Viking-Saxon gold 'Stolen'

[Notafront4adragon]

1 hour ago, sixgun said:

Eratosthenes some 2000 years ago put sticks in the ground at different sites and measured the angles of the shadows - he thereby calculated the circumference of the Earth - it is one of the pieces of evidence used against Flat Earth theory (which i don't follow just in case you thought i might). i am talking about a time a long time before any of that.
DarkChameleon proposed it was straight forward to quarry, move and place the 800+ tonne stones. You don't have to lift the stone you could dig a hole and 'simply' lower them in. Well the hole theory would mean them digging the ground all around away afterwards - the building is not in a hole. So much more likely you would need to create a long ramp, drag them up and then simply lower them in.  It was done therefore somehow or other it was done. That somehow remains open as there are no eyewitnesses to tell the tale.
The question i proposed was why? Why cut and put world beating sized stones there in the first place? According to the authorities there are no machines, indeed at that time one would have to question everything - how many beasts of burden and active manpower was there to dedicate to putting world record stones in a construction with no obvious reason for it. i figure there would need to be a really good reason.
The Sumerian clay tablet record is vast - it is incomplete b/c all the tablets haven't been translated and any translation is open to some interpretation (you call it guess work). i am listening to a theory - looking at the presentation - noting the knowledge these people should not have had.

'I'm sure you'll say Greek history was made up or some such nonsense. ' - i spoke of Plato - he is said to be Greek - so i appear to be suggesting that bit isn't rubbish - the destruction of Atlantis can be cross referenced to a comet strike. 

We have stories about Atlantis - yes Plato uses Atlantis as a moral allegory - but that does not mean it is based on a complete fiction - he puts a date on its destruction - a date that could work. Is this likely to be a chance coincidence? i would suggest it isn't. Is it just a fiction or is it base on something that really happened? There are accounts of a great flood - it is a Bible fairy story to some but then it turns out these great flood fairy stories are found around the world.

The accounts suggest the Anunnaki created a worker - something that had enough intelligence and could do work.
Man really is a sore thumb in the animal kingdom. What environment do you propose man is perfectly adapted to - the one he makes or the natural one?

i note at the close of your effort you start attacking the person. That is quiet funny to me.  We know recent history which we can check is full of lies - we know that. We know so called science is a grand deception - the climate change fraud - computer models that factor out the Sun and then surprise surprise they are all wrong. That claim carbon dioxide is driving the climate when it constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere and the man made part is 4% of that that. That cow farts are contributing to a climate emergency. i asked you if you believe this man made carbon dioxide Climate Change business - i notice you never answered.

i have no idea who Pepe Silva is - i know about Pepe the frog - he is one of my friends.

 

Pepe Silva will have the answers.

Just because you can't envision how something was built doesn't mean it's impossible. Indeed humans love to try impossible tasks. Like attempting to have a reasonable debate on the internet. 

An organism can adapt the environment to its needs I'd say it's pretty well equipped. It's not just humans that do so. Ants, beavers, a range of birds, shrimp and more have been shown to modify thier environment to make it more suitable. The idea that isn't natural is silly. If nature does it, then by definition it's natural. Besides even if you removed so called technology, hell even took our firemaking ability away, Humans would still be able to dominate their environment. Our ability to sweat and run long distances as well as accurately throw makes us supremely well adapted hunters. Our hands and bipedal stance allow for us to use tools even better than other animals. Add a big brain capable of understanding there's a future and you have one of the best adapted large animals this planet has ever seen. The side effect of a big brain is a vivid imagination as well as deluded thinking, something clearly on display in this thread.

Perhaps I've attacked you personally (you ok petal?) but you've stated so many falsehoods, (we know this and we know that when the reality is we dont) you sympathise with Nazi ideology and you believe only whites can be English. Those are ideas rooted in racial superiority ideology. If you sincerely hold those views then I'm gonna attack you for them as they are anti-human. 

I'm not sure why you hate science and the scientific method so much. The great irony is those that attack science don't like people attempting to find answers. They wish to denigrate science for their own financial (anti climate change) or for control of people minds (creationists). I don't know what your motivation is for attempting to discredit the scientific method; perhaps you run a mining business or are part of the weapons manufacturing industry. Or perhaps you are part of the elites who just don't wanna pay their taxes and want to spread misinformation ensuring the serfs continue to bicker. 

Why do you reject climate modelling when it has accurately predicted trends? The models you have can't predict those trends. Why is attempting to reduce carbon emissions with innovative alternatives a bad idea? Further we've already discussed how even a small part can cause a large effect, it's a balanced system by disrupting it ie going over the 0.04% can have a great affect on the system. Why do you believe addressing climate change is anti-human? What is your motivation?

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

I'm literally curious to know if you'll have these conversations in the real world face to face with colleagues and those you can't know for sure are part of the alt right.

 

[sixgun]

2 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

I'm gonna watch 'They Live' and attempt to view it as a documentary as you have chosen to do so, rather than  entertainment or art. 

When did i mention 'They Live'? You like creating straw man arguments but it is an interesting film i must say.

6 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

I'm not sure why you hate science and the scientific method so much. The great irony is those that attack science don't like people attempting to find answers. They wish to denigrate science for their own financial (anti climate change) or for control of people minds (creationists). I don't know what your motivation is for attempting to discredit the scientific method; perhaps you run a mining business or are part of the weapons manufacturing industry. Or perhaps you are part of the elites who just don't wanna pay their taxes and want to spread misinformation ensuring the serfs continue to bicker. 

The scientific method is good - i have not sought to discredited the method - just fake science - another straw man from the master of straw. i pointed out in an earlier post the replication crisis in science - that findings must be able to be replicated. That is good scientific method - problem is half of science cannot be replicated. If you cannot repeat the same experiment and get the same result you either didn't conduct the experiment properly or the result is wrong.
You had a little run in with @sovereignsteve - i am not sure exactly what Steve did but it seemed to be a science-technical based career. He questioned the account of the construction of the pyramids and the adaption of man to the natural environment on Earth. i have very much a science - evidence based background. Science is about questioning everything - there is no settled science except in the Leftist muddled mind.

14 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Perhaps I've attacked you personally (you ok petal?)...

i know i am devastated by these attacks - 

16 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

you sympathise with Nazi ideology and you believe only whites can be English. Those are ideas rooted in racial superiority ideology. If you sincerely hold those views then I'm gonna attack you for them as they are anti-human. 

English is an ethnic group. Can you have northern Europeans who are Han Chinese? or the Banda of Niger and the Congo?
This is the typical anti-White Leftist propaganda - 

Quote

ethnic group

• n.
  A group of people who identify with one another, especially on the basis of racial, cultural, or religious grounds.
• n.
  people of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture

English is an ethnic group - not a passport, not a place of birth - if i had been born in China or on the Moon i would be English. 
Why are some people happy to accept there are ethnic groups other than in Europe? Correctly defining ethnic groups is not racial superiority. To say that would, as the Left often does, be to degenerate other groups. English is a White ethnic group - (Banda is a Black ethnic group). Now you are saying that is White supremacy - but that means you view Blacks as inferior to even make mention of that idea. Why would you do that?

Sympathise with Nazi ideology - i said they have lots of positive ideas, strong family, honouring motherhood, workers paid holidays, encouraging exercise, anti-smoking, conservation... i wrote a list out. Are you against the contents of the list i wrote? You are in effect saying that. Why would you do that? 

28 minutes ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Why do you reject climate modelling when it has accurately predicted trends? The models you have can't predict those trends. Why is attempting to reduce carbon emissions with innovative alternatives a bad idea? Further we've already discussed how even a small part can cause a large effect, it's a balanced system by disrupting it ie going over the 0.04% can have a great affect on the system. Why do you believe addressing climate change is anti-human? What is your motivation?

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

The 'global warming' models have all failed - remember the ice caps were all supposed to be gone and all the coastal zones under water - snow should be a thing of the past now. Remember all that. The world is ending in 2030 - it might be 'ending' if the UN has its way but not due to any fictional global warming.
You have been taken in by the propaganda. You cannot be aware of the genesis of the man made global warming agenda. Carbon dioxide going over 0.04% does have an effect on the system - it makes plant life grow better. The greenhouse gas is water vapour - carbon dioxide is irrelevant. Climate change is about redistribution of wealth and depopulation. There are some quotes on this page.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/24/global-warming-is-not-about-the-science-un-admits-climate-change-policy-is-about-how-we-redistribute-the-

worlds-wealth/

This started with the Club of Rome in the 1960's - it published The Limits to Growth in 1972 and in 1991 The First Global Revolution, in the latter you will find:

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

i am going to leave this discussion here - you will either work this out or remain as you are. It makes no difference to me. 

[Notafront4adragon]

4 minutes ago, sixgun said:

 

i am going to leave this discussion here - you will either work this out or remain as you are. It makes no difference to me. 

Ditto. Something we can agree on. 

[Melon]

3 hours ago, sixgun said:

i am going to leave this discussion here - you will either work this out or remain as you are. It makes no difference to me. 

 

3 hours ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Ditto. Something we can agree on. 

 

Aww come on guys, I was learning 🤓

[DarkChameleon]

6 hours ago, sixgun said:

Eratosthenes some 2000 years ago put sticks in the ground at different sites and measured the angles of the shadows - he thereby calculated the circumference of the Earth - it is one of the pieces of evidence used against Flat Earth theory (which i don't follow just in case you thought i might). i am talking about a time a long time before any of that.
DarkChameleon proposed it was straight forward to quarry, move and place the 800+ tonne stones. You don't have to lift the stone you could dig a hole and 'simply' lower them in. Well the hole theory would mean them digging the ground all around away afterwards - the building is not in a hole. So much more likely you would need to create a long ramp, drag them up and then simply lower them in.  It was done therefore somehow or other it was done. That somehow remains open as there are no eyewitnesses to tell the tale.
The question i proposed was why? Why cut and put world beating sized stones there in the first place? According to the authorities there are no machines, indeed at that time one would have to question everything - how many beasts of burden and active manpower was there to dedicate to putting world record stones in a construction with no obvious reason for it. i figure there would need to be a really good reason.
The Sumerian clay tablet record is vast - it is incomplete b/c all the tablets haven't been translated and any translation is open to some interpretation (you call it guess work). i am listening to a theory - looking at the presentation - noting the knowledge these people should not have had.

'I'm sure you'll say Greek history was made up or some such nonsense. ' - i spoke of Plato - he is said to be Greek - so i appear to be suggesting that bit isn't rubbish - the destruction of Atlantis can be cross referenced to a comet strike. 

We have stories about Atlantis - yes Plato uses Atlantis as a moral allegory - but that does not mean it is based on a complete fiction - he puts a date on its destruction - a date that could work. Is this likely to be a chance coincidence? i would suggest it isn't. Is it just a fiction or is it based on something that really happened? There are accounts of a great flood - it is a Bible fairy story to some but then it turns out these great flood fairy stories are found around the world.

The accounts suggest the Anunnaki created a worker - something that had enough intelligence and could do work. The human genome is in the majority 'junk' DNA - it has no supposed purpose - some 'experts' have claimed some of this is 'alien' DNA - mad ideas to some but why so much junk DNA - why hasn't it just been lost over the millennia?
Man really is a sore thumb in the animal kingdom. What environment do you propose man is perfectly adapted to - the one he makes or the natural one?

i note at the close of your effort you start attacking the person - but i knew you would do that. That is quiet funny to me.  We know recent history which we can check is full of lies - we know that. We have figures such as Churchill and Napoleon telling us that history is written by the victors and a set of lies agreed upon. We know so called science is a grand deception - the climate change fraud - computer models that factor out the Sun and then surprise surprise they are all wrong. That claim carbon dioxide is driving the climate when it constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere and the man made part is 4% of that that. That cow farts are contributing to a climate emergency. i asked you if you believe this man made carbon dioxide Climate Change business - i notice you never answered.

i have no idea who Pepe Silva is - i know about Pepe the frog - he is one of my friends.

 

For my comment I'd suggest that the giant stones were moved because they could be and religion is a strong force and whatever religion it is some will follow it, like the stone masons who built the cathedrals etc...stone henge was just to prove it could be done, the reason there are so many other stone circles, lifting heavy stones can be done several ways, one is to use many people, two is to use ice and round stones on hard ground, three is to use slight rise bit by bit, four is to use surrounding weight..iow stones to lift the larger ones then place those stones I'm the structure, etc, five is to create a,mound or use and existing ones and build from removal of ground then lower, filling in the holes as each level requires to form the next stage, six, you can use balance and weight to lift tall objects upright, seven you can use nature to move objects by placing them on their side on ice then melt the ice under one half and it will slowly rise, the same with sand....thing logically and it can be done...I think we have a history of logic as a race going back millenia so it only takes a small group of lateral thinkers then communication and SORTED.

[KDave]

On 04/12/2019 at 00:28, Notafront4adragon said:

I'm not ignoring evidence, it's bad science and therefore can't be a valid argument to disprove evolution. They haven't proven much except to show they misunderstood some maths. Their research is heavily criticised and no one but creationists will publish their work. To me that doesn't sound like it can be substantiated. It's a religious ideology attempting to masquerade as science. 

You're free to choose to believe in a religion if you want to. Just don't attempt to make it sound like science. They are different. 

Here's a list you won't most likely won't agree with, there's further reading at the bottom of the article with hundreds of other articles giving rebuttals to numerous creationist arguments. There's plenty of references to things they like to ignore or misrepresent.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

If neither can be proven with evidence and remain hypothesis, what is the difference at this point? There isn't enough evidence to support one over the other, so its a choice between hypothesis. This reminds me of the dark matter hypothesis, we have never seen it but because our math models predict the universe behaving in a certain way, therefore there must be dark matter. We have looked for decades now and found nothing. Isn't a better conclusion that the models are wrong. The same with climate change, every ten years the world is ending for the past 40 years. The model is wrong. Evolution does not explain mankind, perhaps as with astronomers or EU funded climatologists we are still looking for the evidence that we know for sure is out there. Or perhaps it is wrong.  That is not to say that alternatives are correct, it is just to admit we don't know and to keep an open mind. Otherwise we are dragged into dogmatic positions and are no better than the religious believing a theory on faith. 

[Murph]

Yes the Nazi party were so against smoking they had there own cigarette company.  Sturm Zigaretten and they were so into a strong family and family values they encouraged 'Aryans'  like members of the SS to breed outside of marriage.

Anti smoking groups, researchers and rules had been in place in Germany, and other countries, since before the first world war.  I can't seem to find any reports on the number of smokers in Germany during WW2 but I seem to recall the number increased during this time although the total amount smoked dropped due to obvious causes.

As to how or if the Nazi party actually really tried to limit people smoking...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5637694/

 

 

[Murph]

Evolution is far from a hypothesis and show me where people in the field say there 'must' be dark matter.  It's a placeholder name for something  that is used because of observed effects.  No physicist would say there 'must' be anything and that's certainly not the way it was taught at university when I was there.  Nothing is a must be or known for sure.  Unlike creationism or religion everything is tentative and based on probabilities with fine tuning and changes happening constantly.

Dark matter isn't theorised purely from mathematical models.  Gravitational lensing has been observed which appears to be due to what is called dark matter.  The motion of galaxies appear to suggest there is dark matter.  This isn't something I've studied but I believe there are a number of other observations which point to dark matter (or unobservable mass).

https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html

 

It could be our ideas about gravity are incomplete and this would explain dark matter but until someone comes up with a new theory of gravity that explains this without introducing even more problems or that can be tested, I'm sure people will just continue working to discover what exactly dark matter is.

 

[Miganto]

20 hours ago, sixgun said:

it is one of the pieces of evidence used against Flat Earth theory (which i don't follow just in case you thought i might).

 

 

Sixgun ISNT a flat earther - i'm sorry but this thread has just broken the fourth wall, I can't carry on with this madness!

Sorry for hijacking the thread for my own factless thoughts and ramblings but I wonder if the huge nugget found in Scotland was stolen at some point or not.  Maybe it is spent fuel created by those aliens leaving from stonehenge?

[KDave]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

Evolution is far from a hypothesis and show me where people in the field say there 'must' be dark matter.  It's a placeholder name for something  that is used because of observed effects.  No physicist would say there 'must' be anything and that's certainly not the way it was taught at university when I was there.  Nothing is a must be or known for sure.  Unlike ............creationism or religion everything is tentative and based on probabilities with fine tuning and changes happening constantly.

How do statements like this not reveal the blindspot in your thinking? You are demonstrating a contradiction in philosophy  - "nothing is known for sure, except for xyz" and anything that challenges that view is heresy. It is religious thinking. This is not science it is dogma. 

[DarkChameleon]

29 minutes ago, KDave said:

How do statements like this not reveal the blindspot in your thinking? You are demonstrating a contradiction in philosophy  - "nothing is known for sure, except for xyz" and anything that challenges that view is heresy. It is religious thinking. This is not science it is dogma. 

We advance as a species by taking xyz and proposing abc, we might come up with cba, or bca or bac but it has served us well to start from a known spot and look beyond...we might be totally wrong, somewhat wrong or totally right but without taking those chances or views or indeed beliefs wed not advance in any way from knuckle dragging apes to upright apes able to drive cars, fly drones or speak languages....we are proof of advancing intelligence by simply comprehending and asking 'how about this?', we didn't have that as cave dwellers, not the ability to do or to ask in general, we owe everything to those few who did think, did argue and did step forward and upward.

[DarkChameleon]

20 hours ago, Notafront4adragon said:

Pepe Silva will have the answers.

Just because you can't envision how something was built doesn't mean it's impossible. Indeed humans love to try impossible tasks. Like attempting to have a reasonable debate on the internet. 

An organism can adapt the environment to its needs I'd say it's pretty well equipped. It's not just humans that do so. Ants, beavers, a range of birds, shrimp and more have been shown to modify thier environment to make it more suitable. The idea that isn't natural is silly. If nature does it, then by definition it's natural. Besides even if you removed so called technology, hell even took our firemaking ability away, Humans would still be able to dominate their environment. Our ability to sweat and run long distances as well as accurately throw makes us supremely well adapted hunters. Our hands and bipedal stance allow for us to use tools even better than other animals. Add a big brain capable of understanding there's a future and you have one of the best adapted large animals this planet has ever seen. The side effect of a big brain is a vivid imagination as well as deluded thinking, something clearly on display in this thread.

Perhaps I've attacked you personally (you ok petal?) but you've stated so many falsehoods, (we know this and we know that when the reality is we dont) you sympathise with Nazi ideology and you believe only whites can be English. Those are ideas rooted in racial superiority ideology. If you sincerely hold those views then I'm gonna attack you for them as they are anti-human. 

I'm not sure why you hate science and the scientific method so much. The great irony is those that attack science don't like people attempting to find answers. They wish to denigrate science for their own financial (anti climate change) or for control of people minds (creationists). I don't know what your motivation is for attempting to discredit the scientific method; perhaps you run a mining business or are part of the weapons manufacturing industry. Or perhaps you are part of the elites who just don't wanna pay their taxes and want to spread misinformation ensuring the serfs continue to bicker. 

Why do you reject climate modelling when it has accurately predicted trends? The models you have can't predict those trends. Why is attempting to reduce carbon emissions with innovative alternatives a bad idea? Further we've already discussed how even a small part can cause a large effect, it's a balanced system by disrupting it ie going over the 0.04% can have a great affect on the system. Why do you believe addressing climate change is anti-human? What is your motivation?

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

I'm literally curious to know if you'll have these conversations in the real world face to face with colleagues and those you can't know for sure are part of the alt right.

 

If you as a tribe figured out a way to look all powerful by moving this, by constructing that, by figuring out he other would you write it down?, would you give another tribe that ability to do something by just reading the instructions?, power is a as stated, a powerful force, it can give power to a normally powerless nation, the secret of so and so can be their power...one reason so many would do a task, and so few keep the secret of it, you'd have to torture it out of them...one reason no manuals were ever found, word of mouth and the power of teaching was so respected...a tribe taught itself to do the things other tribes didn't know, the tribes of stone henge didn't write down in words or pictures how to do it, their power was doing it and nobody else knowing how...how many pilgrims stood in awe at the cathedrals...the stone masons knew how parts were made but so many of their talents were never written down only handed down from parent to child to guarenteed lifetime employment and respect. 

[KDave]

3 minutes ago, DarkChameleon said:

We advance as a species by taking xyz and proposing abc, we might come up with cba, or bca or bac but it has served us well to start from a known spot and look beyond...we might be totally wrong, somewhat wrong or totally right but without taking those chances or views or indeed beliefs wed not advance in any way from knuckle dragging apes to upright apes able to drive cars, fly drones or speak languages....we are proof of advancing intelligence by simply comprehending and asking 'how about this?', we didn't have that as cave dwellers, not the ability to do or to ask in general, we owe everything to those few who did think, did argue and did step forward and upward.

Correct. The point people are making on the thread is there is evidence for cba, bca and bac. The counter to this from those advocating 'science' is that only bca is valid because "nothing is known for sure except bca". That is not science it is dogma. 

I could argue the merits of religion and philosophy as means of understand our world too, they did us well as a means to construct society to get us to this point too, you must know a bit about what I am talking about being a mason. I have not seen as much dogma in the church as I have seen from the unquestioning high priests of science, who studied at university and learned the 'truth' of evolution, climate change and astronomy, regardless of the scientific method. The abuse of science to beat religion and affirm a certain philosophical world view is more likely to take us downward and backward than anything else. 

[DarkChameleon]

7 minutes ago, KDave said:

Correct. The point people are making on the thread is there is evidence for cba, bca and bac. The counter to this from those advocating 'science' is that only bca is valid because "nothing is known for sure except bca". That is not science it is dogma. 

I could argue the merits of religion and philosophy as means of understand our world too, they did us well as a means to construct society to get us to this point too, you must know a bit about what I am talking about being a mason. I have not seen as much dogma in the church as I have seen from the unquestioning high priests of science, who studied at university and learned the 'truth' of evolution, climate change and astronomy, regardless of the scientific method. The abuse of science to beat religion and affirm a certain philosophical world view is more likely to take us downward and backward than anything else. 

Any advance seems to be abused, someone always wants a gain in power from it, but knowing xyz we try to advance to the next stage by predicting a, it might be easy if we were going from abc and predicting d but science usually finds that the next step is not a tiny step but a major one, we assume A through Z and believe the unknown must be the next alphabet and begin again at A ..thinking our own lack of easy knowledge means we had to be standing at Z and not F or P in the science alphabet...so we argue first that something exists, that something eve existed that we thought we knew and that we are at the end, the beginning or in the middle of things...one thing is for sure, that if our species is expected to live and grow for the next million years or so it's imperative that we are past DEF and nowhere near XYZ..or even knowing what XYZ could be..religion is a feel good factor abused by powers that would benefit themselves, science also, but logic cannot be abused, it is the one that finds laws of nature, it has a moral compass, it doesn't get swayed by those crying to believe them or else.

[sixgun]

2 hours ago, Miganto said:

Sixgun ISNT a flat earther - i'm sorry but this thread has just broken the fourth wall, I can't carry on with this madness!

Sorry for hijacking the thread for my own factless thoughts and ramblings but I wonder if the huge nugget found in Scotland was stolen at some point or not.  Maybe it is spent fuel created by those aliens leaving from stonehenge?

Well i was accused of being a Nazi so we got there in the end - what's the fourth wall?
Well actually i wondered if it wasn't a fake - scrap jewellery - buy some scrap bits and get BYB to melt it down. You get to be famous - the biggest nugget found in Scotland and it is something knocked up in the backyard.

[Miganto]

32 minutes ago, sixgun said:

Well i was accused of being a Nazi so we got there in the end - what's the fourth wall?
Well actually i wondered if it wasn't a fake - scrap jewellery - buy some scrap bits and get BYB to melt it down. You get to be famous - the biggest nugget found in Scotland and it is something knocked up in the backyard.

A nice way to turn £4,000 gold into "£80,000"

[KDave]

48 minutes ago, DarkChameleon said:

Any advance seems to be abused, someone always wants a gain in power from it, but knowing xyz we try to advance to the next stage by predicting a, it might be easy if we were going from abc and predicting d but science usually finds that the next step is not a tiny step but a major one, we assume A through Z and believe the unknown must be the next alphabet and begin again at A ..thinking our own lack of easy knowledge means we had to be standing at Z and not F or P in the science alphabet...so we argue first that something exists, that something eve existed that we thought we knew and that we are at the end, the beginning or in the middle of things...one thing is for sure, that if our species is expected to live and grow for the next million years or so it's imperative that we are past DEF and nowhere near XYZ..or even knowing what XYZ could be..religion is a feel good factor abused by powers that would benefit themselves, science also, but logic cannot be abused, it is the one that finds laws of nature, it has a moral compass, it doesn't get swayed by those crying to believe them or else.

Yes power is a corrupting influence, hence why I do not trust the large scale funding of climate science by organisations such as the EU, and why I am not surprised that political parties such as the labour party have dedicated a third of their manifesto to 'the environment'. They do not care for the environment. They care for power. Such is the world. I agree. 

You mention the corruption or abuse of science and religion, I agree with this sentiment. 'Science' as it is toted in this thread is a philosophy. "Nothing is known for sure" is a philosophical starting point that even the people advocating abandon as soon as they state it, and say that some views can not be challenged - for example the theory of evolution. Climate change, ect. Any opposing theories are wrong. That is not logical and it is not in keeping with the process and tool that is the scientific method. It is the same fixed contradictory and illogical mindset of religion. 

I think we agree but you wish to make an additional point that perhaps I am missing? 

[Roy]

Sir David Attenborough says climate change is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

Therefore, it is.

[sovereignsteve]

1 hour ago, Roy said:

Sir David Attenborough says climate change is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

Therefore, it is.

The high priest of the BBC view of the natural world.

[sovereignsteve]

22 hours ago, sixgun said:

You had a little run in with @sovereignsteve - i am not sure exactly what Steve did but it seemed to be a science-technical based career.

Oh was that a run in?😁

Barebones CV: Scientist but not acedemic, post graduate degree, Medical sciences but not medic. R&D a plenty.

I know all about the scientific method. I've observed the replication problem many times. I've seen many research scientists publish results to keep their grants, jobs, commercial masters happy😉

They are generally like sheep, preferring to keep in a tightly knit herd, not daring to stand out for fear of ridicule and reasons previously mentioned.

I see confirmation bias everywhere, I see group think everywhere. I see closed minds everywhere. Just because a certain theory has the support of the majority of peers is no recommendation as to it's accuracy.

Most big theories these days are all but impossible to prove or disprove.

The theory of evolution is a beautiful theory; it undoubtedly works, to a point. It has major holes; there is no supporting evidence such as fossils to cover all periods. Who is to say it didn't receive a helping hand along the way? To dismiss such ideas out of hand is typical of a closed mind. The arrogance of scientists and "experts" can be staggering. They are human, such attitudes are typical of the human race as a whole.

There are many examples of scientists finding religion.  I am not religious.

Who is to say that God wasn't an astronaut?

 

 

 

 

[Melon]

25 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Who is to say that God wasn't an astronaut?

Don't be ridiculous. God is from Italy! 

[Miganto]

On 01/12/2019 at 16:31, kimchi said:

Keep an eye on it as it might get interesting still if/when we start to link in the paedophiles, gays and transexuals in and around the royal family (and NO I am NOT grouping any of those together)!

One interesting thing I found that maybe I forgot to mention is that 'Nasi' is mentioned on Wikipedia as a Hebrew honorific meaning king/prince or sometimes captain (from the Davidic Line page). In modern Hebrew it means president.

It's just the German 'national socialist' put together due to the party origins.

 

The hebrew sounds more like 'nah-see' (emphasis on the bold).  There is no 't' or 'z' or 'ts' sound

 

They are vaguely similar, but they do sound quite different especially with the correct national pronunciation.  It's purely coincidental but a nice connection to make if you wish to make it to back up that kind of relational view but there really is no connection or real similiarity.

[Murph]

5 hours ago, KDave said:

How do statements like this not reveal the blindspot in your thinking? You are demonstrating a contradiction in philosophy  - "nothing is known for sure, except for xyz" and anything that challenges that view is heresy. It is religious thinking. This is not science it is dogma. 

I don't see any blindspot.  I see your creative editing making it look as though I have contradicted myself either through not reading, comprehending or dishonesty.  I said in science nothing  is known 100% unlike creationists/religion where people say what they believe is 100% known because it is handed down from a perfect creator who can make no mistakes.

I'm not going to reply again because discourse with people who believe almost every conspiracy theory they are introduced to is a complete waste of time, especially if they make up things you haven't said to argue against.

[kimchi]

47 minutes ago, Miganto said:

The hebrew sounds more like 'nah-see' (emphasis on the bold).  There is no 't' or 'z' or 'ts' sound

In Ancient Hebrew or modern?

In Japan Pokemon are pronounced 'Po-kay-mon' but kids here say 'Pokey-mon'. Does that make them different things?

What an interesting thread!

[Miganto]

Ah I only speak modern hebrew so i can't comment on ancient.  But it seems kind of irrelevant, unless you're saying a couple of thousand years ago the etymology of 'national' and 'socialist' were set on a path to create Nazi's and have it similar to 'a' word in Hebrew? 

 

I mean "Greek" is similar to "geek" - does that mean all geeks are Greek or vice versa?  There will always be words that sound like other words in other languages.

This one is purely coincidental Kimchi.