist? I missed that before. Congrats!
Could you tell us what U, what research?
ETA "Physicians"? Typo for physicist?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science cannot solve the final mystery
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
You are a scientist? I missed that before. Congrats!
Could you tell us what U, what research?
ETA "Physicians"? Typo for physicist?
No problem and no change. My responses have not changed. Simply dealing with different religious views, and your lack of response, dialogue and explanation on your part.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Of course you did - why lie when it is so easily shown?
Science cannot solve the final mystery
Science cannot solve the final mystery
There are many dozens of threads where I've clearly shown the pyramid is NOT A TOMB. Here is one where I show what the pyramid actually is in the builders' own words;
The King as Pyramid - Graham Hancock Official Website
The King as Pyramid - Graham Hancock Official Website
You linked to that twice.
I don't care one way or the other about the pyramids (other than they are cool), but I have CONCLUDED that Hancoclk is a crank and a crackpot because of many other things of his I have seen, like his ancient astronaut garbage and his Altantis nonsense - that was where he claimed south was "down"... But I'm sure his claims about the pyramids are totally accurate and beyond reproach...
You mean the link you provided at least twice, but claimed never to have done so?
Oh yeah - remember in that other thread where I indicated all the stuff you ignore when you reply would be in red? Here you go - you ignored this:
You wrote this in May on another forum (and similar pap here):
"Survival of the fittest" (by any name at all) becomes a rallying cry for those who would suppress or attempt to control the masses. "
You truly do not know what that phrase means, and you appear to have no desire to correct your error.
Why is that?
I won't even mention your folly on "broccas area". Why the pretense? Why is humility to hard for so many creationist types?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
LOL!!!!
You cannot be serious??
You have a quirky posting style, and that is it.
If you think YouTube videos by religious nuts are a good source of information, you are... well... you.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Is there ANYTHING that you do not have some naive, foolish, counterfactual notion on?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Thank you for noticing.
Ancient science does have a perspective on just about anything.
Unlike everyone else I know I can be wrong about just about everything. But I know that reality will forever be hidden to us no matter who says otherwise and that appearances are always deceiving.
I also know that just about everyone can be correct in part.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
blah blah blah
Still waiting for your explanation on how 'natural' and 'man-made' bottlenecks differ genetically.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I cannot drag you …..along
Thief
Rogue Theologian
tas8831
Well-Known Member
I hope not. What a miserable trip.
Last edited:
Bold sounds like the nuclear option to shooting pigeons. You know you will get at least one with every shot.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
You and Hancock are like 2 peas in a pod.
You both draw your respective conclusions from your respective conspiracy theories.
You are still going on with your absurd Ancient Science and Ancient Language.
You earlier stated that Egyptology hasn’t gone through the process of Peer Review.
Well, have your Ancient Science or Ancient Language gone through Peer Review? Yes? No?
If your claim hasn’t gone through Peer Review, then why would anyone listen to you?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Nonsense.
And irrelevant were it true.
I've never accused anyone of lying before but you keep accusing me of believing in conspiracies.
I believe Ancient Language was the metaphysics of ancient science.
Nonsense.
I said that the leader of Egyptology (Dr Hawass) is refusing to supply data to the Peers and then they vote on the reality without that data. These are simple facts.
Peers don't vote on facts asnd logic unless it is proposed by other Peers.
Did I ever mention that people see what they believe? Maybe I should mention that Homo Omnisciencis is circular arguments incarnate. Now we have Peers voting on reality itself so there are no mysteries.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thief
Rogue Theologian
yes....you are
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
You assume he doesn't understand what religion is. You assume religion has actually explained anything at all. Both assumptions are wrong.
gnostic
The Lost One
Conspiracy theory.
Peer Review are used to use to examine prospective hypotheses, and evidences and data supplied, not the scientists themselves.
If there are no errors, no doctoring data and figures, and if the test results back positively back up the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is probable, but if the evidence/test results/data don’t back up (negative results), then the hypothesis isn’t probable (and therefore debunked).
Second, when people talk of Peer Review, the Peer Review are usually focused around the branches and their fields and sub-fields of Natural Science.
Egyptology is not Natural Science, nor are archaeology, anthropology and philology. These all fall under Social Science, not under Natural Science.
Social Science concerns more about human behaviors, human cultures and human activities and achievements, hence Social Science isn’t hard science.
And since areas like archaeology and anthropology aren’t hard science, Social Science don’t actually follow the same requirements of Falsifiability, Scientific Method and Peer Review in the ways branches and fields in Natural Science do.
Although the fields of studies in Social Science follow some guidelines, rules and requirements that are similar to that of Life Science and Physical Science, the ways humans behave, think and act, leave a large wiggle rooms for exceptions to occur, because not every humans think, behave or act in the same ways as everyone else.
For instance, if anyone study ancient cultures in anthropology, you would know that there are many cultures that have different ways of life and how they go about doing them.
Like in the Old World, many cultures have religions that practice blood sacrifices in their religions, but these most involved sacrifices of animals, generally not human sacrifices. But in pre-Colombian cultures of the Mesoamerica and Southern America, human sacrifices were not considered moral, they were legal too.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Oh!
In the hard sciences much of "peer review" is just duplication of experiment. I'm not sure "peer review" even applies to something like physics and few physicists really are that concerned about it. You might be surprised though to find how hard it is to get funding to investigate things that are outside the mainstream.
"Egyptology" is not even claimed to be "science" any longer. They claim it is "linguistics". I doubt their work on the Pyramid Texts will even be seen as "linguistics" in another 20 years.
We're in much closer agreement than I'd have ever imagined.
Until such time as we have a good working definition of "consciousness' and understand our own nature ALL of the important questions are going to be invisible to us and their answers manifold. We'll continue to have seven billion languages, sen billion religions, and an infinite number of answers from which to choose.
gnostic
The Lost One
No, cladking. Egyptology was never science, and therefore never was subjected to peer review, period!