The topic of non-supernatural intelligent design appears deserving of its own thread where many more people are able to see it and join in.

This thread is a spin-off from Zero (http://www.sciforums.com/f47/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=5982)'s thread: Creationism does NOT belong in science. (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html) By spinning off, this thread can explore further the topic herein unencumbered by the much broader range of possible topics still carrying forth 'over there'. Also, the discussion here won't hijack and divert Zero (http://www.sciforums.com/f47/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=5982)'s thread away from his original topic, and it gives us the ability to more narrowly focus the discussion in a very specific way.

So, this thread is devoted entirely to, and quite intentionally limited to, open discussion of NON-SUPERNATURAL Intelligent Design theory.

*******-> Therefore, I ask that all posters wishing to discuss the "SUPERNATURAL" form of Intelligent Design" (you know: "god did it, and Zeus watched") to please do so only in the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html). We thank you. :)

////////////////////////////////////////////////////
So, to re-boot (or re-mount, as the case may be) and re-initialize....

Warren (http://www.sciforums.com/f47/sb920d139ec088c1ca0ed054bb800d7f2/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=6320), et al.;

As you see in the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html), there is here a rather pronounced, though not unanimous, general disregard for pleas to the supernatural. That is, no doubt, why you have come to SciForums--motivated by a sincere desire to make your case for:

Intelligent Design, like naturalism, is a distinct epistemology. ID and naturalism are frameworks for theories and hypotheses, an epistemological underpinning for those theories and hypotheses.
....to such a community. In fact, you appreciate that you must be able to make your case effectively here, before you are able to anticipate similarly being able to sway the minds of others in other truly more rigorous venues. Because, as you've stated:

The only way to find out if a theory of intelligent design can advance our understanding beyond that of a "blind watchmaker" theory is to use the scientific method....
....(with the associated apriori need to resort to a modified form ot the scientific method, as in)....

....from an ID perspective....

....and see what comes from it.
....and the price of being able to sway such minds is being truly persuasive.

Arising from our not unexpected disregard, the sufficient, though not formally rigorous, case has been made (in the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html) ) as to the why and how creationism is invalidated as a viable adjunct of science--a premise you already find agreeable; as you've stated:

I agree that ID research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement.

Intelligent design doesn't invoke a deity.
--and so, such case already having been made, together let us all now stipulate that unprovable supernatural agents and aspects normally attributed to "Intelligent Design" henceforth have no merit in furthering the discussion of non-super-natural intelligent design now at hand.

So, onto the presentation of the specifics of your case, Warren (http://www.sciforums.com/f47/sb920d139ec088c1ca0ed054bb800d7f2/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=6320), for natural (as opposed to super-natural) intelligent design (NID)....

To help this part of the discussion to move over here, I have gathered some representative samplings of your thoughts below, mostly to spare people having to go back and forth between the threads so much. I appreciate that this collection of 'samplings' may only reflect my own personal selection bias as to what stands out most in relevence to introducing this iteration of the discussion. To that, I cop to owing a nominal amount of pleadings mea culpa. ;)

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

By way of tranfer from the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html), I paraphrase here some of your earlier thoughts (as SciForum's principal proponent of NID) for the benefit of the ensuing discussions:

For instance, in the other thread (http://www.sciforums.com/t8482/sf27605397eaf9cf74fddb3ce29229329/thread.html), in response to Zero's statement:

"....the fact stands that creationism does NOt belong in science."

....you replied, "Depends on how you define creationism and how you define science."

Elsewhere, you asked of various others:

>"A scientist suspects that non-intelligent processes may be insufficient to produce biological complexity. He wishes to follow-up his suspicion with an investigation using the scientific method. .... Can what he is doing be called science?"

>"....are you opposed to anything that's not compatible with materialism?"

>"If biological structures are not created by random, blind, purposeless copying errors plus natural selection then how are they created? (There is nothing for natural selection to select until a complex, rational, functioning biological structure is in existence.) Is life ‘self organized’? Intelligently self-organized? What would be the difference between intelligently self-organized and intelligently designed?"

>"....without the evidence of direct experience and testimony, could we ever hope to detect such intelligent intervention? In other words, is it possible to *indirectly* detect intelligent intervention? If not, then the claim, "There is no evidence of intelligent intervention," becomes rather meaningless. For it would simply mean that our methods failed to detect the things our methods are unable to detect. But if we can indirectly detect intelligent intervention, then such an effort would qualify as science and the results would be meaningful."

>"As for teleologists presenting something unequivocal I suppose you mean (1) showing the designer in action, or (2) discovering the actual design protocols (i.e., the designer's lab notebook) or (3) providing an example of something that couldn't possibly have evolved. The problem is that even if life was indeed designed (for example), there is not one good reason (not one) why we should be able to do (1), (2), or (3). That is, (1), (2), and (3) are simply not entailed by the truth of ID in history. So the question is how do we go about detecting ID without (1), (2), and (3). And that is what ID is all about. It is about looking for fingerprints of intelligent intervention. It is about employing an "if, then" forensic approach to guide an experimental inquiry that can generate results that either support or weaken the initial design inference."

>"I can think of three possible explanations of evolution: 1) The theistic assumption that God guides nature’s creative processes. 2) A creative intelligence innate in all living matter drives the process -- a creative intelligence which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, creative intelligence is neither measurable nor predictable. 3) Novel Biological structures are the result of some unknown non-intelligent, mechanistic process - as yet to be specified by ‘science’. Does our present understanding allow us to impose any one of these possibilities upon society, and prohibit consideration of the others?"

>"If science is required to limit itself to mechanistic explanations, and life is not a mechanistic process, perhaps science can not explain life."

>"....without the evidence of direct experience and testimony, could we ever hope to detect such intelligent intervention? In other words, is it possible to *indirectly* detect intelligent intervention? If not, then the claim, "There is no evidence of intelligent intervention," becomes rather meaningless. For it would simply mean that our methods failed to detect the things our methods are unable to detect."

You said variously in regards to Science, naturalism, or materialism:

>"Scientists don't accept naturalistic abiogenesis because of the evidence. No, scientists accept naturalistic abiogenesis because the game rules of science preclude any hint of teleology."

>"....it's important to note that the hostility of the scientific community towards creationism is .... a commitment of the scientific community to the blind watchmaker hypothesis."

>"....so far no one has specified exactly how biological complexity might actually be created."

>"One can use the scientific method without subscibing to the philosophy of materialism."

>" It is a faulty assumption that science is about coming up with the best possible explanation."

>"Non-teleologists embrace extraordinary claims without any evidence, yet demand (while pounding the podium) proof of ID."

About NID you've said:

>"....ID is every bit as falsifiable as Darwinism."

>"That a competent blind watchmaker may not exist at all and that certain aspects of biotic reality may be better explained by a seeing watchmaker...."

>"I believe ID can be detected in a working sense. That is, one can score features that provisionally place something in the tentative "designed" category and build from there. This is why ID researchers prefer making a "design inference" rather than asserting they have detected design."

>"Intelligent design is a form of teleology and not creationism.

>"I personally see more than sufficient evidence to trigger a suspicion that ID is behind the origin of life in the fact that biology not only needs teleological language and concepts, but that such concepts really do generate an understanding of life. I think life expresses enough complex specified information such that ID is a better explanation for its origin than geochemistry. For me, this evidence goes beyond mere suspicion and takes me close to the realm of the "most likely."

About NID as Epistemology you've said:

>"Why am I open to teleological explanations? It's a judgment call,...."

>"I'm not looking for a fail proof detector of ID."

>"I need a much more rigorous set of evidence to think random mutations and natural selection were indeed the only mechanisms behind the origin of biological innovations post-abiogenesis."

>"To me, it is not a question of proof, but a question of whether data exist that trigger a suspicion of ID."

>"The ID movement has the potential of evening the playing field by reviving its arguments in more sophisticated versions."

>"I'm questioning this whole notion that in order for a theory to be useful and increase our understanding of biotic reality it has to be devoid of teleology."

>"....if we can indirectly detect intelligent intervention, then such an effort would qualify as science and the results would be meaningful."

Some other things you have said:

>"Simply trying to establish that something is possible is about as weak of a claim there can be."

Some things said by others that you have quoted to make a your own point:

>"....plausibility is about the weakest criterion one can apply to an evolutionary hypothesis."

Warren,

I can consider sentient Intelligent Design quite easily--aliens, for instance, having engineered our earliest ancestors' RNA and/or it precursor. But, I don't think that is what you mean by Intelligent Design.

What do you mean when you say "Intelligent Design"?

Interesting thread subject.

Ive been thinking about this lately, mostly because my most recent time waster is rereading "Morning of the magicians".

Matter evolved from nothing (or really a primal singularity).

Life appears to have somehow evolved from matter.

Conciousness has evolved from life.

What next?

I dont know if I would go so far as to posit intellegent design, Im thinking more along the lines of the development of conciosness and spirt (very unscientific word) being inherent in the evolution of universes.
So Im for explanation 2)A creative intelligence innate in all living matter drives the process -- a creative intelligence which might be viewed as a natural force such as gravity. However, unlike gravity, creative intelligence is neither measurable nor predictable.

Maybe it is measurable though, not in calories or grams or ergs but in ethical systems. As the universe develops and becomes more self aware, how do ethical systems change? Maybe they would change to reflect the recognition of the presence this creative intellegence in all living beings. Maybe from "an eye for an eye" to "do unto others" (Please dont hang me for using christian examples here you can find the same sentiment in taoism and buddhism). Every change should be measurable, but where to look for the data?

Maybe its measurable in psychology, in self awareness.

m0rl0ck;


Maybe it is measurable though, not in calories or grams or ergs but in ethical systems.
Are you thinking that maybe because ethical systems are human constructs then humans are the means for the universe to convert its proposed 'creative intelligence' into ethical systems?

That humans are Nature's way of manifesting this 'creative intelligence' in a form other things like rocks and trees cannot?

Specifically, that the human brain is what converts this 'creative intelligence' into systems of ethics and morality not otherwise native to ourselves?

>>Youre you thinking that maybe because ethical systems are human constructs then humans are the means for the universe to convert its proposed 'creative intelligence' into ethical systems?

No. I think ethical systems evolving toward greater respect for concious awareness as expressed in human beings might be a signal of an evolution of the universe as a whole, of the entire system (not a good word but the only one i can think of now) evolving toward greater awareness.




>>>That humans are Nature's way of manifesting this 'creative intelligence' in a form other things like rocks and trees cannot?

Maybe. But maybe humans just manifest this awareness according to the means that they have. Rock and trees are part of the system too though, first matter, then life, then consiousness. All of the parts of an earlier form would be included in the manifestation of the next. It wouldnt be just ethical systems though if the theory were correct youd have to be able to see an "upward" trend in all kinds of human endeavor, instead of upward make that maybe more inclusive, in the same way that conciousness includes all the earlier forms. I chose ethics off the top of my head because reading the religion forum I am always impressed at the quantum leap between the "eye for an eye" and later developments and the number of ethical throwbacks we carry along with us :)


>>Specifically, that the human brain is what converts this 'creative intelligence' into systems of ethics and morality not otherwise native to ourselves?

No. You make it sound like human brains secrete ethical systems the way snails leave slime trails :)
What Im thinking is more along the lines of ethical evolution (increasing inclusivity and respect for concious awareness in other beings) being a sign of greater consiousness as a whole expressed through human beings.

As far as brains in general i dont think that the reductionist idea of human consciousness being exactly congruent to the physical structure of the brain and its chemical and electrical processes is going to survive this discussion. While thats a useful frame of reference for doing brain surgury or prescriging psychoactive drugs to cure depression im not sure that this discussion isnt outside that ideas useful frame of application.

m0rl0ck,

...ethical systems....evolving toward greater awareness.
Ah. Science! ;)


What Im thinking is more along the lines of ethical evolution (increasing inclusivity and respect for concious awareness in other beings)....
Do you think this might be an indication of design from non-supernatural intelligence?


....i dont think that the reductionist idea of human consciousness being exactly congruent to the physical structure of the brain and its chemical and electrical processes is going to survive this discussion.
I should think that science has no problem with the idea that consciousness is a bi-product of the brain's bio-electro-chemical activity. Is consciousness another indicator of design by non-supernatural intelligence?

Warren has made some distinction between 'intelligent self-organization' and 'intelligently designed' (engineered).

Do either of these two terms fit into your ideas about 'evolving awareness'?

>>>>Do you think this might be an indication of design from non-supernatural intelligence?

I have problems with the concepts "design" and "intellegence" in this context, because they seem to me to carry connotations of rational planning by some entity (beware! lurking anthropomorphism ahead). If you start off down this road you could easily end up painting yourself into philosohical corner where the only way out is postulating an entity of some kind (and then you end up with inquisitions, suicide bombers, wars over christs foreskin etc :) ).
I tend to think of an organic "intellegience" whose natural end is inherent in its beginnings, (this is not a good example dont take it in any way literally but only as a pointer) in the way that an oak is inherent in an acorn. A becoming rather than a product of accretive or planned design.

>>>>>I should think that science has no problem with the idea that consciousness is a bi-product of the brain's bio-electro-chemical activity. Is consciousness another indicator of design by non-supernatural intelligence?

The idea that the brain is some kind of biochemical computer with conciousness as its by product doesnt take into account actual experience, the actual raw data of conciousness. How do we experience the world? Do we see it as bits of sensory data rushing around through a biological computer?
The world comes to us as direct experience not as bits of objectivist data, but as hopes, fears, attractions, aversions etc that arise by themselves, they are there whenever we look. The very idea of the brain as a biological computer is a concious concept. Conciousness attempting to explain itself away? :)

>>>>Do either of these two terms fit into your ideas about 'evolving awareness'?

Intellegient self organization would be closest, misses the mark somehow though, doesnt include the kind of organic wholism I percieve and smells of anthropomorphism.

m0rl0ck:

....the concepts "design" and "intellegence" in this context,....carry connotations of rational planning by some entity (beware!...
Quite so, which is why I would like to narrowly focus the thread on only non-supernatural treatments of the topic ( presuming such treatments are possible, of course).

....you could easily end up painting yourself into philosohical corner where the only way out is postulating an entity of some kind....
Secretly, I think this might be the only recourse ultimately for Warren and non-deity-based ID. ;)

I tend to think of an organic "intellegience" whose natural end is inherent in its beginnings....
A non-cognitive type of 'intelligence'--like with the ability of some form of self-awareness (start <--> finish connectivity), but without the ability of judgement?

The idea that the brain is some kind of biochemical computer with conciousness as its by product doesnt take into account actual experience, the actual raw data of conciousness.
If consciousness has nothing to do with the brain as a biochemical system, why do we have a brain at all? Why aren't we just self-conscious rocks? ;)

The world comes to us as direct experience not as bits of objectivist data,...
You mean, reality isn't 32 frames per second? Or 60 Khz? :o

Conciousness attempting to explain itself...
Isn't that what the proponents of Intelligent Design also advocate?

Intellegient self organization would be closest, misses the mark somehow though, doesnt include the kind of organic wholism I percieve and smells of anthropomorphism.
I agree, for the most part--I can also entertain the notion that it can arise from inherently imprecise ID semantics.

(Note: At this point in the discussion, I should like to draw attention to Warren's conspicuous absence from the thread. I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design--either flavor--and I cannot make his case for non-supernatural ID for him.)

Warren:

In your own words, "I personally see more than sufficient evidence to trigger a suspicion...." ;)

Shall no one, can no one, speak in reasoned defense of Intelligent Design?

Shall no one, can no one, speak in reasoned defense of Intelligent Design?



Im still thinking about the attribution of judgement, as in a selection of one alternative or possibility over another, to something that by definition must contain all possibilities and at the same time is organically elolving (could I decide to grow another finger to improve my typing?).

Im also still thinking about wether its possible to discover an interior truth from an exterior starting point or vice versa (could you deduce electricity from a starting point of jungian psychology?) Is it possible to prove conciousness from an empirical starting point? Yet conciousness exists, we experience it.

For argument's sake;

Theoretically, Intelligent Design has a very high probability factor of being the chosen ecological framework for complex planetary surface systems.

Neither religionism nor evolution has a satisfactory framework outside of their narrow descriptions.

Religionism can most quickly be set aside as not being further included in this hypothesis because it is dependant on an outside agent and so could only be regarded as a subset of Intelligent Design.

Evolution can almost as quickly be set aside unless it is realized that evolution will only ever produce a narrow specrtrum of diversity of life on any given planet, and since I get the impression that you are looking for a theory that would account for a diverse ecological system, such as the one on this planet, we will proceed to set it aside. When the basic molecules for the ingrediants of life are first being attracted to each other it would take eons for them to ferment and finaly begin to be gathered together in sufficient quantity for something complex to form out of the mix. That something might only form at one point on the planet and it would consume whatever it needed to consume to insure that it was able to propagate. The emerging life process would be measured in geologic time and that would insure that the first emerging species would reach population saturation on the planet before a competing species could form to compete for food resources and actually would itself remain undeveloped and part of the food chain.

On some planets it might be possible for two or maybe even up to five different species of life to form, provided the populations are separated by sufficient barriers so as to restrict premature population interaction. Plant life, of course, would form faster and be more diverse but still would be within a narrow spectrum for the same afore mentioned reason of primary species domination.

This discription precludes the possiblity of evolution as it is known in theory on this planet. However, it does allow for, and indeed calls for, natural selection in order that species can continue to pass on their better traits to the succeeding generations.

Intelligent Design begins with collecting specimen of every known kind of life form from every life supporting planet that is known and systematically experimenting with them until every nuance of them is also known, including the compatibility-of-life systems factor.

Warren suggests that:

Intelligent Design,....is a....framework....for theories and hypotheses

The only way to find out if a theory of intelligent design can advance our understanding beyond that of a "blind watchmaker" theory is to use the scientific method....

"Intelligent design is a form of teleology

When I hear the term 'Intelligent Design', I think 'directed purpose'. Warren says no deity is involved in 'intelligent design' but suggests a 'seeing watchmaker'. Does that mean to imply that nature--the Cosmos--itself is somehow self-aware, that it has a purpose toward which it knows to work by directing its components and their interactions toward that end? That in somehow understanding its ultimate purpose the Cosmos knows what it needs to achieve it and how to accomplish it?

John MacNeil suggests that

Theoretically, Intelligent Design....(is the)....chosen ecological framework for complex planetary surface systems.

If we humans, for instance, are a directed attempt by the Cosmos to become more aware of itself through our intelligence and perceptions, are we intruments of its self-analysis? Is that our lives' directed purpose?

m0rl0ck ponders:

....wether its possible to discover an interior truth from an exterior starting point or vice versa....
Perhaps 'intelligent design' implies the Cosmos has the same difficulty--the inability to learn about, and comphrehend, its own origin. And perhaps, as its constructed instruments, neither can or will we. Thus, forever we are left to speculate both wishfully and wistfully. Is that a natural consequence of 'intelligent design'?


....conciousness exists, we experience it.
Perhaps we are bubbles in the quantum foam. :)

To suggest that perhaps the cosmos could make an attempt, through the formation of humans, to become more aware of itself is to delve into the realm of supernatural intelligent design and thus embrace theologic concepts while rejecting physics. If that is the case then perhaps you should move this thread over to the religionists section and hook up to an Ohm! meter and seek one with the universe that way.

Perhaps I have not fully understood your position, but from earlier postings I got the impression that you equate creation and religionism and reject both as lacking empirical evidence.

In my enjoining this discussion I made mention of the theory of primary species domination as being the logical culmination of planetary population. As this theory of primary species domination, which is natural selection, which heretofore was superceded by the wider theory of evolution, which in previous postings I read that you support, leaves you without a supported theory, I believe it is incumbent on you to give a clear statement on what exactly is your position and how it relates to your perception of Intelligent Design, pro or con. Or, since the theory of primary species domination now gives you a more focused understanding of the results of natural selection and makes you realize, as I do, that the theory of evolution, as it was heretofore known and understood by it's description as Darwinian Theory, is defunct, we can proceed.

Towards that end I will now make an observation. When a species has no predatory species attacking it's population it will reproduce until the environment it is in is supporting maximum capacity. This unpredatorized domination of an environment by a species has been observed in microcosm on different parts of this planet when animals have been introduced on continents that were foreign to their developement and were without natural predators. An example of note is the infestation of rabbits in Australia. There the rabbits are producing in great number and eating other species out of their food supply to the extent that some species are in danger of extinction.

It is therefore my hypothesis that for a functional ecosystem to be as diverse as the one we are somewhat familiar with on this planet, that some agent, which at this point I will refer to as the intelligent design aspect, must have integrated various primary species.

John MacNeil:

To suggest that perhaps the cosmos could....become more aware of itself is to delve into the realm of supernatural intelligent design and thus embrace theologic concepts while rejecting physics. If that is the case then perhaps you should move this thread over to the religionists section and hook up to an Ohm! meter and seek one with the universe that way.

Perhaps I have not fully understood your position,....I got the impression that you equate creation and religionism and reject both as lacking empirical evidence.
Ah, the Ohm meter--the scientologists' approach. :D No, indeed I am atheist. Because Warren says that "intelligent design is a....framework....for theories and hypotheses...." I am attempting to discover the framework's foundation and component parts. Because Warren also says that "The only way to find out if a theory of intelligent design can advance our understanding....is to use the scientific method....", I am merely forming various temporary hypotheses and offering them for validation or invalidation as part of a process of ambiguities elimination.

As you and others are applying 'intelligent design' in the context of ecological/biological systems, I was curious whether NID's proponents also will apply ID to Nature in its entirety--the Cosmos: the sum-total of the 'observable' univese and the still as yet 'unobservable' universe (the part(s) of the cosmos hidden from us for the time being because too little time has passed for information from those really distant regions to arrive at Earth). So, yes. I am (provisionally) courting such metaphysical concepts to learn how specifically NID is distinguished apart from other ID iterations--like creationism--as a Cosmos: possibly aware but not conscious (non-supernatural), and as opposed to the naturalist's no-awareness-at-all (natural) cosmos.

I believe it is incumbent on you to give a clear statement on what exactly is your position and how it relates to your perception of Intelligent Design, pro or con.
'Intelligent design' connotes 'directed purpose'--a concept that is beyond the scope and capabilities of empirical endeavors to quantify and validate. As an investigative presupposition, 'intelligent design' introduces additional complexity unnecessary to the considerable abilities of less complex, empirically supportable and defensible explanations of natural processes. That is not to say that 'intelligent design' has no merit as a teleology, but that Science has no immediate need to resort to 'intelligent design' in any of its forms.

....evolution will only ever produce a narrow specrtrum of diversity of life on any given planet,....When the basic molecules for the ingrediants of life are first being attracted to each other it would take eons for them to ferment and finaly begin to be gathered together in sufficient quantity for something complex to form out of the mix. That something might only form at one point on the planet and it would consume whatever it needed to consume to insure that it was able to propagate.
That premise might be true on a planet with one larger lake in whose limited volume the chemistry of life might be initiated and thus confined to a single geographic location. But on early Earth, at least, vast oceans provided potentially zillions of different locations for biochemical activity to begin and, therefore, what is to say that it did not do so in many different places at the same time? Thus leading to great diversity as has been seen in the fossil records of evolutionary history.

I made mention of the theory of primary species domination as being the logical culmination of planetary population.
Episodically, perhaps. But what of the occasional impacting asteroid or comet that kills the principals and allows the secondaries and the tertiaries, etc. to fill their now-abandoned niche?

When a species has no predatory species attacking it's population it will reproduce until the environment it is in is supporting maximum capacity. .... It is therefore my hypothesis that for a functional ecosystem to be as diverse as the one we are somewhat familiar with on this planet, that some agent, which at this point I will refer to as the intelligent design aspect, must have integrated various primary species.
Comet & asteroid impactors, vulcanism & plate tectonics, planet-satellite gravitional tidal interactions, evolving solar nucleosynthesis and chaotic behavior of planetary orbits explain just as adequately that which you describe, too.

As additonal response to:

I made mention of the theory of primary species domination as being the logical culmination of planetary population.
Even during the 145 Million years-long history of the Dinosaurs, the land & seas still were filled with a tremendous diversity of animal, reptile, amphibian, fish, crustacean, insect & plant, etc., species. Australia's rabbits may be decreasing the diversity of mammals and marsupials, etc. in a particular habitat, but as an unmitigated hazard to planetary diversity, only humanity would fit your example to close approximation I should think.

Mr. G:

The 145 million year reign of dinosaur life can only be regarded as a subset of the ecological life system on this planet the same as the life system that we currently exist in can only be regarded as a subset of the ecological life system on this planet. We humans live in all the same areas as did the dinosaur life system and so there would have to be bones and fossils of our ancestral natural selection stage among the bones and fossils of those dinosaurs, that we find in such profusion, for there to be a viable assumption that we developed on this planet as a primary species coincidental with other primary species.

But we find there is no such record and there is actually a disconnection of tens of million of year between the evidentiary proof that allows archaeology to state that both systems did indeed at one time reside on this planet. Since all archaeology is in agreement that there was not enough time since dinosaur extinction and the first appearance of human life on this planet for human life to have evolved here by the method of natural selection, then it must be hypothesized that human life first appeared on this planet as a fully developed primary species. If that hypothesis is allowed then provision must also be made for the hypothesis that the dinosaur system could also have appeared on this planet as a fully developed integrated primary species system.

At some point in the distant past there had to have been an instant on this planet when there was no atmosphere and the concurrent instant when there was atmosphere. In that earliest developing stage there would as yet have been no living systems on this planet and there wouldn't be until all criteria of composition and circumstance were met. It is at this point that the odds on all the required actions intersecting to produce life would be astronomically large and unlikely to be creating different species simultaneously in a multitude of places around the planet, which would be required for there to be a plethora of primary species.

In this earliest of stages the planet would not be covered with liquid oceans as it is now and as it was when the dinosaurs reigned but would have more of an appearence like the moon Europa. I'm not sure how you meant that comet and asteroid impacts could disperse species since to my way of thinking any diplaced life form would not survive atmospheric reentry. Nor do I believe that life could travel on an asteroid let alone survive a planetary impact. As for plate tectonics, volcanism and tidal actions, they would all be secondary to life force initialization.

I have to say that before I read your thread starter on Intelligent Design I didn't know what was meant by it and from the description you quoted I'm still not quite sure although I get the idea that it is meant in the metaphysical sense. If that is it then I would have to regard the use of Intelligent Design in that case as an oxymoron since it precludes physics as the basis of intelligence and instead equates it with an idea which is only a construct of intelligence. It is also my belief that there are no constructs in the universe that cannot be described empiracally when sufficient observation has been collated.

John MacNeil:

Since all archaeology is in agreement that there was not enough time since dinosaur extinction and the first appearance of human life on this planet....
Well, certainly dinosaurs and humans were never contempories, but all archeology has not agreed that there was too little time between their respective ages for evolution to operate. Quite the contrary.

....for human life to have evolved here by the method of natural selection, then it must be hypothesized that human life first appeared on this planet as a fully developed primary species.
Your hypothesis is that 'intelligent designed' primary species--the indomitable species--appear from nowhere in fully developed forms. Further, that it is impossible for such indomitable species to arise via natural selection, and the other evolutionary mechanisms operating in parallel to it, over such brief periods of geologic time. And that the Theory of Evolution--unlike 'intelligent design', amply supported by a formidable body of evidences, is in error, unprovable and otherwise disproven. So 'intelligent design' must be the correct and the only possible alternative explanation to natural selection.

Once again, Warren has stated previously:

The only way to find out if a theory of intelligent design can advance our understanding beyond that of a "blind watchmaker" theory is to use the scientific method....
As such, what predictions can 'intelligent design' make that can be tested to begin the accumulation of proofs necessary to establish its validity as a better alternative to TOE?

If that hypothesis is allowed....
Well, that remains to be seen.

....there had to have been an instant on this planet when there was no atmosphere and the concurrent instant when there was atmosphere.
Planetary accretion mechanisms produce volatiles for atmospheres from the earliest times in a planet's existence--gaseous by-products of ice-laiden comets and asteroids and their cratering impacts, as well as vulcanism and geothermal out-gassings due to gravitational compression and chemical differentiations.

....the odds on all the required actions intersecting to produce life would be astronomically large and unlikely to be creating different species simultaneously in a multitude of places around the planet,
Presumably, I am just as free to speculate the 'odds' were just as likely there were an 'astronomically large' multitude of 'other places around the planet' where different species were arising simultaneously. To which specific species do you refer, viruses or cellular-based?

In this earliest of stages the planet would not be covered with liquid oceans as it is now....
What is the time frame defining "earliest of stages"?

I'm not sure how you meant that comet and asteroid impacts could disperse species....
No, that indomitable species are just as perishable by comet and asteroid impactors as the species they 'dominate'.

Nor do I believe that life could travel on an asteroid let alone survive a planetary impact.
Aimino acids have been found inside the Muchison (http://www.panspermia.org/chiral.htm) meteorite, as well as ALH-77306, Yamato 74662 and Yamato 791198 meteorites, and others:

Murchison, Pueblito de Allende, Murray, Cold Bokkeveld, Orgueil, Alais, Nogoya, Mokoia, Groznaya, Mighei, Yamato-74662, Yamato-791198, Belgica-7904 and ALH-77306. Organic material, sugars, amino acids and nucleic bases, can be extracted from these meteorites. Amino acids have been identified in many of them. The biggest problem is due to possible contamination from the human skin. In the Murray CC 17 amino acids have been identified (Lawless 1971) of which 11 are not found in proteins. The greatest number of amino acids have been found in the Murchison CC. 74 amino acids have been reported (Cronin et al 1988): 8 out of 20 "protein"-amino acids, 11 out of 150 "biological"-amino acids and 55 "non-biological"-amino acids. The 5 nucleic bases constituting RNA and DNA have all been identified in Murchison, Murray, and Orgueil meteorites (L.L. Hua, et al., 1985). The most important building bricks for life is present at least in three carbonaceous chondrites but they are not 'biological active' so it is not life. (http://www.astro.ku.dk/~cramer/papers/life/)
A great many organic molecules (http://www.chl.chalmers.se/~numa/astrophysics/molecules/list.html) are found throughout space within intersteller gas clouds--gas clouds from which form comets, asteroids and planets. Planets form from materials containing organic molecules which, when dissolved in water, afford abundant material useful to biotic chemistry.

....before I read your thread starter on Intelligent Design I didn't know what was meant by it...
I, too, am still trying to find out. Warren?

I get the idea that it is meant in the metaphysical sense.
I suspect that is so, though I have been trying to limit such connotation while I query ID proponents for reasons why it isn't so, even though it seems to be.

....Intelligent Design....precludes physics as the basis of intelligence and instead equates it with an idea which is only a construct of intelligence.
Ah, yes. Another oxymoron offered to ID proponents to ponder: objective subjectivity. :)

Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial:

"In the broadest sense, a creationist is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed, and exists for a purpose."

Mr. G.,

I found your last two posts very amusing at my expense and all over the misuse of a single word. Where I used the word "appear" what I meant was "arrive". I was very tired when I wrote that post and I noticed I also misspelled a word. I went back and corrected the misspelled word, which I generally do when I find them, but of course it would not be proper to go back and change a whole word.

For clarification, I will state for the record that I, too, do not believe in creationism. I believe that all matter, and all systems constructed of matter, can be described empirically.

You say that not all archaeologists believe that there wasn't enough time between the dinosaurs and us for humankind to evolve. That is contrary to my understanding of a speculated time frame for species development. Perhaps you could direct me to a book or two.

When I intimated that our species arrived here fully formed I was thinking that they were brought here, in the physical sense. If the amino acids that arrived here on meteorites weren't the result of contamintion, then I still don't see how anyone could seriously entertain the idea that they could have developed into us in the time period since dinosaur extinction. But perhaps that's not what you really meant. I got the impression that the word "appear" got you so incensed that I was a creationist after all, that you furiously pounded the keys on your keyboard in your flaming response. But, perhaps I'm being too theatrical.

Everything, whether it be biological life or a star or a planet, had to go through a development stage. That means that there has to be a concurrance where one development stage meets the succeeding development stage. My point was that the atmosphere must develop first in order for there to be an environment conducive to the development of animate life. As for a time frame, we will have to be content with saying "a long time ago" because the time frame that I hear most, which is six billion year or so, is derived from the universe having "big banged" 9, 12 or 15 billion year ago and that is a ludicrous assumption. The "big bang" theory is actually the ultimate creationist theory and so it can be dismissed with impunity.

John;

Sorry. I wasn't trying to take expensive shots at your person. I'm trying really hard in this thread not to do that sort of thing--like I do very often in other threads. I'm trying to be a good boy. :)

As for the Johnson quote, I should have prefaced it as a reply to Warren's previously posted comments about 'intelligent design' not necessasrilly being associated with creationism. Actually, nothing of what you have said is the direct motivation for my making that post. Sorry, again, for the confusion. I plead hasty composition in between the necessities of doing real work on occasion here at work. ;)

The "big bang" theory is actually the ultimate creationist theory and so it can be dismissed with impunity.
The Big Bang Theory (the Standard Cosmologic Model) and the Theory of Evolution are actually quite similar, and similarly misunderstood, in this regard: neither has anything to say about origins.

The Standard Model only has something to say about matters that occurred during times T > 0. Whereas the field of Cosmology might otherwise idly speculate about cosmogenesis (time T <= 0 ), the Standard Model most certainly deals only with matters T > 0 ).

Likewise, The Theory of Evolution deals only with what happens to life(forms) after it first appears, it has no direct dealings with how life first appeared--abiogenesis.

John MacNeil

You say that not all archaeologists....
Well, I said "Not all archeology" in large part because you said "all archeolgy", and I felt like being contrary. ;) But also because I haven't heard or read any archeologists say that human origins post-dates dinosaur extinction, because the genetic 'origins' of the human species were already present in the mammals that co-existed with the dinosaurs and later survived the K-T impact.

....time frame for species development.
I presume that the time frame would be different for different species and not a defined period for any one of them.

....they were brought here, in the physical sense.
By whom/what?

If the amino acids that arrived here on meteorites....how....could...they....have developed into us in the time period since dinosaur extinction.
You're right. It's not what I meant. ;) I'm saying that abiogenesis was fueled by the naturally occuring chemical molecules that came to Earth as part of its late-stage accretion processes (and which actually continues today at much reduced level due to meteoritic dust, grains, and rocks falling to Earth by the thosands of tons per year). That world-wide oceans, atmospheric gases and pre-biotic chemical molecules dissolved in-solution would eventually give rise to the biotic chemistry from which we finally have appeared.

....the impression that the word "appear" got you so incensed that I was a creationist....
Not at all. I've been very calm and mostly considered about what you've been saying. We could well be conversing across the table over pizza and beer, and you'd be perfectly safe. :)

....your flaming response. But, perhaps I'm being too theatrical.
Yep. :) If there was flaming is was my lunch-time jalapena breath.

....the atmosphere must develop first in order for there to be an environment conducive to the development of animate life.
Oceans must be first to provide the solvent in which the molecular ingredients of pre-biotic chemistry can be dissolved. And, there's essentially no atmosphere on Europa....

....six billion year or so,...
4.5 Billion years, the age of the solar system/Earth based on stellar evolution models and cosmogonic (from Cosmogony) studies of solar system formation & evolution, rock dating techniques, etc.

Mr. G.,

Whether cosmogonists agree on 6 billion or 4.5 billion year as the age of the formation of the solar system is irrelevant to the inadequacy of Darwinian Theory as a viable model for the explanation and decription of our present ecological framework in which human population abound. While Darwinian Theory of evolution was temporarily an adequate framework within which to work for over a century, it has been outpaced by discovery and so has been relegated to the dusty Theory Shelf of science. This happens to most theories eventually, as it has happened to the theories of Newton and Copernicius and a legion of others.

Archaeology gives the date of 3.5 to 3 billion year ago as the formative period for the first single celled life forms, called stromatolites, and it states that they were the most advanced life form for the next 2 billion year. Archaeology further states that those original stromatolites were formed from prokaryotic cells, some of which are the photosynthesizing microbes called cyanobacteria. If the stromatolites required 2 billion year to evolve into eukaryotic cells, which were the first dual-celled life forms, then it must have taken at least 1 or 2 billion year for the cyanobacteria to evolve into stromatolites. By that description, recorded life on this planet predates the formation of this planet according to the currently accepted cosmogonic model.

Archaeology also states that it took 300 million year for the first vertibrates to evolve into the first mammals which predate the dinosaurs. Yet it claims it took less than 55 million year for the ecosystem on this planet to recover from a mass extinction caused by an asteroid and then to develop a whole different type of lifeform. Even if the asteroid didn't kill every living lifeform on the planet, it would still be required to go back at least 600 million year to the metazoas, the first multi-celled animals, for there to be a change in genetic formation that could lead to a whole new species or group of species.

Archaeology is able to use carbon 14 dating methods, and others, to determine that stromatolites existed when they did and so theorize that cyanobacteria must have pre-dated them by a couple of billion year, but with all their science they can't offer any proof that we humans evolved on this planet. They have abundant physical evidence from a couple of hundred million year ago that dinosaurs existed, but they have no proof that hominids were here past 3.2 million year ago. There is one incidence of record of phylogenetic evidence of hominids from 3.6 million year ago, but that is only two single footprints.

Archaeology further states that our pre-evolutionary development stage were the neanderthals, an animal with a thick, guarded brow with a low cranium that couldn't possibly have contained a brain near as large as ours. The last of these living neanderthals, the remains of which were found in southern Spain and Portugal, were carbon 14 dated to determine that they lived as recently as 28,000 year ago. Clearly, there is no evidence that we evolved from apes or any of the primitive looking hominids that archaeology tries to relate us to. The more that science finds out about us and about the fossil record, the more they keep trying to squeeze everything into the same outmoded Darwinian Theory of evolution whether the evidence or timeframes correlate or not. Archaeology keeps harking back to the one point, that if they could only find the "missing link", which wasn't "Lucy", then they could finally tie their Darwinian Theory up in a neat package so all the disparate parts fit. It is because of this search for a "missing link" that I said in another thread that the evolutionists are operating on the same belief system as are the religionists, but in different categories. By that I didn't mean to equate religionism and empirical methodology.

As for who brought us here? And when? I have no idea who and all I can do is speculate about the when and the why. If the last living neanderthals were proved to have resided in southern Spain and Portugal as recently as 28,000 year ago then our type of human probably haven't been here much longer than that. If someone did bring many different species of human to this planet it must have been so that they eventually would intermingle and become a race without prejudice, which possibly is a problem in some parts of the galaxy where planetary societies of single species human meet other planetary societies of single species human. Us being brought here could possibly be an explanation of why so many religions have the belief of their Gods descending from the heavens and could explain why many ancient texts and drawings seem to depict machines that are located in the sky.

There really is no need to apologize, as I can tell from re-reading my posts that I definately am to blame for any misunderstanding about my stated position. It justs takes a while to get around to saying something succinctly that is contrary to accepted belief. And anyway, I'm not so thin-skinned that I would be upset by words. And I also wouldn't be worried about you jumping across the table at me and spilling my beer just because I said something that didn't jive with your personal view of the universe. I can tell from your discourse that you are a reasonable person and I have no fear in such company.

John,

<i>While Darwinian Theory of evolution was temporarily an adequate framework within which to work for over a century, it has been outpaced by discovery and so has been relegated to the dusty Theory Shelf of science.</i>

Quite the contrary, in fact. All of biology, genetics and other life sciences work with evolution as their most basic theory these days. It is intrinsic to modern biology in all its forms.

<i>...By that description, recorded life on this planet predates the formation of this planet according to the currently accepted cosmogonic model.</i>

Then there's something wrong with your description.

<i>Archaeology also states that it took 300 million year for the first vertibrates to evolve into the first mammals which predate the dinosaurs. Yet it claims it took less than 55 million year for the ecosystem on this planet to recover from a mass extinction caused by an asteroid and then to develop a whole different type of lifeform.</i>

The mammals already existed at the time of the extinction of the dinosaur. There was no need to start again from scratch.

<i>[W]ith all their science they can't offer any proof that we humans evolved on this planet.</i>

There never can be absolute proof of that - only reams of circumstantial evidence. For example, why is our genetic makeup so close to all the other lifeforms on Earth if we come from elsewhere? Does all life on Earth come from somewhere else?

<i>Clearly, there is no evidence that we evolved from apes or any of the primitive looking hominids that archaeology tries to relate us to.</i>

Yes there is. Look at the similarities in body structure and so on. It's obvious. If we're not related to the other great apes, why are we so similar to them?

<i>Archaeology keeps harking back to the one point, that if they could only find the "missing link", which wasn't "Lucy", then they could finally tie their Darwinian Theory up in a neat package so all the disparate parts fit.</i>

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of archaeology if you think that archaeologists go looking for "missing links".

John MacNeil:

....the inadequacy of Darwinian Theory as a viable model....Darwinian Theory of evolution has been relegated to the dusty Theory Shelf of science. This happens to most theories eventually, as it has happened to the theories of Newton and Copernicius and a legion of others.
But not to the theory of genesis, a theory for which a book is the only 'evidence'? In fact, the scientific theory of Darwinian Evolution via Natural Selection is quite alive and well. As is the Standard Cosmologic Model (Big Bang). As is the geologic Theory of Plate Techtonics. Each supports the other by voracity of testability and confirmable prediction. That is not to say that each Theory will not be modified, or perhaps falsified, by future findings and knowledge. It is to say that such ideas are expected to be transitory, despite their unequalled descriptive and explanatory powers, eventually to be replaced by Scientific Theories even better at explanation and prediction then they, themselves. The theory of genesis has no factual descriptive power, and no predictive power. So, btw, what are the testable predictions of 'intelligent design'?

Archaeology gives the date of 3.5 to 3 billion year ago as the formative period for the first single celled life forms,....
3.8BY

If the stromatolites required 2 billion year to evolve into eukaryotic cells,....then it must have taken at least 1 or 2 billion year for the cyanobacteria to evolve into stromatolites.
Apparently only .6 BY, according to the pesky fossil record. ;)

....the ecosystem on this planet to recover from a mass extinction caused by an asteroid and then to develop a whole different type of lifeform.
Mass-extinction impact events have occured several-to-many times over geologic history. Not all life forms were driven to extinction by any one of those impact event. Therefore, terrestrial 'life' never has had to 'start over from the very beginning'.

Even if the asteroid didn't kill every living lifeform on the planet, it would still be required to go back at least 600 million year to the metazoas,....
Assumption.

....for there to be a change in genetic formation that could lead to a whole new species or group of species.
Assumption.

....but with all their science they can't offer any proof that we humans evolved on this planet.
Proponents of intelligent design have no evidence that we were not evolved here. They can offer as 'evidence' only supposition, speculation, and non-rigorous discounting of Natural Selection-based Darwinian Evolution Theory to support their claims. For 'intelligent design' to supplant the TOE, ID must produce testable hypotheses and predictions or it will always be nothing more than a sterile, Science-like clone of creationism--a more insidious form of Lysenkoism.

....no proof that hominids were here past 3.2 million year ago...., etc. etc. etc.
Let us, or the sake of this discussion, together stipulate that the homonid fossil record is incomplete, and at various points is not compelling. Whether or not that might change in the future is not important here. It is time, now and herein, for you to take 'intelligent design' as a 'scientific theory' out of the reactionary "Darwin is dead, long live ID" mode and move on to the 'intelligent design'-can-explain-all-things-adequately -described-by-TOE stage. To do that, you must be able to provide experimentally testable ID predictions. State some of ID's scientifically testable predictions, and describe scientific tests of these predictions able to be performed by ID's scientic opponents. If ID wants to 'run with the dogs', ID has to run with the dogs (Such profundity scares even me. ;) ).

....who brought us here? And when? I have no idea who and all I can do is speculate....
Not a good sign/indicator of ID validation anytime soon. So, if Darwinian TOE is dead, ID isn't any more alive than "no idea"? ;)

....I can tell from your discourse that you are a reasonable person and I have no fear in such company.
Just wait 'til I have a few more beers in me. :)

Speaking of Natural Selection, where the hell is Warren?

Mr. G.,

I don't understand why you introduce the theory of genesis. I thought we had both agreed that creationism, religionism and supernatural beings had no place in a discourse about the physical state?

I've stated before that I believe that natural selection is the method by which species evolve. On that, I hope, we're agreed. Although with your steadfast refusal to state what you do actually believe, or what you're most inclined to believe, having a dicussion with you is tentative. Maybe you aren't distinguishing between natural selection as a process and evolution as the theory of an ecological system, as I am.

You seem to play this "Intelligent Design" as if it's some kind of trump card. And to be quite honest, I still don't know what you mean by it because you only ever use someone else's abstract quote when you speak of it. You'll recall that when I spoke of "intelligent design aspect" it was not meant as some metaphysical or supernatural conjunction stated "Intelligent Design" as if representing holistic theory, but as an intervention by intelligent people, from some other populated planet somewhere in the galaxy.

I don't know where you get your information from, but there certainly seems to be a disconnect in your dating of early life forms. When you say prokaryotic cells only took .6 billion year to develop and the next stage of evolutionary life, the stromatolites, took 2 billion year to develop and then the next stage after that, the eukaryotic cells, took less than a billion year, then you have natural selection starting out fast, slowing down incredibly, and then speeding up incredibly. I was under the impression that the very first life was the absolute slowest to develop, not the fastest. And I think even the stoutest adherents of Darwinian Theory will agree with me on that.

According to the books I've read, some as recent as c.1999, there were two mass extinctions allowed for in the timetable of evolutionary development, the first at 250 milion year b.c. and the second at 65 million year b.c.

Now as I have never heard the term "Intelligent Design" before reading your thread for the first time, I am glad now to here you mention ID predictions which you want scientifically tested. Why don't you now list the ID predictions so I will finally know what this ID is?

When I joined this thread it was because I detected a vacancy in the theory of ID, without knowing what it was, because it did not address matter and the systems composed of matter as being able to be described empiracally. I also detect implausible assumptions within the theory of evolution, without having to refute natural selection, which I concur with. There is abundant evidence of unexplained markings and happenings on this planet that no scientist can explain, and so it is only logical to think that someone smart is instrumental in arranging the sequence of events. That means, that since our planetary science is incapable of providing description for the unexplained events, the people who are responsible must come from some other planet.

The hominid fossil record for our kind of human is not only incomplete, it doesn't exist. They have found record of Neanderthal beings that were alive 28,000 year ago. For all we know they weren't the last ones alive, just the last evidence of when we knew they were alive. For all we know they will find evidence of neanderthals that lived only 18,000 year ago. To skip over the most important archaeological proof that we couldn't possibly have evolved from neanderthal man, because there was insufficient time for such a natural selection process, seems to be an attempt to ignore reality so that your arcane position can be adherred to.

John MacNeil:

I don't understand why you introduce the theory of genesis....we had both agreed that creationism, religionism and supernatural beings had no place in a discourse about the physical state?
Yes, for the specific purpose of restricting claims to supernatural authority. But the purpose of refering to the genesis story was to contrast it, an immutable theory, against the provisional theories of science, like the TOE.

....your steadfast refusal to state what you do actually believe, or what you're most inclined to believe,....
From 08-22-02: "'Intelligent design' connotes 'directed purpose'--a concept that is beyond the scope and capabilities of empirical endeavors to quantify and validate. As an investigative presupposition, 'intelligent design' introduces additional complexity unnecessary to the considerable abilities of less complex, empirically supportable and defensible explanations of natural processes. That is not to say that 'intelligent design' has no merit as a teleology, but that Science has no immediate need to resort to 'intelligent design' in any of its forms."

And (anticipating the near-term need for this, too) in my post of 08-18-02, I also said: "I can consider sentient Intelligent Design quite easily--aliens, for instance, having engineered our earliest ancestors' RNA and/or it precursor."

Maybe you aren't distinguishing between natural selection as a process and evolution as the theory of an ecological system,....
I'm not aware (most likely because it's outside my field of expertise) that the TOE makes any claim to being a theory of an ecological system. I thought it only attempts to explain genetic change over time via Natural Selection.

"Intelligent Design"....I still don't know what you mean by it...
In a non-supernatural sense, neither do I, which is why I almost always inclose it in quotes--it's someone else's terminology. Alien Design I can understand. Supernatural Design I can understand, even though it's irrational. Non-supernatural, non-alien "Intelligent Design" I don't understand, and Warren hasn't explained what he means by it.

....there certainly seems to be a disconnect in your dating of early life forms.
From Precambrian Period: Origin of Life (http://www.cosmiverse.com/reflib/Precambrian%20Period.htm): "Not until about 3.6 billion years ago did cells evolve that could produce their own food by photosynthesis. The earliest evidence of photosynthetic organisms are stromatolites, which are domed and layered sedimentary structures formed by mats of filamentous one-celled cyanobacteria and trapped sediments."

When you say prokaryotic cells only took .6 billion year to develop and the next stage of evolutionary life, the stromatolites,...
You are correct; I was wrong to quote .6BY. I meant to say .9 BY: 4.5BY -.9BY = 3.6BY. From Introduction to Cell and Virus Structure (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/): "Bacteria - One of the earliest prokaryotic cells to have evolved, bacteria have been around for at least 3.5 billion years...." And from Introduction to Light and Energy (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightandcolor/lightandenergyintro.html): "Geologists have found huge rock-like mats of fossilized cyanobacteria, termed stromatolites, that are over 3 billion years old...."

....there were two mass extinctions allowed for in the timetable of evolutionary development, the first at 250 milion year b.c. and the second at 65 million year b.c.
Those two likely resulted from asteroid impacts. There is evidence of 5 mass extinctions in the passed 650 MY via various causes: about 650MY (Precambrian/Vendian ME), 530MY (Cambrian ME), 430MY (Ordovician ME), 365MY (Denovian ME), 245MY (Permian ME), and 65MY (End-Cretaceous 'K-T' ME).

I am glad now to here you mention ID predictions which you want scientifically tested.
As we're both trying to find out what is non-supernatural "intelligent design", I think you and I should speak to testable predictions of Alien Design, your premise, and leave NID to be explained by Warren, as it is his idea.

To skip over the most important archaeological proof that we couldn't possibly have evolved from neanderthal man, because there was insufficient time for such a natural selection process, seems to be an attempt to ignore reality so that your arcane position can be adherred to.
It is my understanding (http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/humtree.html) that Homo Neanderthalenses were for a time the contemporaries of Homo Sapiens and shared a common ancester but were not the specific progenitor of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

========================================

There is abundant evidence of unexplained markings and happenings on this planet that no scientist can explain, ....the people who are responsible must come from some other planet.

I spoke of "intelligent design aspect"....as an intervention by intelligent people, from some other populated planet somewhere in the galaxy.

I also detect implausible assumptions within the theory of evolution, without having to refute natural selection,....
Although I am open to the idea of Alien Design, I remain unconvinced that there exists sufficient evidence for it that cannot also be used as evidence for some other possible, perhaps even more plausible explanation--like TOE. ;)

One possible test of the hypothesis of Alien Design, based on the proposition that humans were brought to Earth in our present form having been engineered on "some other populated planet somewhere in the galaxy" is: there should be measurable differences in certain ratios of isotopic abundances within some or all of the molecules that make up our tissues and skeletons. That is, that there should be a testable difference between humans and native terrestrial life forms on the molecular level--humans having been built from molecular materials of extra-terrestrial origin and history.

Mr. G

That is, that there should be a testable difference between humans and native terrestrial life forms on the molecular level--humans having been built from molecular materials of extra-terrestrial origin and history.

That is of course, if the extra-terrestrial molecular materials are any different than those found on Earth. ;)

Q:

....if the extra-terrestrial molecular materials are any different than those found on Earth.
Surely there are going to be noticible internal differences between an authentic Rolex watch and a Rolex knock-off made 12 time zones away by a different 'watchmaker'. The form may be the same but the metallurgy of the gears would bear local influences.

For instance, in a technologically advanced, extra-terrestrial culture where economics fuels their space explorations and lifeform engineering activities, the need for investment protection strategies--such as our familiar patents--would imply some measure of identifiable uniqueness of the end product that makes it distinguishable from competitors' unlicensed versions (like a small but periodic nucleotide sequence that to the discerning eye would shout out, "Made on Tau Ceti 4 by @.4>2.4345, Inc.").

Artists always sign their work.

Mr. G.,

"Darwin's theory of evolution, which holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations,"---Webster's

This inclusive description implies a system while natural selection is the hereditary change within a single species.

Before tackling a subject that will necessarily be mostly conjecture upon observance of known phenominal occurrence, I believe there is more to be said about our phylogenic record and the conjectured theory of evolution.

The human evolution chart that Johanson and Edgar use is mere speculation and is similar to the human evolution tree that the Smithsonian Institution uses in their "Encyclopedia Smithsonian" web-site and here is what they have to say about the modern stage of human evolution, "The origin of modern Homo Sapians is not yet resolved. Two extreme scenarios have been proposed." They, of course, know that the theory of evolution doesn't seem to work for human phylogeny based on the known evidence, hence the "extreme" proposals. They have an excellent web-site (that is easy to navigate, look under "human evolution") with clear, color pictures of hominid evidence that dates to almost five million year ago. You can recognize that the only skulls that appear to be modern human are dated to around 30,000 year ago.

The next two specimen closest in age and development to the modern human are the Neanderthal and the Skhul V, both of which are known to have lived during the same epoch. The Skhul V is dated at 90,000 year and was found in Palestine in 1932. Both the Neanderthal and the Skhul V have a thick brow, prognathic face, wide, angular cheekbones and a low cranium. It is easy to picture similariies between the two, but none of those similarities are shared with the modern human skull.

The modern Homo Sapians have lighter skeletons than all the previous hominids. They have very large brains, by comparison. They have a high, vaulted cranium. Their skull is proportionately different than all previous hominids. The differences are so acute that even the scientists recognize that there couldn't be an evolutionary transmogrification between the species, hence the earlier quote, in the allotted time frame. If evidence of a link with Neanderthal, or Skhul V, and modern human existed, the archaeological evidence would be multitudinous and supportable, since it is far easier to find evidence of relatively recent vintage.

With the evidence that does exist, it can only be objectively concluded that there is not now and never was an hereditary connection between modern human and the next two closest, in geologic history, species of hominid. That means that the known fossil record cannot fulfill the criteria of "all species" to meet the definition of Darwinian Theory of Evolution and so the theory itself cannot meet empirical definition. Ergo, the theory of evolution is not valid.

Creationism, Evolutionism, and New Age are all thesis that have based their foundations on faith. Through constant repitition and indoctrination they all seek to portray their view as the only unassailable view that should be regarded with favor by the majority of the population. The Creationists have their religious artifacts and the Evolutionists have a faulty, all encompassing theory of development with scientific proofs of natural selection in limited scenarios and the New Agers have their mysticism. Evolution must be categorized with the other two thesis of faith because the evolutionists refuse to objectively portray the evidence as it exists and therefore they degrade science and stunt the developmental thought of future scientists.

John:

As I've previously stipulated above, "....the homonid fossil record is incomplete, and at various points is not compelling" but I would like to read more than "Darwin is dead, long live...." Alien Design. Let us suppose for a brief moment that the TOE indeed is dead. Dead, and buried. Now, all that stands between Alien Design "the idea" and TOAD (hehe, now that's kinda funny) being "TOE's replacement" is testable powers of prediction and tangible evidence.

What are some of Alien Design Theory's testable predictions, and what are some of the tangible evidences accumulated so far that might be convincing to folks like me?

Don't mind me... I don't need a reply.

Mr. G.,

When a theory is found to not meet the scientific criteria on which it was formulated, then it is not up to anyone to declare it invalid. It just is. If we choose to recognize the truth of what the science shows us, then we can progress in our thought processes. If we don't choose to interpret the truth for what it is, then our thought processes stagnate. That choice of whether or not to believe the evidence is for each individual to decide for themselves.

When we move on to "Theory Of Alien Design" it must be recognized from the start that we do not possess enough information in order to formulate an all encompassing theory so we will necessarily have to confine ourselves to a thesis, which, of course, will still allow for the funny acronym "TOAD". But before we move on to discussing the evidence for such a thesis we must first discuss the "Ultimate Creationist Theory" (commonly known by it's cartoon name, Big Bang) because it interferes with the working nature of the universal model.

The Ultimate Creationist Theory states that all matter in the universe was at one time concentrated in a dense ball in space and for some unknown reason it exploded in an instant and then all that matter shot out from the central explosion and dispersed itself throughout space in every conceivable direction. Then the Ultimate Creation Theory says that all that matter slowed down for some other unknown reason and formed into planets and stars and galaxies. The Ultimate Creationist Theory further states that after the matter formed into planets and stars and galaxies it once again started moving outwards in all directions, which is referred to as the expanding universe, without ever supplying a hypothesis for this second expansion.

The Ultimate Creationist Theory was first hypothesized after Edwin Hubble observed the phenomena of redshift and misinterpreted it as empirical evidence for recession velocity. From that faulty interpretation of observation was born the cartoonish expanding universe, followed by the equally cartoonish "Big Bang" and that was followed by the polar theory of the "Big Bang", the equally outlandish "Black Hole" theory. Ever since they came up with those goofy theories, observation of spatial phenomena has been forcing them to create ever more stupid theories to try and hold those big three together. This was all begun in the days of Albert Einstein, perhaps our greatest scientist ever, and when he gave his opinion that the universe was a complimentary universe, meaning that it worked as a system, the same as a galaxy or any other system in space, his opinion was ignored by all the lesser intelligent people in favor of the opinion of a science laborer, a person much like them.

Hubble's observation of redshift, which is what sparked the Ultimate Creationist Theory and it's bastard child the "Black Hole Theory", was challenged by Astronomer Halton C. Arp, then of the Palomar Observatory, in his books, one of which is "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies", c. 1987. Arp found from his observation, for which he has photograhic evidence, that redshift is not empirical evidence for recession velocity but is instead an indication of relative motion. The "Controversies" part of his book is that when he tried to make that information known, his observation time at the observatory was reduced and he was subsequently forced to resign. The reason he was forced out was because a lot of people, institutions and companies were making a lot of money off of perpetuating the Ultimate Creationist Theory.

The Ultimate Creationist Theory says that the universe began in an instant 9, 12, or 15 billion year ago. They arrive at these figures by figuring how old the planet earth is and basically doubling that number. The actual number is not constant because they want to be able to change it whenever they learn that the earth is a little older than they previously thought. So according to their "big bang" theory the universe exploded from a dense ball in an instant and in the same amount of time that our planet has been in existence, every other planet and star and galaxy, trillions upon trillions of them, a number so far beyond counting that we'll probably never have a computer large enough to calculate the number, also completely formed into their shapes and systems. And, of course, this was supposd to have happened after the exploded universe was expanding for billions of year and then slowed down enough to form into things and then start expanding again. As if the Ultimate Creationist Theory isn't illogical enough, the timeline alone should make you consider the veracity of it's applicability.

When galaxies are gathered in clusters they are not simply expanding away from everything else, as an expanding universe would dictate, but are complimenatarily associated in a gravity field. Galaxies don't just go off crashing into other galaxies, as scientists so often speculate. They maintain their distances from each other by the interaction and connectivity of their gravity fields. This interaction and maintenance of place is vividly illustratd by the Thursday, May 10, 2001, Astronomy Picture Of The Day which you can see at:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

All nine of those galaxies are in a galaxy field which orbits around the megastar that is the hub of the galaxy field. This is vividly illustrated by the Sunday, November 21, 1999 picture that's located in the same calendar index. You can't help but notice that the megastar is far larger than the spiral galaxy that is to the right of it. All the other colored lights visible in the picture are galaxies at variant distances in the same galaxy field. In the caption of that picture you will observe that they claim the megastar is an ellipsoidal galaxy, which clearly it isn't because there is no indication of interiorly located interaction of gravity fields. They also give description of the megastar as being mostly found where galaxies are abundant, which is locationally correct because the megastars are what the galactic gravity fields revolve around.

When you study the picture of the megastar with all the galaxies in the space around it, it becomes apparent that all of what is there couldn't have formed on a timeline that is ultimately derived from determining the age of the planet we live on. The Ultimate Creationist Theory is based on faulty interpretation of observed phenomena and ignores relativity. It has let our young scientists develop their thought processes on a flawed foundation and because of it we get such other misinterpretations as a megastar at the hub of a galaxy field being an over-big ellipsoidal galaxy.

I understand fully how being told by all the top scientists that a thing is true can stop a young mind from mentally exploring subjects along empiracal line of thought. All the time that I was growing up I heard and read about the "big bang" theory and how other theories were judged by how they related to the "big bang". I didn't pursue the actual subject because almost everyone in science said it was true, and I believed them. Then, when I was thirty-five or so, Time magazine had an article in it that described what the actual theory was and when I read it I was shocked by how stupid it was. Since then whenever they proffer a big theory I take it with a grain of salt and wait to make up my mind about it until I've had time to think it through.

John:

Okay. Let us suppose for a brief moment that the Big Bang Theory (the Standard Cosmologic Model) is dead. Dead, and buried. Now, all that stands between Alien Design "the idea" and the theory of Alien Design being "TOE's replacement" is testable powers of prediction and tangible evidence.

What are some of Alien Design Theory's testable predictions, and what are some of the tangible evidences accumulated so far that might be convincing to folks like me?

It's one thing to say that the three most substantive, current scientific theories (well, two, anyway. You haven't yet said anything about plate techtonics) are garbage because they are based on wrong assumptions and wrong interpretations of data and reproducible observational evidence.

It's quite another thing to replace them with theories that are even more Scientifically substantive.

Now make your scientific case for Alien Design. I think we're up to speed on the rhetorical case for AD.

John,

I agree with Mr. G. that you need to tell us how your theory makes any substantive predictions which differ from the Big Bang theory. It appears, however, that you have minimal understanding of the theory you are trying to replace, which is always a bad sign. For the benefit of others who might be reading this thread, I'd like to address some of your misconceptions.

<i>But before we move on to discussing the evidence for such a thesis we must first discuss the "Ultimate Creationist Theory" (commonly known by it's cartoon name, Big Bang)...</i>

First problem: The big bang theory does not describe the moment of "creation", so it cannot be considered a creationist theory. It only describes events subsequent to the Planck time.

<i>The Ultimate Creationist Theory states that all matter in the universe was at one time concentrated in a dense ball in space and for some unknown reason it exploded in an instant and then all that matter shot out from the central explosion and dispersed itself throughout space in every conceivable direction.</i>

The reasons for the expansion are in fact well known. Read the work of Alan Guth, for example, which explains ideas such as the false vacuum which drove the inflationary period in the early universe.

<i>Then the Ultimate Creation Theory says that all that matter slowed down for some other unknown reason and formed into planets and stars and galaxies.</i>

No it doesn't. The matter clumped but at no time slowed down.

<i>The Ultimate Creationist Theory further states that after the matter formed into planets and stars and galaxies it once again started moving outwards in all directions, which is referred to as the expanding universe, without ever supplying a hypothesis for this second expansion.</i>

There is no "second expansion". It's a continuation of the same process. Expansion has never stopped; it has continued since the beginning of the universe.

<i>The Ultimate Creationist Theory was first hypothesized after Edwin Hubble observed the phenomena of redshift and misinterpreted it as empirical evidence for recession velocity.</i>

Do you have an alternative interpretation? (Please don't trot out the Setterfield "tired light" model, which has been decisively proven to be false.)

<i>[The Big Bang theory] was followed by the polar theory of the "Big Bang", the equally outlandish "Black Hole" theory.</i>

Your history is a bit rusty. The big bang idea came along a long time after the theory of black holes.

<i>Arp found from his observation, for which he has photograhic evidence, that redshift is not empirical evidence for recession velocity but is instead an indication of relative motion.</i>

Recession <b>is</b> relative motion. No news there.

<i>The reason he was forced out was because a lot of people, institutions and companies were making a lot of money off of perpetuating the Ultimate Creationist Theory.</i>

Really? How interesting. Please outline the chain of causation in this case for me, preferably with evidence.

<i>The Ultimate Creationist Theory says that the universe began in an instant 9, 12, or 15 billion year ago. They arrive at these figures by figuring how old the planet earth is and basically doubling that number.</i>

Wrong. Study up on supernova measures of cosmological distances, the Hubble constant etc. Calculating the age of the universe is a much more complicated business than you suppose. And when scientists make such a calculation they always include error bounds - unlike any Creationist.

<i>The actual number is not constant because they want to be able to change it whenever they learn that the earth is a little older than they previously thought.</i>

No, the number is not constant because our observations and methods are continually becoming more accurate.

<i>...every other planet and star and galaxy, trillions upon trillions of them, a number so far beyond counting that we'll probably never have a computer large enough to calculate the number, also completely formed into their shapes and systems.</i>

Actually, the numbe, whilst large, is easily estimated, to within a few orders of magnitude.

<i>When galaxies are gathered in clusters they are not simply expanding away from everything else, as an expanding universe would dictate, but are complimenatarily associated in a gravity field.</i>

Yes. The keyword here is "clusters", which refers to <b>gravitationally bound</b> groups of galaxies. On smallish scales, local gravitational influences overcome the general expansive trend. Have you read <b>any</b> basic cosmology at all?

<i>...the megastars are what the galactic gravity fields revolve around.</i>

If you'd studied basic physics, you'd know that any star with a mass more than a couple of orders of magnitude greater than that of our Sun could not exist. "Megastars" are physically impossible.

<i>All the time that I was growing up I heard and read about the "big bang" theory and how other theories were judged by how they related to the "big bang". I didn't pursue the actual subject because almost everyone in science said it was true, and I believed them.</i>

i.e. you were lazy and didn't want to find out for yourself.

<i>Then, when I was thirty-five or so, Time magazine had an article in it that described what the actual theory was and when I read it I was shocked by how stupid it was.</i>

So, your entire knowledge of the big bang theory is not even based on a scientific publication, but on something you read in <i>Time</i>? How great your knowledge of the subject must be. Silly me for studying this stuff for years. I could have learnt all I needed to know from a popular magazine.

James, you're a stupid person who doesn't know anything, or are you on assignment for the U.S. state department?

John:

Let us suppose for a brief moment that James R. is dead. Dead and buried. Now, all that stands between Alien Design "the idea" and the theory of Alien Design being "TOE's replacement" is testable powers of prediction and tangible evidence.

Well, you know the rest.... ;)

Mr. G.,


Discussion--"talk or writing in which the pros and cons or various aspects of a subject are considered"--Webster's

It seems that with my posting in this thread I have struck a nerve. Because I dare make observation that the known science doesn't support two of the leading conventional theory, I am subjected to strident calls of "Prove it! Prove it!" and accused of using rhetoric. All the time that you "evolutionists" were assailing the "creationists" with your same strident calls and demanding that they hurry up and give you their proof, you were using science as your podium. Now the instant someone else uses science to show where your incomplete theory and your goofy theories depart from reality, you give up discussion and resort to the antics of bullying children. You "evolutionists" and "creationists" are all the same kind of fanatics, operating your theories on faith and using scare tactics and propaganda to try and keep people in line.

You say, "Let us suppose for a brief moment that the theory of evolution and the theory of ultimate ceationism are dead, dead and buried," as if you have some empirical proof to the contrary and you're just waiting for the precise moment to jump out of ambush and clobber me over the head with it. Well, I'm afraid it's too late for that. Those theories are dead and buried and there are no creationist tricks you can use to bring them back to life.

Corporate science is a lot like corporate government in their falseness. When I told you of Astronomer Halton Arp being forced out of his position at the Palomar Observatory you gave it no notice, as if by ignoring it, it could be thought of as not worth having been mentioned. Before Halton Arp tried to make public his opposition to the ultimate creationist theory by refuting the scientific community's accepted position on redshift interpretation, he was one of their bright stars. He is the author of numerous scholorly publications and received awards from the American Astronomical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He was president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. He has a bachelors degree from Harvard and a Ph.D from the California Institute of Technology, both cum laude. All that counted for something before he tried to replace the accepted dogma with factual observation. Once he dared buck the big boys who control where the research money flows, then all that he'd done before counted for nothing and they character assassinated him and shuffled him out the door. And, as always, science suffered because of the ignoramuses who value wealth and their perceived social standing over the advancement of true science.

As for TOAD? I already stated that there could be no "theory" because we have no boundaries that we could affix to such a theory. Of course you conveniently ignored that so you could again make your strident call of "Prove it! Prove it!". I said that by necessity we would be confined to using the term thesis, or hypothesis really, which is the stage before a theory when we all are seeking more data on which to formulate a theory.

The evidence for people from other planets having visited this planet is voluminous, both from recorded history and from the present. There is document evidence that goes back over ten thousand year that can be found in the writings of the early scribes. The very descriptive recordings are found in the earliest Tibetan books, in the cuniform clay tablets of the Gilgamesh, which was two thousand year before genesis, also Ezekial in genesis, in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writings of just about every other early civilization that knew how to record the events of their day. But you apparently don't consider the testimony of the early historians valid proof so I declined, in this discussion, to use any of that type of evidence to support my belief. It makes no difference, there is plenty of physical evidence of a tangible nature to examine as well.

There is a bas-relief carving in the ancient Mayan site at Palenque, in Mexico, of a space person in modern gear operating the controls of a space machine. You can see a picture of the beautifully detailed carving on page 93 of Erich Von Daniken's "In Search Of Ancient Gods", c.1973. This is a carving that is more valid and permanent than a photograph. It depicts a scene of scientific construct that the carver observed in a time when there was no organized science.

"We must consider real a fact of which we possess eight thousand certain sightings. I cannot say if they are or are not interplanetary vehicles, but nobody can doubt anymore their existence."--Professor Hermann Oberth, Physicist.

I hope now that you will abstain from the strident "Prove it! Prove it!" attack and join the discussion.

John:

I commend you for having the balls to stand up for your position; unlike Warren who sensed he was in for some critical scrutiny and ran away like a panty-bunched, Titanic crewman pushing women and children aside to get to a life boat.

And, yes:

You say, "Let us suppose for a brief moment that the theory of evolution and the theory of ultimate ceationism are dead, dead and buried," as if you have some empirical proof to the contrary and you're just waiting for the precise moment to jump out of ambush and clobber me over the head with it.

....this thread was an ambush. More precisely, it was a thread intended to give advocates of Intelligent Design all the rhetorical, non-scientific rope needed to quite effectively hang themselves before the spectating masses in this public square.

The plain and simple revealed truth, as James R. cogently observed, is that people such as you, and Warren, bash Science and scientific theories without the slightest operational understanding of what is Science, how Science actually works, and what is a Scientific Theory.

Science, in fact, is all about "Proving It". To complain that proof is required but shouldn't be required is certain proof that your personal theories are not only unscientific but irrational.

I couldn't have made my point, and James R.'s, any better than have you, and Warren.

Intelligent Design theory--supernatural, non-supernatural, or alien--is scientifically unsupportable, scientifically unsubstantiable, and otherwise scientifically irrelevent.

But at least you are willing to stand up and be accounted. I respect you for that.

The beer and pizza is on me.

John,

Discussion 101:

Calling me stupid doesn't actually help support your argument. To do that you need to try to refute what I've said.

Have a nice day.

John: I commend you for having the balls to stand up for your position; unlike Warren who sensed he was in for some critical scrutiny and ran away like a panty-bunched, Titanic crewman pushing women and children aside to get to a life boat.

But at least you are willing to stand up and be accounted. I respect you for that.



I don't. I don't see anything much more than an armchair politician weighing in with his ideas on science, who can pick and choose his references (such as Von Daniken) to attack scientific theories, without offering anything plausible to explain in its stead. Calling evolution a faith-based theory is moronic enough. He won't acknowledge reasonable argumentation. As James R. demonstrated, Mr. MacNeil is more persuaded by lay writing (and I would add a good dose of that spooky In Search Of music ) rather than a lifetime of research that correlates with many lifetimes of scientific research. I wouldn't say he's continuing to stand up for himself in that he's just ignoring what's being refuted about his statements and just driving the conversation tangentially with more science from other fields that he doesn't understand (which he construes as its inherent falsity).
When his argumentation is ridiculed with admittedly dismissive language, he mistakes it for a personal judgement and responds with blunt insults. Nothing here is to be commended. In fairness, I would take issue with your characterization of Warren as "panty-bunched," but you've a mountain of level-headed dissertation preceding your final judgement, which, if not entirely socratic in its humility, is socratic in its form. The others merely have a pile of diarrhea they are sitting on, poorly digested from whatever limited "research" they've taken on.

Mr. G, the sheer horsepower you've expended on this thread is incredible. I am going to reread it several times before I weigh in more on various specifics. The onslaught of fallacious assumption is almost too much to digest in one sitting. Perhaps you'll have finished him off by then. But don't wait. Quit kissing his ass and finish him.

Finish him!

Finish him!

Le Coq

Mr.G.,

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."--Einstein

You don't make a very good spin doctor. I am the one who believes in science and has stated throughout that empirical description must be applied to all state of matter. You think that talking about the requiremnts of scientific observation is the same as making some. I have given you several examples from scientists to illustrate the falseness of your creationist theories, and you totally ignore all of them in favor of your diatribe.

You think you "creationists" and "evolutionists", proponents of "God" and the "Big Bang", can hide your association, but there are plenty of people who are on to your kind. The church in the Vatican has been around as a single party, tax-free religious government since before the fifth century. They have seen hundreds of armed governments of other nations come and go over the centuries and in all that time they have been amassing their power and influence and keeping mostly secret while remaining visually in the forefront of society. They could teach the modern secret services a thing or two about "secrecy". The "big bang" is as creationist as the god creating the earth and the heavens and if you don't knowingly perceive that then perhaps you have been duped as well and are just following along like any wooly member of a herd of sheep.

Herman Oberth was assistant to Werner Von Braun, the U.S.'s most famous rocket scientist, who is also on record with similar views to Oberth's. Einstein, of course, was perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived on this planet. Halton Arp, astronomer. I've used these people's work and opinions to illustrate the falsity of your creationist orientation and to reinforce my position that matter and systems constructed of matter can best be described with empirical methodology, and you steadfastly refuse to address any of the reality of the evidence I've proffered and continue to avoid all subjects of reality in favor of obfuscation.

If you are unable to discuss the subject in a logical manner, I'll understand that, since neither your "creationist theory" nor your "ultimate creationist theory" are defensible. While joining up with the fringe element may give you persuasive power, by sheer volume of your chatter, in some circles, it advances your creationist position not one single step towards reality.

John:


"We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."--Einstein
A block of stone is just a rock until the disciplined mind of the sculptor frees the statue from its imprisonment. What good for all can come of a statue you might imagine in rock if you haven't the proper tools and operational skill sets to release it?

It's good to have ideas. But for ideas to have universal, utilitarian purpose, they first have to be converted into something of substance. Air guitars are a one-person experience. If you want people to hear your music, you have to build a working guitar.

I am the one who believes in science and has stated throughout that empirical description must be applied to all state of matter.
Surely the TOE, the SCM (Big Bang) and the TOPT (plate tectonics) are each, and together, the result of many others who also believe in science -- people who also hold qualifying opinions quite contrary to your own. You don't know personally most, or any, of them, so you cannot say with any certainty that any one of them is less intuitive than you.

You think that talking about the requiremnts of scientific observation is the same as making some.
Alien design is your claim. As there isn't a single alien in evidence for any of us to see, it is up to you to show us how to come by alternative observational evidence. But, it can't be subjective evidence obvious only to yourself. It has to be objective (requiring real tools and real skill sets) evidence, obvious to everyone regardless of one's personal world-view.

I have given you several examples from scientists to illustrate the falseness of your creationist theories, and you totally ignore all of them in favor of your diatribe.
Anecdotes are evidence only of one's ability to quote the words of others. None of your quotes, nor all of them, is evidence for alien design. It's just more talk.

You think you "creationists" and "evolutionists", proponents of "God" and the "Big Bang", can hide your association, but there are plenty of people who are on to your kind.
Our kind? As opposed to "Your kind"? And where do "their kind" fit into your equation? Or, the "Other kind"?

The....Vatican....over the centuries....they have been amassing their power and influence...could teach the modern secret services a thing or two about "secrecy"."
Do you suspect the Vatican is where the aliens are hiding? Now, there's a testable hypothesis!!

The "big bang" is as creationist as the god creating the earth and the heavens and if you don't knowingly perceive that then perhaps you have been duped as well and are just following along like any wooly member of a herd of sheep.
The Standard Cosmologic Model is just a conceptual framework for organizing information and drawing tentative conclusions. It has no power to do things like initiating the Rapture, or cause you to feel obligated to put money in the collection plate so that the priests can afford some leisure time with the alter boys.

Herman Oberth was assistant to Werner Von Braun,....Einstein,...was perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived on this planet.
So? Oberth's & Von Braun's expertise was rocketry/engineering, not genetics or cosmology. Einstein's expertise was not genetics or engineering. Each of them had opinions, yes. But, science's knowledge base is not built from opinion. It's built from reproducible data. Halton Arp has very little independently reproducible data.

I've used these people's work and opinions to illustrate the falsity of your creationist orientation....
Quotes are just more talk. Talk is not motion. Motion is not always action.

....and to reinforce my position that matter and systems constructed of matter can best be described with empirical methodology,
Empirical connotes experience. For you to suggest that you have empirical evidence of alien design further implies you have experience with alien engineering. Have you probative experience to back up your claim?

....you steadfastly refuse to address any of the reality of the evidence I've proffered....
Might that actually be my estimation of appropriate addressing?

...and continue to avoid all subjects of reality in favor of obfuscation.
You do know what is said about beauty?

If you are unable to discuss the subject in a logical manner, I'll understand that, since neither your "creationist theory" nor your "ultimate creationist theory" are defensible.
John, no more beer for you. Have some more pizza. And let me have your car keys.

While joining up with the fringe element may give you persuasive power, by sheer volume of your chatter, in some circles, it advances your creationist position not one single step towards reality.
John. Why don't I just call you a cab.

John:

This thread isn't about personalities, it's about ideas. It's about a request for objective substantiation of the claim of Intelligent Design -- any non-supernatural form. I'm can't deny alien design as a possibility. I can deny the salience of proffered evidence in support of alien design. If alien design is such an obvious conclusion, why have you so far been totally unsuccessful at the task of convincing the rest of us? Your evidence, so far, is not convincing. Use some new tools and skill sets to show us the statue that only you see and haven't, so far, been able to show us.

Mr. G.,

Your last post in response to my previous post is an entire example of obfuscation. It illustrates exactly what I've been describing as your refusal to engage in discussion. I suppose you must have gotten complacent with your posting skills, but a mental bully is the same as any other kind of bully, as soon as you stand up to them and require them to back up their bravado, they fade.

Maybe I'm being too harsh, perhaps you really are just a "babe in the woods". Maybe you really are clueless about how the real world works, so if that is the true nature of it , then I'll take a few moments to clue you in.

The Vatican has been the seat of religious government of catholicism for over fifteen hundred year. In all that time they have been a single party organization, a single party that has been in power for almost seven time as long as the United States has been a country. Their power is immense, when compared to that of nations. Other governments have armies that they consider to be the fulcrum of power, but the Vatican has seen thousands of such power groups and they all have faded after being dominant for some period.

The problem with most such power groups that rely on the force of arms is that they do not have long term planning and as such they make stupid decisions that detrimentally affect their organization. A case in point, since you referred to the subject, is the recent spate of denunciations of priests for sexually molesting children. That is a crime that the American government was aware of for a long time but they kept away from prosecuting any of the priests before the recent proceedings because they were using the knowledge of those crime as leaverage in dealing with the Vatican. They began their recent campaign of burning churches and arresting priests because they thought the time was right that they could destroy the religious base in the country when they coupled those actions with their propaganda. Of course that operation had no chance of achieving their hoped for outcome. And that is because the government had deluded themselves into believing that the religious base in the country was weak, and all they accomplished was to make the religionists stronger by weeding out the leeches. The money factor is not a consideration, as the Catholic organization is one of the wealthiest organizations in the world.

The religious government of the Vatican endorses creationism and they have been censoring information for almost two thousand year in order to keep any information that contradicts their premise from coming to the attention of the public. They are much better at censorship than the U.S. government and they have successfully kept most references of alien visitation in history secret. They play the other creationist theory, the ultimate one, off against the regular one and they don't care that it doesn't get settled because that suits their purpose. If the bible view was to succumb to the Ultimate Creation view, they would fit that within the framework of their religion because it would still be a creationist view. Their main object now in regards to the subject of creation is just to keep both sides arguing creation, but from different podiums. As long as no rational discussion intercedes between those two creationist view, then they are maintaining their agenda. And people like you are doing their proselytizing for them.

And you don't seem to understand what a theory is or what it is for, as is evident by your continued description of it. A theory is a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree. You consider Hubble's description of redshift as recession velocity as veracity for the Ultimate Creation Theory and ignore Arp's photographic proof that proves otherwise. Obviously, you have not bothered to read Arp's book. You keep droning on with your diatribe about me not providing proofs when you are refusing to examine anything and refusing to engage in the discussion. Perhaps you are not capable of engaging in an intelligent discussion in which flaming and ambushing are not favored?

John MacNeil:

You are free to believe whatever you like, as you are free to say whatever you like. We all are free to do so. But, it is not from ones ability to believe anything, nor from one's ability to say anything, that the obligation arises in others to believe and say the same things. Such influential modifications of the behaviors of others arises from believing in something of mutually recognized substance arrived at by some mutually compelling rationale. In that regard, you are failing to make a convincing case for the hypothesis of alien design.

You believe, and you ask others to believe, that aliens made us, that aliens have been amongst us throughout history, that the vatican has secret proof of aliens, that Science's theories of biologic and cosmologic evolution are baseless and without merit, that subsribers to Science's theories of biologic and cosmic evolution are stupid and clueless, and that they are in cahoots with fundimentalist religionists in a massive conspricacy by a monolithic fringe horde to keep the truth about aliens and human origins secret from us all.

And at the same time, you refuse to address with precise specificity repeated requests for any testable hypotheses and falsifiable predictions able to be made by your Alien Design hypothesis. Instead, you choose to offer as your only proof quotations and paraphrased anecdotes of certain notable, deceased individuals who had nothing at all to say about alien design, and discountable references to an astronomer whose ideas are based on singular interpretation of ambiguous data with nary a concern for his being as capable of error as was Einstein.

You are free to characterize my contributions to this thread any way you like, as you are free to call into question my state of mind in any terms you desire. My suspicion is that your equally ample pyschoanalytic abilities were acquired under the expert tutorage of Dr. Velikovsky.

John MacNeil:

Say what you will by way of rebuttal in your next post, but in the interest of preventing this thread from devolving into little more than off-topic verbal combat, let us thereafter return to phrasing our posts according to more scholarly mannerisms.

This is a thread about the validation of certain ideas and not about proof by ad hominem.

You consider Hubble's description of redshift as recession velocity as veracity for the Ultimate Creation Theory and ignore Arp's photographic proof that proves otherwise.

Halton Arp: Armchair Pseudoskeptic.

Arp has teamed up with Tom Van Flandern; ``The case against the big bang'', Phys.-Lett. A 164 (1992) 263 -- 73. Stereophonic loonies.

"In the beginning there was an unspoken covenant that observations were so important that they should be published and archived with only a minimum of interpretation at the end of the paper. Gradually this practice eroded as authors began making and reporting only observations which agreed with their starting premises. The next step was that these same authors, as referees, tried to force the conclusions to support their own and then finally, rejected the papers when they did not. As a result more and more important observational results are simply not being published at the journals in which one would habitually look for such results. The referees themselves, with the aid of compliant editors, have turned what was originally a helpful system into a chaotic and mostly unprincipled form of censorship."
(Halton Arp, Seeing Red, 1998)

The rantings of a classical crackpot.

Mr. G.,

You misstate my case. I never said that Aliens made us, but that they may have been instrumental in bringing different species of us humans to this planet. I pose that hypothesis on the fact that there is no phylogenic record that proves our type of human were here before 30,000 year ago. The fact that we can't prove such a record is corraborated by the Smithsonian Institution. If we can't prove our genetic evolution past a mere 30,000 year ago, how can we be so certain that our interpretation of evidence from several billion year ago is conclusive evidence that the Theory of Evolution holds true for all life on this planet? I have no doubt that natural selection works for individual species to evolve, but that operation of natural selection is a process that works within what is claimed to be the theory of everything. What I've been saying is that the current evidence does not support the theory that everything evolved on this planet according to the description of Darwinian Theory. Therefore that leaves open other possibilities that must be examined or we are not being faithful to science.

I don't think this is the proper thread to be examining the political reach and machinations of the Vatican's fifteen hundred year, uninterupted rule from Rome. I merely used that in the post because you brought up the topic of the lecherous priests.

The proof of Aliens having been among us or having visited us for thousands of year is abundant. It is in the ancient texts and in the ancient carvings and it continues into the present day with the cattle mutilations and the crop circles. There are scientific institutions that examine such evidence and one of them is The National Institute for Discovery Science. From what I've been able to read on their website, I don't have access to all of it, there is plenty that is happening that our scientists have no explanation for, nor can they duplicate the procedures. That means that whatever is going on is worth exploring and that is what the whole jist of my argument is about.

I assure you I am not affiliated with any group or organization. I don't know who this Dr. Velikovsky is, nor have I heard of him before a couple of day ago when he was mentioned somwhere in one of the connections to this thread. I don't subscribe to any religion. I believe that the Universe is a Complimentary Universe, as described by Albert Einstein. I believe that all matter and all systems that are contructed of matter, including human thought, can be and will eventually be described by empirical method. I believe in Einstein's theory of relativity. If there is anyone that I would consider to be my mentor, it would be Albert Einstein the scientist and Albert Einstein the man of peace.

When I question the veracity of the Creation theory and the Ultimate Creation theory it is because neither is verifiable and both impede the advancement of real science. There is no doubt that the multitudes subscribe to either of those two theory, but there are plenty of people who regard science more objectively and without the passion that those two afore mentioned theories seem to invoke in even the most reasonable of people.

Mr. G.,

A "return to phrasing our posts according to more scholarly mannerisms" is exactly what I have been suggesting from the beginning and I am glad that we can now get on with the discussion. But I can't begin the discussion with the conclusion to it. If the Ultimate Creation Theory is factual then that rules out the necessary evolutionary development time needed for a natural selection process to formulate a species that is far more advanced than us.

"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit."--Charles L. Bennett, NASA

What this description describes is that all the known matter in the universe, the trillions upon trillions of star in all their observed galaxies, was once confined to a space of 1 inch. All matter in a space 1/3rd the size of one of your fingers. Are you able to refute that that idea isn't creationism?

When they say that the thimbleful of matter, that in the beginning was everything, finally exploded in what is called the "Big Bang", that it was blasted out into space in every conceivable direction. If that is so then the center of the universe must be completely empty. And the volume of empty space there must be proportional to the energy of the explosion times the time passed before the matter slowed down. Therefore, if there truely was a big bang, we should be able to observe the vacant center of the universe because it would be visible from whichever position we ended up in. But the astronomical observations do not support that. Whenever we look into deep space in a spot that we previously thought was empty, we find an even greater magnitude of galaxies.

Another refutation of the big bang is the Cosmological Principle which states that matter in the universe is homogenous and isotropic. If matter is evenly spread throughout space, which has been tested and proved satisfactorily, then there couldn't have been an explosion that started everythng or there would be evidence of a concussion boundary where matter would be much more densely packed in some areas.

It is therefore my contention that the universe evolved rather than was created by an explosion. This is more in line with Einstein's complementary universe and would allow for a more logical description of the universe as opposed to the theologic seeming "big bang".

John MacNeil:

I never said that Aliens made us, but that they may have been instrumental in bringing different species of us humans to this planet. I pose that hypothesis on the fact that there is no phylogenic record that proves our type of human were here before 30,000 year ago. The fact that we can't prove such a record is corraborated by the Smithsonian Institution.
From the Smithsonian Institution's own website: ....the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago. (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm)
"....a large neo-cortex is the exclusive phylogeny of humans. (http://www.inet.co.th/cyberclub/sgould/PHYLO.htm)

If we can't prove our genetic evolution past a mere 30,000 year ago, how can we be so certain that our interpretation of evidence from several billion year ago is conclusive evidence that the Theory of Evolution holds true for all life on this planet?
If we can't prove aliens exist, or have existed -- there are no alien fossils or DNA from specimens in amber or peat bogs -- than "how can we be so certain that our interpretation of evidence"...."is conclusive evidence that the...." Alien Ark hypothesis "....holds true for" modern humans "...on this planet?"

....the current evidence does not support the theory that everything evolved on this planet....
Current scientific evidence allows even less support for the Alien Ark hypothesis.

Therefore that leaves open other possibilities that must be examined or we are not being faithful to science.
Testable hypotheses and their falsifiable predictions is how science examines 'possibilities'. Of course, such testables and predictions must first exist in order to be examined.

The proof of Aliens having been among us or having visited us for thousands of year is abundant.
But scientific proof of aliens is non-existant. Crop circles, lacerated bovines, hearsay and anecdotal story-telling is not scientific evidence that aliens exist or brought us here in their space ark.

The National Institute for Discovery Science....
The The National Institute for Discovery Science (http://www.nidsci.org/) is one more 'fringe' group tring hard to be scientific-like.

From what I've been able to read on their website,....there is plenty....that....scientists have no explanation for, nor can they duplicate the procedures. That....whatever is going on is worth exploring....that is....the whole jist of my argument....
Then it is good that the National Institute for Discovery Science is looking into such things. That frees all other scientists for the study of everthing else.

When I question the veracity of the....[Big Bang theory]....it is because [it] is[n't] verifiable and....impede[s] the advancement of real science.
The Standard Cosmologic Model in no way is preventing the National Institute for Discovery Science from doing 'real science'.

....there are plenty of people who regard science more objectively....
I can't respond to this without resorting to unscholarly mannerisms.

John MacNeil:

If the [Big Bang] Theory is factual then that rules out the necessary evolutionary development time needed for a natural selection process to formulate a species that is far more advanced than us.
Since no credible evidence for "a species that is far more advanced than us" currently exists, you're building assumptions atop one another--turtles, all the way down.

What this description describes is that all the known matter in the universe,....was once confined to a space of 1 inch.... Are you able to refute that that idea isn't creationism?
No. Because it isn't: "refute...idea...isn't" means, "prove idea is". And it isn't. No refute necessary.

Despite Mr. Bennett's 'description', the Standard Cosmologic Model is a conceptual framework for describing the evolution of the universe only during Time (T) > 0 . The SCM is incapable of saying anthing about the universe at T = 0 or T < 0. People are free to express their descriptive opinions about the universe at T = 0 or T < 0 but the SCM can provide no details of the universe at those values for T. Therefore, SCM is not an origin theory, thus is not a creation theory. Though you might look into the Ekpyrotic Universe Theory (http://www.sciencenews.org/20010922/bob9.asp) if you're looking for an origin theory to assail.

When they say that the thimbleful of matter, that in the beginning was everything, finally exploded in what is called the "Big Bang", that it was blasted out into space in every conceivable direction. If that is so then the center of the universe must be completely empty.
Just as James R. pointed out to you earlier, you quite misunderstand the very basics of a theory you would like people to believe ou understand well enough to know that it cannot possibly be true.

The so called "Big Bang" was NOT an explosion outward of all matter and energy, incredibly compressed, into pre-existing space and time waiting to receive it. The Standard Cosmologic Model describes processes of evolution of all known energy and space-time dimensions undergoing expansion and cooling.

...if there truely was a big bang, we should be able to observe the vacant center of the universe because it would be visible from whichever position we ended up in.
All points in space-time were the center of the universe. Some points in space-time currently appear vacant. Some points in space-time currently host human brain cells. The National Institute of Discovery has scientists looking for a correlation.

Another refutation of the big bang is the Cosmological Principle which states that matter in the universe is homogenous and isotropic.
The next important assumption, the one behind the Big Bang theory, is that at every time in the Universe, space looks the same in every direction at every point. Looking the same in every direction is called isotropic, and looking the same at every point is called homogeneous. So we're assuming that space is homogenous and isotropic. Cosmologists call this the assumption of maximal symmetry. At the large distance scales relevant to cosmology, it turns out that it's a reasonable approximation to make.

It is therefore my contention that the universe evolved rather than was created by an explosion.
You are correct that the universe evolves. You are correct that the universe didn't first explode. But what you have used to come to those conclusion is inaccurate characterizations of the very theory you say you know and that it must be wrong.

And, still there remains no scientific basis for your Alien Ark hypothesis.

John MacNeil:

You might notice I no longer refer to your hypothesis as Alien Design. That is because you stated:

I never said that Aliens made us, but that they may have been instrumental in bringing different species of us humans to this planet.
Therefore, I've taken to refering to your hypothesis as the "Alien Ark" hypothesis. And because it doesn't really deal with 'design' issues, AAH is largely off-topic.

Since their are no 'design' advocates complaining, I'll let it slide for now.

Le Coq:


I am going to reread it several times before I weigh in more on various specifics.
Please do. I would like several of us to tackle the formulation of testable hypotheses and falsifiable predictions for non-supernatural design (mainly for the mental exercise) because its proponents seem quite unable to do it themselves.

Q:

The rantings of a classical crackpot.
Arp has made some useful contributions, and rebels aren't to be automatically dismissed because sometimes they are right. But I do tend toward general agreement with your assessment. He's not in Velikovsky's league, however.

Mr MacNeil,

Discussion 101 continued:

Rule 2 is "Know thy enemy". In order to be able to effectively refute any theory, you must first understand it.

You have provided further evidence that your <i>Time</i> magazine assisted understanding of the big bang theory is insufficient to help you make a case against that theory. You say:

<i>When they say that the thimbleful of matter, that in the beginning was everything, finally exploded in what is called the "Big Bang", that it was blasted out into space in every conceivable direction. If that is so then the center of the universe must be completely empty.</i>

Your reference to the "center of the universe" is a dead give away regarding your lack of knowledge. I suggest you do some reading so you can bluff more effectively.

Mr. G.,

Your continued obfuscation and immature point by point refutations aren't impressing anyone. You keep harping on about how everything I postulate is not worth examination when it is I who is using the work of the most renowned scientists as the cornerstone of my position in this discussion.

You, of course, are using the speculations of science laborers and a fanatic adherrance to dogma to avoid the very discussion that you continuously call for, exactly the type of religious zeal that creationists are famous for.

The idea that the universe was created from an explosion of mass that was contained in a space of 1 inch is the description of the "big bang" as given by the scientific journals, published in school text books, reiterated in innumuerable science books, the stated position of NASA, the stated position of Stephen Hawking, but not you? Are you saying that all the sources that state that the "big bang" was the result of an outward explosion at criticality are wrong and that you are right? Why on earth do you think they would call it a "big bang" if there was no "big bang"?

So far your entire argument has been specious and while some grade 10, 11, or 12 students may be taken in by your vacuous and misleading references, such as your using a statement from the Smithsonian Institution, the subject of which they had already stated was an "extreme scenario" and "The origin of modern Homo Sapians is not yet resolved.", you are not fooling anyone of mature intelligence.

You Ultimate Creationists think that because you have a bunch of people on your bandwagon who are willing to spout your dogma whenever you whistle that you don't have to defend your creationist theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. As worldwide integration of knowledge increases in scope, more people are going to learn information and they they will learn it faster. That means that your kind, with your phony theories based on faith and the conjecture of the least intelligent people in science, will come under increasingly close scrutiny and you will be called on more often to defend your vacuous declarations with factual science.

To divert the discussion away from the direction it is going, which happens to reveal that you have a very limited and perihperal understanding of science, you wish once again to "tackle the formulation of testable hypotheses and falsifiable predictions for non-supernatural design", a premise you feel safe discussing because it has nothing to do with reality. You seem quite eager to give other people "all the rhetorical, non-scientific rope needed to quite effectively hang themselves before the spectating masses in this public square.", but you are decidedly evasive about, and actually completely unable to defend, your "Ultimate Creation Theory." Your bully tactics may have stood you in good stead as long as no one seriously questioned your rhetoric, but when you engage me in discussion and try to make me out to be a fool, you had best be prepared to engage in a real discussion and defend your position with the utmost clarity.

<i>You Ultimate Creationists think that because you have a bunch of people on your bandwagon who are willing to spout your dogma whenever you whistle that you don't have to defend your creationist theory.</i>

It would have to come under attack in order for us to need to defend it. :)

John MacNeil:

Are you saying that all the sources that state that the "big bang" was the result of an outward explosion at criticality are wrong and that you are right?
Yes, as you state it and understand it.

Why on earth do you think they would call it a "big bang" if there was no "big bang"?
Um, for much the same reason you call it the "Ultimate Creation Theory. You see, before the SCM there was the "Steady State Theory: This theory, which dominated prior to Big Bang cosmology, asserts that the Universe has no beginning or is temporally infinite. Although the Universe is expanding, its large-scale features have remained relatively the same. New matter is continuously created out of nothing to fill the space in between galaxies as that space stretches with expansion. Fred Hoyle was the well-known advocate of this theory at the time that Laimatre, Hubble, and others were proposing Big Bang cosmology. Hoyle actually coined the term "Big Bang", a term he used in derision of the theory." (http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/BigBangCosmologyPrimer.htm)

After that, who outside professional astronomy cared enough to say something faceless and dull, like 'Standard Cosmological Model', when they could say something imaginatively droll, like 'Big Bang'? The name just shouts "Fireworks!" And who doesn't like fireworks? KABLOOIE!! Yeah! That's the ticket. The KABLOOIE Theory. Has a nice ring to it, doen't it? And that's how SCM came to be called Big Bang....er, "Ultimate Creation Theory".

Hm. For me, in the "You" column:

....obfuscation, ...immature, ....harping, ....not_worth, ....speculations, ....laborer, ....fanatic, ....dogma, ....avoid, ....religious_zeal, ....creationist, ....specious, ....vacuous, ....misleading, ....fooling, ....spout, ....your_kind, ....phony, ....faith, ....conjecture, ....least_intelligent, ....vacuous, ....divert, ....limited, ....perihperal ....wish, ....nothing_to_do_with_reality, ....evasive, ....unable, ....bully, ....rhetoric....
31 qualifying characterizations.

And for you, in the "Me" column:

....renowned....cornerstone....mature_intelligence ....factual_science....utmost clarity....
Only 5. You aren't giving yourself enough credit.

Now you can't anymore say "You keep harping on about how everything I postulate is not worth examination" because I just made an examination I thought worthwile of your most recent postulation.

Mr. G.,

You seem to be making a slow transition to the real discussion. When you say that you have a different perception of the Standard Cosmological Model than do Stephen Hawking, NASA and all the others, could you explain that view more fully? I'm always interested in hearing new ideas that transcend conventional theories.

I can imagine how revelatory it must be to realize that the Standard Cosmological Model you'd been taught in school was nothing but a fraud perpetrated by the catholic church. In 1927 Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian catholic priest, was appointed a Proffessor of Astrophysics, at the University of Louvain, a catholic university. His very first proclamation was that the universe began as an explosion from a sub-atomic atom. Two year later, in 1929, Edwin Hubble, a devout cristian, "discovered" evidence to justify Lemaitre's claim. They further claimed that Einstein's theories corraborated their findings. Einstein, the creator of his own theories, did not believe in the "big bang" theory and he surely would have known what his theories meant much better than would a priest or an affected socialite. Einstein believed in a complimentary universe and stated on many occasion that "God does not play with dice", meaning that the construction of the universe is dependant on systems and is not the result of chaotic disruption.

When Hubble first presented his "big bang" theory he wrote it up as a "creation event". When he was questioned about that phrasing he remained silent on the subject for the rest of his life. He never did explain it and actually became quite aloof, whereas before he presented the theory, he was an extroverted social climber. The religionists were afraid that Einstein's recent theories could undermine their creation theory and so they invented the "Ultimate Creation Theory" as a backup. The fact that it was accepted is testament to their influence.

John MacNeil:

You seem to be making a slow transition to the real discussion.
Um, I started the thread, defining the 'real dicussion' as being about hypotheses for non-supernatural design. In fact, your 'real discussion' is an entirely different, off-topic topic.

When you say that you have a different perception of the Standard Cosmological Model than do Stephen Hawking, NASA and all the others, could you explain that view more fully?
Sure. If I must translate "Yes, as you state it and understand it" from the English: I said, I have a different, more accurate & more authoritative understanding of the Standard Cosmological Model than do you.

I can imagine how revelatory it must be to realize that the Standard Cosmological Model you'd been taught in school was nothing but a fraud perpetrated by the catholic church.
I imagine you can. Do you also realize that mother's milk is a gateway drug?

....fraud perpetrated by the catholic church, ....Lemaitre, ....catholic priest, ....Hubble, ....cristian,....
It before hasn't gone unnoticed, just uncommented, that quite obviously your are better orientated toward, and better read up on, conspiracy theories than scientific theories.

Einstein believed "God does not play with dice"....
So? Hawking believes "God not only plays with dice, he sometimes throws them where they can't be seen."

The religionists were afraid that Einstein's recent theories could undermine their creation theory and so they invented the "Ultimate Creation Theory" as a backup.
I am disturbed to observe that worthy credence due many individuals' science-applied intelligence can be so easily, and so universally, discounted by you due to irrational, conspiracy-driven paranoia. An atheist, I'm certainly no friend of organized religion, nor of metaphysics, but I am quite able to appreciate that a person's religious beliefs don't necessarily conflict with the person's ability to accomplish outstanding science. That you are motivated to search under conceptual rocks for hidden conspiracies is insufficient reason for anyone else to presume that under anyone's rock you are finding one, other than your own.

John MacNeil:

If you wish to debate the facts of the SCM, you are welcome to start another thread for the purpose.

This thread is for discussion of "design"-related issues, and the lack of scientific evidence of such.

Please stay on-topic.

Mr. G.,

"Shall no one, can no one, speak in defence of Intelligent Design?"

When you issued that clarion call, were you interested in a real discussion? Or were you merely seeking to ambush some young person so that you could show off your mental acuity?

"I think you and I should speak to testable predictions of Alien Design."

Was that statement of yours sincere? Or was it just another of your immature ambushes where you hoped you could display your self-perceived superior intellect?

When you engage in this discussion you seem to be under the false belief that your "Ultimate Creation Theory" is sacrosanct and unassailable. But that is not the case at all. Part of my hypothesis is that your creation theory is nothing but propaganda. If I am to discuss my hypothesis then I must start at the beginning, but everytime I make a post to do so, you cry foul like some spoiled child.

The people in science who's work I refer to are people of the highest intelligence. Their accomplishments in science have been recognized in the form of numerous awards granted by their peers.

Hannes Alfven--Nobel Prize winning physicist.

Albert Einstein--Nobel Prize winning physicist.

Halton Aarp--Astronomer, multiple award recipient.

Sir Fred Hoyle--Astrophysicist, multiple award recipient.

Geoffrey Burbidge--Astronomer, multiple award recipient.

All of these people, and many more, believe that the "Ultimate Creation Theory" is a hoax.

The people that you regard as the "eminent" people in science are a catholic priest who was appointed to a position in the university for the express purpose of initiating the "creation of the universe from a sub-atomic atom theory", and a devout Cristian and affected socialite who used the observations of V. M. Slipher to falsely corroborate the "creation event".

You seem to think that the purpose of this forum is solely for you to exhibit your childish debating style and that you never have to engage in any real discussion. How do you ever expect to learn anything if you don't interact with those who have more knowledge?

You keep saying how you are an atheist. Is that just a false front? You seem to adhere quite strictly to the creationist line and I'm beginning to think that you have some close affiliation with some organization that doesn't tolerate dissention. Anyone who is really interested in science would be eager to discuss science, but you shy away from discussion at every opportunity. Maybe you should have located your thread in the child pshycology section instead of a science section.

John MacNeil:

I'm sorry you have 'issues'.

Still, please stay on-topic.

John,

<i>Part of my hypothesis is that your creation theory is nothing but propaganda.</i>

Part of my hypothesis is that you don't know what you're talking about.

<i>If I am to discuss my hypothesis then I must start at the beginning, but everytime I make a post to do so, you cry foul like some spoiled child.</i>

Every time I make a post to correct another of your misunderstandings of the "ultimate creation theory" you pretend it isn't even there. Blocking your ears and yelling "I'm not listening!" seems like something a spoiled child would do. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

For a woman to be using a phony name and a phony picture and pretending to be a man in a science forum, the person "Mr.G." is a strange one to be observing that someone else has "issues". If she was half as clever as she thought she was, she would have befriended a male FBI profiler before beginning the perpetration of her fraud. If she did, she would have found out that men and women categorize their data differently according to their biological and psychological requirements and she might then have used that knowledge to construct a convincing "beard".

As the woman "Mr.G." seems to have no intention of entering into a legitimate discussion, and whose only purpose for starting this thread seems to have been for the expressed design of ambushing anyone she could, I think it is only prudent if her non-debating posts, which will become increasingly shrill and perhaps even vulgar, are not regarded as attempts to steer this thread back "on topic", the main focus of which she has been avoiding assiduously.

I have noticed throughout my time on the web that there are some people who adopt a strange persona with their web-name and they use the web-name until they have been found out and then they discard it and adopt another. It is the one reason that I don't like "stage names" on the web, although I understand how it is necessary for some people to adopt such a name in order to preserve their privacy.

The woman "Mr.G." obviously didn't know where this thread could lead, as no one really knows where their threads will lead, but it is apparent that the idea of Intelligent Design is worthy of discussion on a couple of fronts. Not as a metaphysical, supra-natural construction, but as the intelligent organization of systems for a purpose and as additional evidence that the universe is a complimentary system and not the result of the creation theory or the "Ultimate Creation Theory".

When I entered this discussion I did so in good faith. I have no desire to defame anyone, nor do I have any ulterior motives. I simply wish to discuss the subject in a logical, respectful manner. As "Mr.G." and "James.R" seem incapable of restraining their religiosity and their vindictiveness, perhaps some of you more sincere people would like to enter the discussion at this point?

John MacNeil:

LMAOBT. Another weird theory you've thrown into the mix, and it's wrong, too. And from reading some of your other posts elsewhere, I'm surprised you didn't accuse me of being Jewish and evil. But then you would owe both women and Jews everywhere an apology for thinking that being either makes someone less of a person than a real hunk of male pulchritude, such as yourself.


"Mr.G." seems to have no intention of entering into a legitimate discussion, and whose only purpose for starting this thread seems to have been for the expressed design of ambushing anyone....
I think it quite obvious you will never change your mind regarding your pet theories, conspiracies, and errant interpretations of Science. I never imagined you would. And 'discussion' for the sake of endless argument is not the primary purpose of this thread.

This thread, like most others, has participants and spectators. Spectators are what debates are all about. Spectators watch debaters argue points and merits of rationale, and they make up their own minds accordingly. So, while you spend your posts arguing that the great majority of scientists are stupid and clueless, that the catholic church is out to take over the world while hiding the aliens from us, and I must be female because you think I'm perpetrating fraud, spectators are judging the soundness of your other conclusions based on their estimations of your displays of reasoning power.

If that kind of ambush makes you unfairly uncomfortable, there's probably good reason -- having nothing to do with your fellow (or otherwise) participants.

Okay, I gotta jump in here.


Originally posted by John MacNeil
[B]Mr. G.,

You misstate my case. I never said that Aliens made us, but that they may have been instrumental in bringing different species of us humans to this planet.

So there's a difference between bringing us here and making us? Yes, I could see how the latter is so much harder to believe (or prove.) And different species? I heard there is only one species of human.


I pose that hypothesis on the fact that there is no phylogenic record that proves our type of human were here before 30,000 year ago. The fact that we can't prove such a record is corraborated by the Smithsonian Institution. If we can't prove our genetic evolution past a mere 30,000 year ago, how can we be so certain that our interpretation of evidence from several billion year ago is conclusive evidence that the Theory of Evolution holds true for all life on this planet?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. So there's gaps in the evolutionary record. This has been addressed here before. What interpretation of data from several billion years ago has anything to do with Evolutionary Theory? Most data is recent, speaking on the scale of the earth's age. The data that gets interpreted that links all life on earth is the very large forest of biochemical science that shows how similar in chemical makeup all life is. All life uses DNA, very similar DNA, and the similarity between our DNA and other higher order mammals is within 99% of one another. All higher order mammals use the same types of chemical processes to eat, sleep, mate, make proteins, break down sugars, etc... On a macro level, the similarity between our brains and skeletons, the structure of tissues and organs and other forms of life is overwhelmingly convincing that we humans are animals with the same origin as all other life on earth. To suggest that we are not will require more than a couple of brave rebels with riveting, non-peer reviewed books to prove. Evidence stands apart from the voice that first explains it. This evidence must stand alone (be acceptable by the scientific community at large) to be credible. I'm wasting my breath here, though, aren't I?

So in response to your next statement,


What I've been saying is that the current evidence does not support the theory that everything evolved on this planet according to the description of Darwinian Theory. Therefore that leaves open other possibilities that must be examined or we are not being faithful to science.

You can say whatever you want, but the evidence does support it and you have to quote more than a couple of contrary voices to argue strongly against it. Other possbilities were entertained, I would imagine, by people who make a living doing this, but those ideas had a shorter half-life.


When I question the veracity of the Creation theory and the Ultimate Creation theory it is because neither is verifiable and both impede the advancement of real science.

I refer you to the earlier post by James R., who challenged your claims against Big Bang Theory (or Ultimate Creationist Theory, in your wording) point for point. And which, instead of rebutting against point by point, you chose the far more eloquent:


James, you're a stupid person who doesn't know anything, or are you on assignment for the U.S. state department?

Not sure what evidence you had to suspect he was with the State Department (but then you work quite well without evidence), but you later had the selective memory to claim:


A "return to phrasing our posts according to more scholarly mannerisms" is exactly what I have been suggesting from the beginning and I am glad that we can now get on with the discussion.

To close, addressing the cosmological argument this has become:


"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit."--Charles L. Bennett, NASA

What this description describes is that all the known matter in the universe, the trillions upon trillions of star in all their observed galaxies, was once confined to a space of 1 inch. All matter in a space 1/3rd the size of one of your fingers. Are you able to refute that that idea isn't creationism?


Apart from the fact that God isn't mentioned in the definition of the model, the theory that the Universe was smaller than it is now is hard to believe? Is it the fact that it's a few millimeters across that's hard to believe? (Argument from incredulity). You're confusing a physical entity occupying a small volume and then growing larger with something springing from nothing, which is "creation." The Big Bang Theory, which has nothing to do with creation or Ultimate Creation, is merely a description of physical attributes. I'm not current on this, but I believe the theory does not preclude the Universe being at one time larger and then collapsing (to small volume, not complete annihilation), or does it? James R.?

So, we should start a new thread, one which disusses the merits and strengths of the Big Bang Theory (if one isn't going already). Having done a spot of reading about Hannes Alfven, I am curious about the implications of the model that there was no big bang.

That belongs in another forum, and when we get there, NO VATICAN!

Le Coq

And who gives a FF if Mr. G is a man or a goat? (Discussion 101: Don't focus on the person, focus on the ideas. Avoid saying "you," rather say, "your statement that"). I am Le Coq and that's all y'all need to know.

Le Coq
has crowed.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence
And the corollary: Absence of proof is absence of proof.

The aliens have left the building somewhere else.

Take the most obvious example first: Black people and White people. If black people were here first, in Africa, how could the white people, who are different in both pigmentation and genetic marking, have transformed from black to white? Then how could all of the other distinct peoples, such as Eskimos, Indians, Chinese and the many hundreds of others, have developed a distinct purebred phylogeny? There is no record of our type of human before the evidence dated 30,000 to 32,000 year ago. That is the scientific community's position. For any connection to neanderthals to be entertained, two "extreme scenarios" had to be postulated. That means that the scientific community does not have even a reaonable belief that the present type of humans were phylogenically related to neanderthals or they would have given a "reasonable scenario". If there is no connection to neanderthals, then Darwinian Theory of Evolution cannot be maintained as a scientific theory because it no longer fulfills the stated requirements of encompassing "all" life on the planet. Therefore natural selection, which we know works, can be applied to individual species but not to all of the species on the planet as a unit because we have seen variations of life that evolution, as we know it, cannot explain.

If the DNA of the varieties of life on this planet are so similar, then it is entirely possible that the DNA for all, or most, life in the galaxy is similar. When we search for life on other planets, or, more accurately, when we search for planets on which there might be life, we search for planets that exhibit the same chemical profile as our own. We expect the basic ingredients throughout the galaxy to be similar if the galaxy evolved from the same source at some earlier point in existence.

All of the universe in the space of one inch? and creation from nothing? You perceive a tangible difference between those two scenario?

When James R. made his post he was attacking, not discussing. The same as Mr.G. was doing. I really don't care what gender, race or nationality anyone is. I figure that everyone on this earth has the same equality of right to life and liberty until proved otherwise. When I use disparaging comments against Israel or the U.S. corporate government, they are not slurs against all the citizens of either country or against any religion in particular. When Palestine was first divided so that the state of Israel could be achieved, there was a specific UN resolution denoting specific borders to separate the Jews from the Arabs. The Israelis were the ones who constantly defied that resolution from the beginning by going into the Arab neighborhoods and villages, slaughtering the Arabs they came across and chasing the others away so that Israelis could take over their land and belongings. They continue to do the same kinds of atrocities today and their ultimate goal is to chase all the Arabs out of the entire territory of Palestine. This policy is backed by the U.S. and is based on the way the U.S. stole their country away from the indigenous population. If you would read some history you would find all of this out for yourselves, then you would realize that it doesn't matter what the Palestinians do to try and stop the violence because the Israelis want it to continue until they control all of Palestine. Because of the Israeli policy of land confiscation and the bloody methods they pursue to obtain that land is why I refer to them as evil.

If Mr.G. would refrain from cross-threading to reinforce attack posts, and stick to discussing, then topics like the last paragraph should rightly be over in the World Events section.

All of the universe in the space of one inch? and creation from nothing? You perceive a tangible difference between those two scenario?
Well, other than 1 is not equal to zero, I don't presume that the space of one inch of that primordial sequence is the same as the one inch taken up by my fingertip. I think what it means is that matter and energy had different properties in that stage, and that they took up less space.

Now, to the topic!

Take the most obvious example first: Black people and White people. If black people were here first, in Africa, how could the white people, who are different in both pigmentation and genetic marking, have transformed from black to white?
No one says that whites came from black people. They and all humans came from a common ancestor, whose fossils have mostly been found in Africa. Recent fossil evidence have found homo progenitors in the Caucasus (National Geographic August) that is challenging the timeline and lineage. The skin pigmentation of homo sapiens may have been phenotypically darker, but the northern migrants eventually selected for lighter pigmentation, which has something to do with better utilization of sunlight for vitamin D production, melatonin regulation, etc., I'm not sure what. This is a reaction to environmental factors, higher latitudes =less sunlight. Solid Darwinian stuff.

There is no record of our type of human before the evidence dated 30,000 to 32,000 year ago. That is the scientific community's position.
Why is Mr. G.'s reference not satisfactory to you?

[From Mr. G.]From the Smithsonian Institution's own website: ....the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago.

For any connection to neanderthals to be entertained, two "extreme scenarios" had to be postulated.
Could you explain what these two are?

That means that the scientific community does not have even a reaonable belief that the present type of humans were phylogenically related to neanderthals or they would have given a "reasonable scenario".
I don't think this is true. The scientific community, which does not support alien intervention, "believes" that the neanderthal and homo sapiens both evolved from the same origin as all life on earth. Because fossil evidence linking the two species in a clear-cut explanation of their postion on the evolutionary tree is not abundant (or existent, I'll have to do more reading- can you provide references otherwise?) does not QED disprove evolution. I wish you would elaborate why you think this is so, and how Darwinian evolution does not work for all species. Your statement:

If there is no connection to neanderthals, then Darwinian Theory of Evolution cannot be maintained as a scientific theory because it no longer fulfills the stated requirements of encompassing "all" life on the planet.
is grossly unsupported by your previous statements. I invite you to do so, in the interest of civil discussion.
Also, in light of:

Therefore natural selection, which we know works, can be applied to individual species but not to all of the species on the planet as a unit because we have seen variations of life that evolution, as we know it, cannot explain.
I would like to know some of these variations you feel or have references to support that contradict evolution. Make sure you understand what evolution is. Evolution is not a surefire method to pinpoint species origin or ancestry. Evolution simply claims that genetic frequencies in a species varies over time in response to environmental factors. That's it. It is the cornerstone, if not most of the entire foundation, of modern biology and the life sciences. Don't dismiss it so readily. It's fun to read 'alternate' theories and think "now I'm in the know, I'm in the special contrary minority," but that's not what science is about. Whether ten or ten billion believe something's true has no bearing on its actual truth.

In a semi-related note, I just read a biography of an ex-mormon who, as a molecular biologist, could not discount the evidence that shows that American Indians were of Asian origin and not Hebrews, as the Book of Mormon taught. It led to his disillusionment and exit from the Church which has been finding it increasingly difficult to answer the inconsistencies it has taught that have been questioned by historians, scientists, and other intellectuals, most of who come from its own ranks.
http://www.exmormon.org/whylft125.htm
Interesting reading illuminating the psychology about the power of belief.
Le Coq

When a scientist makes a statement describing something and uses a definition specifically denoting size, such as 1 inch, the scientist means 1 inch whether it is here on this planet or on the other side of the galaxy. When or where a thing was 1 inch has no bearing on the description. If a scientist described something as 1 inch and meant something larger or smaller than 1 inch, the scientist would have described it as 1 inch + or 1 inch - or 1 inch +or-. When the Ultimate Creation Theory was first proffered by the Belgian catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre, he said all of the universe came from a "sub-atomic atom", meaning a sub-atomic particle, which would be a hadron. When scientists give a description of something they mean it literally, so you can be sure that the description they give as "a few millimeters" or 1 inch is what they mean. If they didn't mean what they said then their description would be pointless. If you interpret what scientists say to be something other than what they mean, then how are you ever going to understand anything?

When I put "extreme scenarios" in quotation marks it was because that is the scientist's stated position and the exact wording that the Smithsonian Institution used to describe them on their website. The same with the description of the evidence of how long they can prove we were actually on this planet. That all came from the Smithsonian Institution's own website. In an earlier post in this thread I gave the Smithsonian's website address and directions on how to find the pertinent information on human evolution as they present it. I'm not going to type up all of the Smithsonian's evidence for you to read here when you can simply go to their website and study the information as they present it. If you had bothered to even read my previous posts from an objective point of view, instead of rushing through them in your haste to get in on the feeding frenzy, you would have noticed that I have been backing up my views with references. If you don't go and read or look at any of the references I give, then how can you expect to discuss the subject in a progressive and intelligent manner?

When you say that people have different phylogeny but come from a single source, you are merely making speculation that falls within the framework of the "extreme scenarios" put forth by the scientific community to try and somehow propose links where no links exist, simply so that they don't have to abandon the evolution theory and replace it with something else. Natural selection of a species is a physical process. Darwinian Theory of Evolution is a theory. In order to discuss science, you must be able to distinguish between a process and a theory.

If you interpret what scientists say to be something other than what they mean, then how are you ever going to understand anything?
Let us look a little more closely at what scientists say literally:

....the initial singularity['s]....minimum size becomes the planck length of 10^-33 centimeters (http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11717.html)

The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang...the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html)

Ah. Understanding.


In order to discuss science, you must be able to distinguish between a process and a theory.
In order that one can discuss Science with some authority, one must understand that Science is a process--the systematic collection, organization and analysis of information, and a theory is a tool of that process. Science has proven itself to be our best means of systematic description of natural phenomena as natural processes.

When scientists give a description of something they mean it literally, so you can be sure that the description they give as "a few millimeters" or 1 inch is what they mean.
I didn't say an inch wasn't an inch. I said the qualities of space taken up by an inch were different at the different times. And according to the theory, they were. The space of an inch at close to the big bang must have contained billions to the billionth power (more or less) of mass. My overarching statement is that it doesn't matter how small the universe was, Big Bang Theory does not hold that the universe did not come from "nothing" and that it was not "created." Your statement seems to be that since it was so small it might as well have been created.

When I put "extreme scenarios" in quotation marks it was because that is the scientist's stated position and the exact wording that the Smithsonian Institution used to describe them on their website. The same with the description of the evidence of how long they can prove we were actually on this planet. That all came from the Smithsonian Institution's own website. In an earlier post in this thread I gave the Smithsonian's website address and directions on how to find the pertinent information on human evolution as they present it. I'm not going to type up all of the Smithsonian's evidence for you to read here when you can simply go to their website and study the information as they present it.
A simple "I got that statement from the Smithsonian website that Mr. G posted a link to" would have sufficed.
I believe you are misinterpreting the use of "extreme" here. It seems to me the word is describing the difference between the (two most popular) theories, not describing the theories as radically unfounded from some absolute or mainstream common sense. Both theories seem plausible, it's just that they diverge from one another at some point, and I would trust that the Smithsonian would describe the theories held out by the majority of experts in the field.
In particular:

The same with the description of the evidence of how long they can prove we were actually on this planet. That all came from the Smithsonian Institution's own website.

Yet you wrote:

There is no record of our type of human before the evidence dated 30,000 to 32,000 year ago. That is the scientific community's position.

Yet the website states, as Mr. G posted:

Whichever model (if either) is correct, the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago.
From your previous post, you seem to be agreeing that the Smithsonian's website is a credible representation of the "scientific community's position." This is the third time this has been pointed out to you now. Why are you not seeing it, or why are you ignoring it? Who's rushing? Look at what you've written:

If you don't go and read or look at any of the references I give, then how can you expect to discuss the subject in a progressive and intelligent manner?
Yet you gave no references:

For any connection to neanderthals to be entertained, two "extreme scenarios" had to be postulated. That means that the scientific community does not have even a reaonable belief that the present type of humans were phylogenically related to neanderthals or they would have given a "reasonable scenario".
Nowhere in that post of 9/5 did you mention a reference or the Smithsonian. I did not previously go and look at the Smithsonian website earlier that Mr.G posted a link to because I did not need convincing that the anatomically modern human species were older than 30.000 years. So I did not know you were quoting the website. Which is why I asked where and what these "extreme" theories were.

When you say that people have different phylogeny but come from a single source, you are merely making speculation that falls within the framework of the "extreme scenarios" put forth by the scientific community to try and somehow propose links where no links exist, simply so that they don't have to abandon the evolution theory and replace it with something else.
Proposing links is what science is all about. That's the "hypothesis" part of the process. Because a link hasn't been proven yet does not mean that it doesn't exist. And yes, it is so that they don't have to abandon the evolutionary theory! There's no reason to replace it with something else because there's no reason to! That's not a conspiracy or stupidity!

Natural selection of a species is a physical process. Darwinian Theory of Evolution is a theory. In order to discuss science, you must be able to distinguish between a process and a theory.
More scientifically put, natural selection is an observable phenomenon. A theory describes it. Because something is "only a theory" does not mean it is not true, or not as good as a "law." Science is not interested in making all theories into "laws." Theories support the process of Science, and constantly confirming or disproving the theories is the heart of the process. I don't know where "you must be able to distinguish... if you want to discuss Science" came from, where I proved that I don't understand the difference, but it seemed you were looking for another fillip to barb your post with.

If your reply is, "well, you were pretty snotty yourself," then I can only retort that you started the insults here, John. You constantly ignored refutations to your statements and claimed that it was other people ignoring you. Mr. G has made a couple off-color remarks, yes, as well as some of the other guys, but your language is absolutely saturated with condescension and ad hominem challenges to everyone's intelligence. I know you will probably have to challenge this in your next post, which I will no longer address in any replies, but if you insist on inserting sentences like "then how are you ever going to understand anything?" in every paragraph, then your productive days here are limited. I see you've been here only a few weeks, and yet you've already managed to incense some of the more level-headed senior posters here. There have been plenty of posters that have came through, claiming they've dismantled the theory of relativity or have come up with time travel, and have the evidence to stand the whole world of science on its ear. Eventually they get ignored, not because other posters don't like their opinions, but because these persons turn to insults and consistently fail to understand or acknowledge logical argument.

Here's my pledge: if you post statements that argue positions on science, then I will address those positions in a neutral language, without assuming or trying to establish your ability or intelligence or waist size. Please don't say that that's what you've been trying to do. I (or rather you) showed earlier that you resorted to insults rather than argument.

Now: I will go back and reread all the posts, and try to condense your position, and repost it, so that we can return to the topic at hand. Perhaps we will find it necessary to start a new thread. Perhaps in the interest of this you may want to do this yourself, to reiterate your position, as it was spread out over many posts.

Good day.
Le Coq

Mr. G has made a couple off-color remarks, yes....
Umm, all my remarks have been laser-like--aka: accurately coherent.

Except for the few that have escaped informed scrutiny.

When I stated that there is no physical evidence of us being here more than 30,000 to 32,000 year ago, that is based on us being the present phylogenic species of human as apart from the next previous examples, which are the Neanderthals and the Skhul V's. Go back to the Smithsonian's website and look at the pictures of the skulls for all three specimen and you will quickly see that the Neanderthal and the Skhul V are anatomically different from us. There is no known evidence to prove linkage between us and those other two, but those other two have similarities that they share with each other. When the Smithsonian says there is evidence for anatomically correct humans from 130,000 and 90,000 year ago, they are referring to the Neanderthal and the Skhul V, respectively. If you had bothered to even read my previous posts, which you say you are going to do now, you would have found out that it was me who referenced the Smithsonian Institution, and not Mr.G. Mr.G. merely took a quote from there which Mr.G. then placed out of context. Furthermore, it was not me who began with any attack posts. I think attack posts are stupid and the sign of someone who allows accelerated emotions to cloud their objective thought.

Your view of the early universe is confusing and it is obvious that astrophysics is not your specialty. Before you let your emotions trample all over your objective thought, let me emphasize that my observation is purely objective and is in no way meant to be an attack. A lot of the theories that are taught in schools today are based on the universe having originated from a condensed ball of matter which exploded outward at criticality and continues to expand outward. It is immaterial if the Ultimate Creation Theory says that the universe began from a single point, an inch, or even a million mile wide condensed mass. The result would be the same description. If all mass were expanding outward, then the universe, by that very description, would be non-isotropic and yet the science concludes that the universe is isotropic. Matter in the universe is found to be evenly distrbuted. That could not be the case if the universe is expanding. There are perfect mathematical properties that are inherent in the entire universe. That also could not be possible in an expanding universe. The science does not support an expanding universe, only some people support that theory.

There is a point beyond which a physical object cannot be compressed. This is because all elemental particles have a field boundary. For matter to be compressed in the manner you seem to think possible, it would have to be squeezed out of existence, which is impossible. The shape and appearence of matter can be changed but matter cannot be destroyed. Whatever shape it is changed into, it will still require space to fit into. Calling something a singularity, the result of condensing matter infinitely, is another example of reinforcing a faulty theory. It belies relativity and is based on daydreaming, not science. If the Ultimate Creation Theory and it's complimentary theory, the black hole theory, are true, then Einstein's theories aren't true. You can't have it both way. Now, since Einstein's theories have been proven to be true, and the Ultimate Creation Theory and the black hole theories are only based on conjecture and the faulty interpretation of redshift, it is obvious which theories are going to stand the test of time and which are going to end up in the rubbish bin of scientific theories. Albert Einstein said right up to the end of his life that there was such a thing as a Unified Field Theory and the scientific evidence we've gathered since his death is more supportive of his theory than of the creationist view, whether you call that the Big Bang or, as I call it, the Ultimate Creation Theory.

Matter in the universe is found to be evenly distrbuted. That could not be the case if the universe is expanding.

Then the universe is expanding. During the attempts at mapping the universe it was found that matter is not evenly distrubuted. Rather that it clumps together and forms seeming walls simular to a soap bubble film. Do some research for an image of the stick man which will show this clumping. There are several posts involving this in the astromony section of these forums...


The science does not support an expanding universe, only some people support that theory.

Please satisfactorly explain red shift, an observed phenomena...

Redshift was first observed by astronomer V.M.Slipher. A couple of year later Edwin Hubble determined that the redshift, indicating a body in motion becoming increasingly distant from us, was basis for the theory that all matter in the universe was expanding outward from a central position, corroborating the proposed theory of Georges Lemaitre that the universe began with the outward explosion of a sub-atomic atom.

Astronomer Halton Arp showed that redshift was not an indicator of expansion, but was an indicator of a body in motion and an indicator of density. The body exhibiting red spectrum light could be in an orbital path that temporarily makes it look like it is continuously moving outward. Arp has also shown that Quasar's extremely high redshift is an intrinsic property of Quasars. He has shown that some normal galaxies have companion galaxies with extremely high redshift and so the redshift must be of a nonvelocity origin. If this is so then redshift can be the product of density or relative motion.

In Arp's book, 'Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies', c.1987, he supplies photographic evidence for his case. The photographic plates are from his work at the Palomar Observatory.

From my understanding, matter in the universe is homogenous and isotropic. It used to be thought that there were empty places in space but when the Hubble Space Telescope was focused for a long exposure on those seemingly empty spaces for a deep field view, the resultant photographic evidence showed an astonishing multitude of galaxies. I referenced that deep field view from APOD in one of my earlier posts.

Arp is suggesting that statistically there are more quasars near peculiar galaxies (Arp's proposed source of their origin) than quasars near non-quasar, non-peculiar galaxies. Arp further suggests that therefore quasars are nearer to us, we the observers, than redshift leads us to believe--that is, at distances more similar to the galaxies of our own cosmological epoch--because, he says, that redshift interpretation must be affected by pecular physical properties of quasars but not by the physical properties of non-quasar galaxies.

Number of observable galaxies: 100 Billion to 1 Trillion, current estimate.
Number of known quasars: 12,000 approx.
Number of peculiar galaxies in Arp's catalog: 338
Number of square degrees covering the surface of the celestial sphere: 41,253

100 Billion galaxies / 41,253 degress^2 = 2,424,100 galaxies per square degree of sky.
12,000 quasars / 41,253 degress^2 = .29 quasars per square degree of sky
338 peculiar Arp galaxies / 41,253 degress^2 = 0.0082 Arp galaxies per square degree of sky.

Ratio of galaxies to quasars = 8,358,965:1
Ratio of galaxies to Arp galaxies = 24,730:1
Ratio of quasars to Arp galaxies = 35:1

Statistically:

It is at least 8 million times more likely that galaxies and quasars belong to different cosmological epochs (apparently due to evolution), thus they exhibit different redshift value ranges.
It is 24,730 times more likely that Arp galaxies belong to the epoch of galaxies than to the epoch of quasars.

It is 8 million times more likely that, looking in any given direction in the sky, you will see a galaxy instead of a quasar.
It is 35 times more likely that, looking in any given direction in the sky, you will see a quasar instead of an Arp galaxy.

For any Arp galaxy, anywhere from 0 to 12,000 quasars could be associated with it. Why would an Arp galaxy not make a quasar? Why would just one Arp galaxy of this epoch make 12,000 quasars?

Then again, if quasars emit more energy than can be accounted for by modern science, where did the average Arp galaxy get the energy to make 35 quasars and still remain intact? How about just one? If an Arp galaxy has the energy to make a quasar, why doesn't it look like an even bigger quasar? If Quasars make Arp galaxies, why are there so few Arp galaxies?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The nearest large galaxies to ours are M31 and M81. Both of those large galaxy show light to be blueshifted. Around each of those large galaxy are companion galaxies that the astronomical community always agreed were associated with the larger galaxies. When Arp analyzed those companion galaxies around M31 and M81, in 1976, he found that 12 of 12 certainly identifiable galaxies displayed significant high redshift. That proved that redshift is not an indicator of recession velocity. Arp had been doing such studies since 1970.

Other astronomers undertook to verify Arp's results, which is standard scientific practice in astronomy. Lucette Bottinelli and Lucienne Gougenheim of France, in 1973. Suzy Collin-Souffrin and Jean-Claude Pecker of France, and H.M.Tovamssian of Armenia, in 1974. Others were, Giraud, Moles and Vigier, in 1982. Sulentic, in 1982. Those studies and a dozen more were undertaken between 1970 and 1985 and all showed the same result, that redshift is not an indicator of recession velocity.

When it is considered that the Ultimate Creation Theory was begun by a catholic priest and substantiated by Hubble, using a faulty interpretation of someone else's observations, it is incumbent upon us to look more objectively at that theory. Einstein stated all through his adult life and right up until he died that the universe must be explained by a Unified Field Theory. All the evidence accumulated since his death points irrevocably to such a theory being the correct direction in which to focus our attention. Einstein believed that galaxies, being larger examples of solar systems, are themselves parts of a larger system. This has been proven by the galaxy clusters, a picture of one such example I referenced to APOD in an earlier post. Einstein believed that the galaxy clusters were themselves part of a larger system, a picture of which I referenced to APOD in that same earlier post. Einstein believed that all the galaxies everywhere are interacting parts of a huge system, the borders of which we are yet to discover. Einstein did not believe in Chaos theory as being the origin of the Universe. That is why he worked for the rest of his life on the Unified Field Theory.

Other people, who obviously didn't understand relativity, tried to say that Einstein's new theories corroborated their Ultimate Creation Theory. Einstein was always against that interpretation and said so. Some people back then, who were only interested in advancing their own theory for their own ulterior motives, said that Einstein wore out his genius and that he wasn't a viable thinker any more. Of course, that is not how genius, or any other intelligence, works. You get wiser with age, not dumber. If Einstein had the Hubble telescope photographs to observe when he was doing his theorizing, it is possible that he might have been able to complete his Unified Field Theory.

Well, you certainly are entitled to your opinion. So, too, was Percival Lowell.

Time will tell. Maybe someday you and your fellows will have unambigous, actually convincing evidences supporting your hope for the end of the SCM.

By then, not only will the SCM be unnecessary but so, too, will be Arp's Discordant Redshift Theory.

DRT can't replace the SCM. It can only call SCM into question. Obviously, DRT has nothing to say about most of what SCM already says quite descriptively. Surely, the SCM is not the final theory of everything, but certainly the DRT is even less.

So, are you DRT adherents unwilling to admit that DRT is just another provisional hypothesis, or are you too heavily invested?

Little jackals bark, yet caravans continue to pass.

The studies that determined that redshift is not an indicator of recession velocity are not theories, they are observations of identifiable phenomenon. Since the Ultimate Creation Theory was based on redshift being an indicator of recession velocity, then the Ultimate Creation Theory, or SCM or Big Bang, or whatever name anyone wishes to call it, has no scientific foundation. Therefore, it is not up to me or anyone else to announce that UCT is defunct, it just is. If you or anyone else does not wish to believe the scientific evidence, then that is entirely within your right to do so. The only one who will be behind in their thinking is you and whomever.

The theory of the universe that I believe in is the one that Albert Einstein espoused until the day he died, the Unified Field Theory, which states that the universe is a working system that is the product of evolutionary processes. If this theory is correct, which is far more scientifically feasible than your chaos theory, then the age of the universe is no longer required to be regarded as limited to an age of less than twenty billion year. Having such an age restriction on the universe actually puts a default in the thought processes of young people and keeps them from thinking more deeply about a profound subject. I would actually postulate that the universe is much more likely to be in the trillions of year age category than it is in the billions of year age category.

If we restrict ourselves to thinking of the universe on a timescale that is conducive to creationism, then we do not allow for evolutionary development time for a rational organization of observed phenomenon, or for the possibility of a science more advanced than ours. The trillions upon trillions of star that are observed to exist are sure to have abundant life around their solar systems. Most, if not all, the top scientific minds believe this and many are on record as having said so, including Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman. If we then think that we are the most advanced scientific race among those trillions upon trillions of planet, then we might as well begin thinking of ourselves as gods.

John MacNeil:


....it is not up to me or anyone else to announce that UCT is defunct, it just is.
Okay, sure. The UCT is dead. Long live Stead State cosmology, Discordant Redshift Theory, the Alien Ark Hypothesis and the Selective Phylogenics Hypothesis.

Long live the King.

Eppur si mouve.


The theory of the universe that I believe in....
You are correct. Your faith is unassailable by anyone, while it certainly slays mere mortals' ideas.


....is the one that Albert Einstein espoused until the day he died,....
Then he should arise from the dead any day now by shear force of will, and might of ideology.

Einstein certainly was a great thinker, but he was human and thus fallible.

Yes, all of us are. Precisely my point. No absolute frame of reference--to quote a great thinker.


...then the age of the universe is no longer required to be regarded as limited....
You did read my last link (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html), did you not? You know, the one that started out saying "The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point." (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html)

And this from the likes of the SCM/Big Bang crowd. What is going on here? Arpian Quixotic Cosmology?

Long live the King.

"At an infinitessimal instant after the big bang in the classical theory of big bang cosmology, the density of these vanishingly small neighborhoods of 3-d space increase to infinity" --Dr. Sten Odenwald, for NASA

This is the description of the beginning of the Standard Cosmological Model from the first paragraph from your last accessible link before your last post. If something began as "vanishingly small", which is invisible, and increased to "infinity", which is larger than the human mind can comprehend, in an "infinitessimal instant", which is the same as appearing from nowhere, then what you are describing is Creationism, which, since you are talking about everything in the universe, is the Ultimate Creation Theory.

There are voluminous references that you can call on to try and make your point, but what they all boil down to is the same thing, and that is that the Universe was created chaotically and then magically obtained a perfect mathematical order and just as magically kept expanding while keeping the perfect mathematical order. Einstein refuted that kind of nonsense in his day and never wavered in his assessment of UCT as being entirely the wrong direction for theoretical physics to be going.

If all galaxy are expanding away from each other then they can't be in complementary orbits, which photographic evidence from HST prove they are. If all galaxy are expanding away from each other then there cannot be homogenous distribution of matter in the universe, which homogenenity has been proven to be true. If all galaxy are expanding away from each other, then there must be vast empty space in the center of the universe, which the deep field view from HST proves there is not.

Einstein's Unified Field Theory predicts a complimentary universe and all scientific evidence gathered since his death corroborates his view. The UCT view is constantly reinforced by wild speculation and ever more outlandish theories to reinforce previous outlandish theories. The end result of the Ultimate Creation Theory can only be all matter in the universe ending up so far apart that eventually nothing will be visible from anywhere else. To try and solve that by a "Big Crunch" merely reinforces my previous observations on the validity of such theories. Why anyone would continue with such a farce can only be compared to religion in our limited human experience.

The very nature of the order which we see in the universe supports Einstein's complementarity. Everywhere we look we see orbital regularity and no evidence of chaos. This is in keeping with a universal gravity field in which all objects have their place. For all objects in the universe to be constantly expanding away from each other, there would have to be a force attracting them from all around the outside of the universe or a force pushing them from inside the universe. We see no evidence of either kind of force. What we do see is evidence of gravitational force from central locations that keeps collections of bodies complementarily connected in orbiting systems. It is quite obvious that the Unified Field Theory is the map upon which we must place our other theories as we learn them.

"Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?", responded the Cheshire cat. "I don't know." Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter." -- Louis Carrol

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit and if I can't figure it out, then I go on to something else, but I don't have to know an answer, I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is so far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me." --Richard Feynman

John MacNeil:

Regarding your lengthly obituary on the death of the SCM and the ascendancy of the once-vanquished Steady State cosmology: fortunate is the one to whom all has been revealed for the certainty such knowledge affords.

"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty--some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain." -- Richard Feynman

Your favored intreprations of data are no more certain than being possible.

To a large degree it is true that you can't really know anything until you know everything. And it is highly unlikely that we will ever know everything, no matter how advanced our technology gets in the future or for however long our society lasts. That's the reason that I've never liked putting constraints on our conceptual thought by applying boundaries, such as giving the universe an age. Earlier, when I said I was much more inclined to age the universe in the trillions of year category, I really believe it's in a much, much older age category.

When the Unified Field Theory is considered as a base, it, of course, is dependant on future discovery proving additional theories fit within the framework. But working with it is using a foundation on which we can apply some existing theories without having to resort to possible future theories to explain our keeping existing theories. One of the theories that I find the most irreconcilable is the 'Black Hole' theory. It's infinite density, resulting in a singularity, doesn't rely on the law of equivalence. The theoretical beginning of a black hole, when a giant star loses so much of it's energy that it's gravity collapses it, doesn't take into account that the strength of gravity is dependant on the orbital velocity of matter. The greater the mass, the greater the gravity in most cases. I say most cases because in some cases a smaller mass may be orbiting with such velocity that it is possible it would have greater gravity that a slightly larger mass that is orbiting somewhat slower.

When a star is burning it is shedding it's mass in the form of photons and equally dispersing it's gravity, which morphs into the surrounding galactic gravity field. When the star finally burns off enough of it's reactive material, to the point where it can no longer sustain photon production, it will flame out and remain a burned out hulk in space or be torn apart by a complementary action and become asteroidal.

The properties of light that we already know about indicate that light scatters in all direction. Each photon is closely surrounded by other photons that ensure it is carried along in the light stream. As each photon is activated at illumination, the point where reaction takes place on the star, and becomes radiant, it pushes the photon in front of it out of the way. It is photons illuminating at the speed of light which give light it's measured speed of 300,000 kilometer a second. Eventually, a star will reach a point where it can no longer sustain reaction and it will shed it's last photon. That last photon will almost instantly reverse course and follow the path of least resistence until it can come to a rest state. That is the self preservation principle that all matter is subject to. The second to last photon, no longer under pressure, will likewise reverse direction and seek a state of rest mass relative to it's environment. All of the photons that were closest to the star would exhibit similar behavior until the whole rear boundary of the light stream was dispersing back in the directions from which it originated. The same thing would be happening at the front of the light stream. Without the continuous pressure from behind, the front of the light stream would begin scattering back towards where the star once burned. With the front boundary of the light stream and the rear boundary of the light stream both scattering towards the mid-point of the light stream, the light stream would scatter at increasing speed until it reached cascade and would be dispersed. The maximun dispersal rate for a light stream without star support, would be the speed of light squared, or 90,000,000,000 kilometer a second.

This result would mean that the notion of looking back along a stream of light and seeing something that burned out long ago cannot be correct. There is a property of light called photon transference which is the interaction of photons in succession which allow us to see objects. This photon transference can only be maintained over the entire length of the light stream as long as there is a source steadily producing photons that keeps the pressure on the photon stream. Without the source pressure the light stream will scatter in almost all direction so there couldn't be sufficient light to enter a telescope and register an image.

The special property of photon transference occurs at the speed of light squared + the speed of light, or 90,000,000,000 kilometer a second +the speed of light and it is this property of light that allows us to see distant objects with long exsposure photographs. The speed of photon transference is extant of the speed of light since the action of photon transference occurs in a reference frame in which it is relative to the light stream.

John,

I know you won't respond, but for the benefit of other readers I'd like to correct a few conceptual errors on your part:

<i>If all galaxy are expanding away from each other then there cannot be homogenous distribution of matter in the universe, which homogenenity has been proven to be true.</i>

The matter distribution of the universe is not homogeneous, and hasn't been from the time of the big bang onwards - as evidenced by COBE observations (among others).

<i>If all galaxy are expanding away from each other, then there must be vast empty space in the center of the universe, which the deep field view from HST proves there is not.</i>

The universe has no centre.

<i>Einstein's Unified Field Theory predicts a complimentary universe and all scientific evidence gathered since his death corroborates his view.</i>

Einstein failed to make a workable unified field theory.

<i>The end result of the Ultimate Creation Theory can only be all matter in the universe ending up so far apart that eventually nothing will be visible from anywhere else.</i>

That is only one of three possible endings.

<i>For all objects in the universe to be constantly expanding away from each other, there would have to be a force attracting them from all around the outside of the universe or a force pushing them from inside the universe.</i>

1. No force is required to keep an object in motion: Newton's first law.
2. There may be a repulsive force (cosmological constant), though that is still debateable at present.

<i>When the Unified Field Theory is considered as a base, it, of course, is dependant on future discovery proving additional theories fit within the framework.</i>

No. It is based on past and current observation. It is the best match to observation we currently have. That doesn't mean it cannot change in future in the light of new findings. All good scientific theories do that.

<i>One of the theories that I find the most irreconcilable is the 'Black Hole' theory. It's infinite density, resulting in a singularity, doesn't rely on the law of equivalence. The theoretical beginning of a black hole, when a giant star loses so much of it's energy that it's gravity collapses it, doesn't take into account that the strength of gravity is dependant on the orbital velocity of matter.</i>

The strength of gravity does not depend on orbital velocity.

<i>When the star finally burns off enough of it's reactive material, to the point where it can no longer sustain photon production, it will flame out and remain a burned out hulk in space or be torn apart by a complementary action and become asteroidal.</i>

Other options are possible, depending on the star's initial mass. Very massive stars undergo catastrophic collapse under gravity to form neutron stars or black holes.

<i>As each photon is activated at illumination, the point where reaction takes place on the star, and becomes radiant, it pushes the photon in front of it out of the way.</i>

Photons do not interact with each other. In particular, they do not exert forces on each other.

<i>The special property of photon transference occurs at the speed of light squared + the speed of light, or 90,000,000,000 kilometer a second +the speed of light and it is this property of light that allows us to see distant objects with long exsposure photographs.</i>

Light cannot travel faster than the speed of light. It stands to reason, doesn't it?

"....it is true that you can't really know anything until you know everything. And it is highly unlikely that we will ever know everything,..."
Precisely why it's easy to dismiss your protestations that modern science hasn't a clue, but you do.

To dismiss modern science as not having a clue is not the point I am making. The point is that the corporate science is controlling what is published about science and they are preventing views based on Einstein's Unified Field Theory from being published in the mainstream press, which they control. As you have seen from the references I've been giving, there has always been a substantial segment of the scientific community that believes in UFT and who think the 'Big Bang' is nothing but propaganda. Einstein always worked on his Unified Field Theory, even when other scientists were following the fad of redshift=recession-velocity and he said that one day science would have to come back to reality and work within a framework that defines systems. All of the scientific evidence relates to a Unified Field Theory and no scientific evidence relates to the Ultimate Creation Theory. The only thing the creation theory has going for it is the conjecture of people who don't understand relativity and who use no science to substantiate their outrageous hypothesis. The whole 'big bang-creation' theory was begun by a catholic priest and substantiated by Hubble. Hubble was trained as a lawyer and switched to astronomy because of socialite contacts he befriended. He was given the first director's position at the brand new, and largest telescope of his day without ever having done anything in astronomy. He was a devout Cristian who used V.M. Slipher's observations to corroborate a catholic priest's Ultimate Creation Theory. As if the science refuting that theory isn't compelling enough, you should at least question the origin of it and wonder 'is that science? or religion?'

A lot of the theoretical science that is presented to students is designed to keep them from thinking deeply about profound subjects. That is why corporate science puts fixed ages on things like the universe that they can extend by a couple of billion year or so every so often as it suits their development needs of technology. They feel that they can control science by keeping a firm grip on the reins and guiding it where they want it to go. The corporate/science and the corporate/government are all controlled by the same people. The pinnacle of corporate/science is in the development of weapons systems for the military and the military are already so far behind in their ability to understand the scientific makeup of the equipment that science gives them, that they direct resources to specific projects based on weapons systems, and not based on where science would develop in a free-thinking forum. This constraint of science is a development of the dangers of militarism that Einstein warned about.

One such deployment of directed resource management is the Hubble Space Telescope. The HST is certainly a worthwhile tool and would have been built in any case, but the way it was proposed was so that scientists could look back along the path of light and see the beginning of the universe. All astronomers know that you can't look back in time and see somethng that has already happened, but the point of expressing it that way was to keep students from thinking independently for themselves. The corporate/government frowns on independent thought and instead promotes thinking within the herd so that they have control over as much of everything as they can. People who think independently would question the policies and motives of the corporate/government and that is anathema to the people in power.

To see the simple truth of why the stated belief of corporate/science that we can look back along the path of light and see back in time cannot be true, you only have to realize that light is not projected off of objects in continuously sustained holographic images. For us to look back along the path of light and see a galaxy that has long ceased to exist would require that the last light coming off of the burned out galaxy was a perfect picture of it that sustained itself all the way from the galaxy and until it reached the mirrors in our telescopes. That would belie what we already know about the scattering property of light. A stream of light must have a constant source to energize it to account for the photons lost due to it's scattering property. This scattering takes place all along the light steam, from front to back and on every side. Therefore there must be another property of light that enables us to see distant objects by using long time exposures. That other property is photon transference whereby each photon is physically touching the photons in front and behind and all around it and making light a visible phenomena. If the radient photons were not in contact with each other then light would be recorded as a constant series of flashes. When photons are travelling in a uniform field they are in a reference frame in which they do not perceive their speed of light as motion. That speed of light is what we perceive from a reference frame in which we, as large objects, move much slower. In a uniform field of photons, where photons perceive of themselves as motionless, there are properties of photons that are relative to them that are not measureable or observable by us. But we know such transference property of photons must exist the same as we know gravity exists, even though we cannot physically account for either one. All we can do is measure and record the effects of both.

John speculates:

That other property is photon transference whereby each photon is physically touching the photons in front and behind and all around it and making light a visible phenomena.

Interesting theory, can you provide some evidence, perhaps a little math ? Of course, like James R, I'm not to hopeful you'll respond by backing up your rather extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence.

If the radient photons were not in contact with each other then light would be recorded as a constant series of flashes.

Tom2 has recently helped me to understand photons somewhat better then before. It is clear from your statement you do not understand.

...there are properties of photons that are relative to them that are not measureable or observable by us.

Of which properties do you refer, aside from alleged photon transference ?

Google results for "Photon Transference". (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22photon+transference%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=n&oq=%22photon+transferance%22)
Not very illuminating.

Well, Q, if you have such a complete understanding of photons, tell us what that is so we can incorporate it into our discussion.

John

Rather than retyping, please visit this thread and have a look at the links Tom2 provided:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=154973&highlight=photon#post154973

Most enlightening. ;)

I'm sorry, Q, but I can't access that page that Tom was referencing. I have read extensively so if you just give a concise version of what it is you mean, I'm sure we will be able to sort this out in short order.

John,

I'm sorry, Q, but I can't access that page that Tom was referencing.

How convenient. ;)

I have read extensively so if you just give a concise version of what it is you mean, I'm sure we will be able to sort this out in short order.

Certainly, one need only to find the dynamical coordinates, identify the conjugate momentum, and impose canonical commutation relations between them. One would then use polarization vectors to form an orthonormal basis for 3-vector polarization, where the polarization behaves like an independent scalar field. Photons are not in "contact with each other."

I got the impression by your "how convenient" that you think I was avoiding reading a drudge report when I said I couldn't access the page referenced by Tom. I'm sure with your cray computer you have access to everything on the web, but that is not the case with me. I have the internet through a cable television box and I have it hooked up to a thirteen inch television. Many thing on the web are of a print size that are too small for me to read and many other page can't be accessed by this cable box because it lacks storage and computing power. However, I do get a fair amount of quality connections. I assure you I do read the references I can access.

I can tell we have a different understanding of the properties of light so I will briefly describe the classical mechanical view of light quanta as having both quanta and wave properties, as first proposed by Einstein. On a star, before there is a reaction that results in the production of photons, there must be sub-photonic particles that are subsequently acted upon by a force to become radient. The instant of those sub-photonic particles being acted upon by a force and becoming radient is described as the action of illumination, the point when a sub-photonic particle becomes a photon. Photons are illuminated at the speed of light and are physically pushed into the light stream by the next photon behind it being iluminated and being pushed out of the way by the photon behind it being illuminated. This endless procession of photons being illuminated at the speed of light is what constitutes a light stream. All of the light streams from a given star are what constitute a photon field. A photon field, where every photon is pressed on every side by other photons, behaves as waves.

For a photon that is activated at illuminaion to move to a coordinate point one photon's distance from illumination means that photon is in flux, which means that photon is in a changing state. All matter follows the preservation principle which states that matter will assume a stable posture as soonest as is possible and for a photon to achieve that preservation state it must exit the photon field and disengage from other photons. This could only happen if a light stream is interupted, at which point the disconnected portion of the light stream would scatter until it was dispersed, or if the photons reached the very front of the light stream and scattered into empty space. When photons reach a point in space where they are no longer in contact with and being agitated by other photons, the self preservation principle forces them to assume a stable state and they will then become non-radient and sub-photonic. As they will have lost some energy while being activated in their radient state, the sub-photons will be a different particle than they were when they were a pre-photonic sub-photonic particle.

As Einstein's elegant equation e=mc squared proves that energy can be altered but it cannot be destroyed, those post-radient sub-photnic particles must occupy space in some manner and are what some scientists rather obliquely refer to as dark matter.

John

I have the internet through a cable television box and I have it hooked up to a thirteen inch television. Many thing on the web are of a print size that are too small for me to read and many other page can't be accessed by this cable box because it lacks storage and computing power.

Or perhaps your cable box is unable to access files with the extension .pdf for which Adobe Acrobat is required (free download). If so, I apologize for the "how convenient."

I can tell we have a different understanding of the properties of light...

Your understanding however, is a serious misunderstanding.

...so I will briefly describe the classical mechanical view of light quanta as having both quanta and wave properties, as first proposed by Einstein.

Quanta is not a property of light. Quanta is a measurement. You probably mean wave/particle properties of light, which was first proposed by de Broglie who theorized that not just light, but everything can exhibit wave/particle duality. Einstein proposed that light consists of particles, or quanta, each with an energy of Planck's constant times its frequency. Einstein actually won a Nobel prize with his work on the photoelectric effect.

On a star, before there is a reaction that results in the production of photons, there must be sub-photonic particles that are subsequently acted upon by a force to become radient.

Sub-photonic particles ? I'm feeling a bout of pseudo-babble coming on.

The instant of those sub-photonic particles being acted upon by a force and becoming radient is described as the action of illumination, the point when a sub-photonic particle becomes a photon. Photons are illuminated at the speed of light and are physically pushed into the light stream by the next photon behind it being iluminated and being pushed out of the way by the photon behind it being illuminated.

Complete hogwash. The propagation of one photon has nothing to do with another's. They do not push each other out of the way.

All of the light streams from a given star are what constitute a photon field. A photon field, where every photon is pressed on every side by other photons, behaves as waves.

Nonsense. Photons do not press up against each other, especially to behave like a wave.

For a photon that is activated at illuminaion to move to a coordinate point one photon's distance from illumination means that photon is in flux, which means that photon is in a changing state. All matter follows the preservation principle which states that matter will assume a stable posture as soonest as is possible and for a photon to achieve that preservation state it must exit the photon field and disengage from other photons.

Photon is in flux ? Preservation state ? Exit the photon field ? Disengage from other photons ? You're certainly cranking up the pseudo-babble, or are you just making this up as you go along ?

When photons reach a point in space where they are no longer in contact with and being agitated by other photons, the self preservation principle forces them to assume a stable state and they will then become non-radient and sub-photonic.

My balderdash/poppycock indicator gauge just went off the scale.

As they will have lost some energy while being activated in their radient state, the sub-photons will be a different particle than they were when they were a pre-photonic sub-photonic particle.

So much nonsense, so few words.

As Einstein's elegant equation e=mc squared proves that energy can be altered but it cannot be destroyed...

Actually, Einstein showed that mass and energy are the same thing.

those post-radient sub-photnic particles must occupy space in some manner and are what some scientists rather obliquely refer to as dark matter.

Yeah, sure. You may want to consider reading those so-called "drudge reports" and also perhaps a few books. Clearly, if you're going to attempt explanation, you should learn something about the topic in question. The 'baffle-them-with-bullshit' approach does not work, especially on a science forum.

And since this is getting completely off-topic and I do not wish to high-jack this thread further, I'll not continue this discussion here but will be happy to disembowel your pseudo-babble claims in a more appropriate thread. ;)

"All these fifty years of concious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question "What are light quanta?" Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken."--Albert Einstein

One sure way of detecting someone of a low intelligence is by their immature response when confronted with a topic that is way over their heads. Their classic way of not having to think about subjects that are too deep for them is to brandish it as hogwash. These type of simple-minded people have been doing the same thing all through history whenever they read anything they couldn't understand, and then when it's finally proven to be true, they're usually the ones who bray the loudest that they were among the first to understand it. These type of self-serving people desire to make themselves seem intelligent in other people's eyes by denouncing something that their limited thought processes cannot compute. What they offer as denunciation is not discussion and is not worthy of a response.

[Q]:

....this is getting completely off-topic and I do not wish to high-jack this thread further....
Au Contraire. The thread continues serving its purpose quite adequately. Carry on.


"What are light quanta?" Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken."
50 years later and Q is just stating the very same thing about every John, too. ;)

I think John has put me on his "ignore" list. How flattering!

There's nothing quite like shutting your eyes to things you don't want to see.

Wrong, James. I'm as open minded as anyone on this planet. It is you and some others who don't make the effort to think through the nature of the Unified Field Theory because you have already been indoctrinated with your Ultimate Creation Theory. Your religious view of the origin of the universe is easy to understand. What could possibly be easier than the whole universe starting from an instantaneous explosion? What could be more fundamentally religious than a light quanta that always was and always will be?

Your view of a particle of light is that it goes on forever and does not experience decay, which is contrary to the law of equivalence. A photon is a unit of energy and so it has mass. If it didn't, it wouldn't exist. A photon is a unit of energy in a radiant state, which means that it exudes energy in the form of heat, which means it is attempting to disperse a portion of it's energy, which is a description of a particle in flux. For any particle to be in a radiant state, it's electromagnetic field must be extended further beyond the surface of the particle than when it is in a non-radiant state. At some point the light stream is going to reach a point in empty space where the leading photons are no longer constrained by the other photons all around them. The law of equivalence dictates that those leading photons will not be able to continue to be radiant and still maintain their total mass. The self preservation principle dictates that they will seek a rest state in which they are not dispensing their limited energy gratuitously. Therefore they will cease to radiate at a point that is most convenient for them to do so. Since they have dispersed some of their energy while in the illuminated state, they will then be a unit of energy of less mass.

John claims:

A photon is a unit of energy and so it has mass.

At this point, I would be remiss not to jump in with both feet and respond, regardless of John's qualifiers for Q:


...low intelligence...immature response...simple-minded...bray the loudest...self-serving...limited thought processes...not worthy of a response.

However, his claim, amongst others, has been directed at James R, who has as yet to receive any response from John up to now. I can almost feel the jubilation James R will experience when he digests Johns latest post. He has most likely been champing-at-the-bit awaiting this opportunity.

Please, James R, take it away... and don't leave out any of the gory details. Thanks in advance. :)


I'm all aquiver.

What is a Photon? The "standard" Quantum Optics approach according to Paul Kinsler--Department of Applied Physics Faculty of Applied Sciences, Technical University Delft. (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-02/msg0022377.html)

The calculated photon: Visualization of a quantum field--Martin Ligare, Ryan Oliveri, Department of Physics, Bucknell University (http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~mligare/ajp_visualization.pdf)

Mr.G.,

I was able to visit the "What is a photon?" site and it does seem less religious than a type of site that believers of the Ultimate Creation Theory would be expected to frequent. In there they mention that, "Of course the photon will exist in a another form for a short while:"[sic]. This partially agrees with my view of pre- and post-photonic sub-photonic particles in that it acknowledges the need for other physical states of energy that are pre- and post-photonic. The difference is the "short while" which does not adequately account for the permanent placement of the pre- or post-photonic mass when it is non-radiant.

I was not able to access, due to the previously stated limitations of my inferior equipment, the "The calculated photon" site. Perhaps you could give me a brief synopsis so that I might better understand the idea that you are trying to infer by referencing both site.

John MacNeil:

Perhaps you could give me a brief synopsis so that I might better understand the idea that you are trying to infer by referencing both site.
Ah, that's right. You can't see PDF format documents. Sorry.

The point of the two linked sources is to demonstrate that they offer and present observationally supported, mathematically-derived descriptions of photons and, so far, we have not seen your photon theory's mathematically descriptive treatment.

Gotta link?

Science-like talk without a mathematical foundation is just philosophizing-- semantical presentation.

It's not rigorous science.

Mr.G.,

Your observation that something is not science unless it is describable mathematically can only be a personal preference. Mathematics is a tool invented by science, therefore science preceded mathematics, not vice versa. There is much in the universe that exists that is unknown to us and to state categorically that such unknown phenomena can't exist because we don't have a mathematical formula for it is not logical.

The mathematically-derived description of photon that you refer to is a theoretical description, not a precise description. When a photon is given a descriptive classification of one spin, that too is theoretical. Everything we believe about photons is theoretical until someone can isolate and mathematically describe a photon to such a degree that there is no dissention on what exactly a photon is.

Whatever the exact mathematical desciption of a photon is, we already know that a photon cannot maintain it's mathematical description without decay. Therefore there is a physical state of matter before there is such a thing as a photon and there is a physical state of matter after there is such a thing as a photon.

The most rigorous science is theoretical science. The idea always precedes invention. Mathematicians are the draftsmen of science. The experimenters and the engineers are the laborers of science. The theorists are the scientists.

John,

Thankyou for your reply.

<i>It is you and some others who don't make the effort to think through the nature of the Unified Field Theory because you have already been indoctrinated with your Ultimate Creation Theory.</i>

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

<i>Your religious view of the origin of the universe is easy to understand. What could possibly be easier than the whole universe starting from an instantaneous explosion?</i>

Well, steady-state theories seem "easier" to me in many respects, but that's beside the point. We have to look at what's true.

<i>Your view of a particle of light is that it goes on forever and does not experience decay, which is contrary to the law of equivalence.</i>

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

<i>A photon is a unit of energy and so it has mass. If it didn't, it wouldn't exist.</i>

That statement needs qualification. A photon has no <b>rest mass</b>, but it can be considered to have <b>relativistic mass</b> if you want to look at it that way. So, at this stage, I am happy to let this pass, since I am sure you are familiar with the distinction.

<i>A photon is a unit of energy in a radiant state, which means that it exudes energy in the form of heat, which means it is attempting to disperse a portion of it's energy, which is a description of a particle in flux.</i>

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

<i>For any particle to be in a radiant state, it's electromagnetic field must be extended further beyond the surface of the particle than when it is in a non-radiant state.</i>

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

<i>At some point the light stream is going to reach a point in empty space where the leading photons are no longer constrained by the other photons all around them.</i>

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

<i>The law of equivalence dictates that those leading photons will not be able to continue to be radiant and still maintain their total mass.</i>

I cannot comment on this until I know what the law of equivalence is.

<i>The self preservation principle dictates that they will seek a rest state in which they are not dispensing their limited energy gratuitously.</i>

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

I hope you can clarify.

James,

Tell me what grade you are in and I will recommend some appropriate reading material.

I'd prefer answers in your own words, John. It is you who is using the various terms I've asked about. Other people may use those terms differently.

What grade are you in?

John MacNeil:

You insult others' intelligence with certainty. Surely, you must know that those of low IQ are most likely to over-estimate their own?

So, John MacNeil:

Show us your math. Or your theory's math, if you have none of your own.

John

Mathematics is a tool invented by science, therefore science preceded mathematics, not vice versa. There is much in the universe that exists that is unknown to us and to state categorically that such unknown phenomena can't exist because we don't have a mathematical formula for it is not logical.

Numbers make the science world go round.

Every theory which became scientific fact has been subjected to mathematical treatment of some kind - counting events or individuals, determining population means and distributions, classification and clustering species for studies of evolution, measuring and plotting temperature curves, measuring concentrations of a substance, describing the effectiveness of a toxin or the structure of a virus.

Numbers can represent a visual observation, quantify this observation, and show that this quantification can later be used by someone else to make the same observation over again to say with confidence that it is the same observation. And because reproducibility is key to scientific fact finding, mathematics is central to all things scientific.

Everything we believe about photons is theoretical until someone can isolate and mathematically describe a photon to such a degree that there is no dissention on what exactly a photon is.

The dissention appears to be much of your own opinion loosely based on unknown variables and whimsical terminologies. Well constructed mathematics yield well constructed theories, which have already been presented in some detail. Can we assume your math is pending ?

Q:

Pending? Hmm. Check this link (http://www.perceptions.couk.com/) and see if you can find any math amongst the pages of conspiracies, paranoia, disestablishmentism, miscontexted quotes, and tortuous, anastomotic reasonings.

It reads rather familiar.

So, struck another nerve, did I? I take it I must be communicating with a collective of mathematicians? Well, if you think that there is no such thing as a theory until it is proven mathematically, then you are delusional as well as supporting a clutch of quasi religious theories. Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity and then took nine year to present a mathematical proof of it. Can you logically state that there was no such theory as General Theory of Relativity before the mathematical description of it was complete? If that is your flimsy stance, then where is your mathematical description of the 'big bang' theory, or 'redshift=recession-velocity' theory, or 'infinite density' theory? When you demand mathematical proof from others for their theories and at the same time are without precise mathematical proof of your own theories, while maintaining that your's are true, and defending them with religious fervor,then that is a form of hypocrisy, especially when your theories are based on conjecture and have no supporting science that even relates to them.

You say that I insult other's intelligence, and I assure you that was not my intent. If you believe I am insulting others intelligence then you are not reading my posts from an objective point of view and so you cannot be assimilating any of what I write, or are pretending not to.

If you are referring to my offering to direct James to pertinent reading material relating to his educational development in physics as being insulting to his intelligence, then I tell you that to insult was not my intent. James, and some others, post quotes of mine from my posts and then write under them that they are nonsense and that they don't believe them and then they don't offer any constructive commentary of their own on the topic. That childish behavior of attacking is not discussion. When James stated in his post that he studies physics and stated in the same post that he doesn't know what 'heat' or 'equivalence' is and that he'd never even heard of the 'conservation of energy', then what conclusion could I make other than to believe that he has less than a high school education in physics since the aforementioned are all from the beginners physics books that no one is exempt from reading? And the way he is posting makes it evident that he doesn't understand classical mechanics.

"One dog barks a warning, the others bark at him"--Chinese proverb

And, Yes, Mr.G., I am aware of the psychological phenomena that makes most people believe their intelligence is of the highest order. It is inherent in everyone's limitation to compute data.

John MacNeil:

....if you think that there is no such thing as a theory until it is proven mathematically, then you are delusional....
For a scientific theory to be quantifiably consistant it must have a mathematical foundation.

Mathematics is what distinguishes scientific theories from yet-to-be quantified scientific hypotheses; the later only momentarily resembling non-scientific, non-quantifiable theories of philosophy.

"One dog barks a warning, the others bark at him"--Chinese proverb
The little jackal barks, yet the caravan passes.--Arab Proverb

Very amusing post, Mr.G.

Since you've had your SCM, or 'big bang' or Ultimate Creation Theory since 1929, are the proponents of it expecting to have a quantifiably consistent mathematical foundation for it anytime soon?

John,

<i>James, and some others, post quotes of mine from my posts and then write under them that they are nonsense and that they don't believe them and then they don't offer any constructive commentary of their own on the topic.</i>

In fact, I tried offering constructive commentary in my very first post to you. There was no response, as I recall, except perhaps to insult me. You don't seem to handle constructive commentary very well.

<i>When James stated in his post that he studies physics and stated in the same post that he doesn't know what 'heat' or 'equivalence' is and that he'd never even heard of the 'conservation of energy', then what conclusion could I make other than to believe that he has less than a high school education in physics since the aforementioned are all from the beginners physics books that no one is exempt from reading?</i>

That is a misrepresentation of what I actually said. I know what standard physics says about "heat" and "equivalence" and so on. Since you seem to use those terms differently from every physicist I have ever met, I have been trying to clarify what <b>you</b> mean by those terms, in order not to prejudge your ideas.

<i>And the way he is posting makes it evident that he doesn't understand classical mechanics.</i>

I'd wager that I have a significantly better understanding of classical mechanics (and physics in general) than you do, John, along with some higher qualifications in that field. However, that is irrelevant for this discussion. All that people see here is what we write. You may be the smartest person on Earth, but if it doesn't come out in your posts it doesn't count for much. The same applies to me. I'm happy for my posts to speak for themselves.

Just to remind you, I asked you a few questions. In summary, they were:

1. Please provide a reference to Einstein's unified field theory, if such a thing exists.
2. What is the "law of equivalence", as you understand it?
3. What is a "radiant state", and how can a photon radiate energy in the form of heat?
4. Do you believe that photons have a finite size? If so, how big are they?
5. Please explain your conception of how a photon might be "constrained" by other photons.
6. What is the "self-preservation principle"?

John MacNeil:

....are the proponents of it expecting to have a quantifiably consistent mathematical foundation for it anytime soon?
You consistantly misunderstand that science has no preconceived notion, or truth, toward which it works. Science does have its momentary, provisional ideas that seem to make the most sense at any particular time but, like Alice at the cross roads, Science doesn't know where it's going, only where it's been. Science makes educated guesses, most wrong. But those guesses that aren't wrong are guesses no longer.

You, on the other hand, know where you want to go idealogically. So your guesses are few and far between. Thus, you are seldom wrong.

Thus, you are not scientific.

(Except you are seldom correct, thus equally not scientific.)

It is in a pretty strange universe we live. :)

Actually, Mr.G., science has a very specific goal, and that is to empirically describe all perceivable phenomena. But before science can describe such phenomena, it must have ideas which direct it. These ideas, or theories, are the real science. Putting experiments together or writing up a description of something mathematically are all descendant from an original idea.

Students learn from their instructors and if their instructors are giving them ideas to study that have no relation to reality, then the student's thought processes are going to be stunted by continuously confronting mental images which are illogical and which have no rational progression. Such retarding of student's thought parameters negatively affects the aggregate health of science, and that hinders social development on all level.

And, yes, you are right that I do know exactly where I want to go ideologically, and that is towards a society that is governed by a code of honor. But that is a topic for another thread so I will not expound on it further now, except where it must be dealt with specifically in the realm of science and as it is needed in this thread.

Corporate/government science continues to direct what is permissable to be published in their ever ongoing agenda of controlling society. None of them have any science supporting their Ultimate Creation Theory, yet they continue to support it and simultaneously continue to supress any science that refutes it, which is all the scientific evidence they've gleaned since they came up with their quasi-religious set of theories. Can anyone deny that this censorship is anything but recessive? In the early years of the last century, Einstein lamented the breakdown of the active intercourse between people of learning. He surely would be appalled at just how decrepid society has fallen since his passing.

But further discussion on the validity of the Ultimate Creation Theory as opposed to the Unified Field Theory is not necessary at this point. I believe a sufficient amount has been stated about Unified Field Theory so that we all know that no one can ever shake my belief in it or out-argue me on the subject of it, so we should look at some evidence that is scientifically verifiable as having a physical existence, and which is a different avenue to the ultimate conclusion of this thread, whatever that should end up being.

In earlier posts we accessed the Smithsonian Instituion and noted the anatomical differences in skull design between our present type of human and the Neanderthals and Skhul V. From those observations we must conclude that for science to be served we must entertain a theory of accounting for our presence on this planet that is not requiring us to be descendant from a common ancestor as the Neanderthals and Skhul V. As there is other evidence of hominid type beings, evidence which has been unconscionably supressed by the corporate/science since it's discovery, having lived on this planet, I will present a page and let someone respond to it so as to continue the discussion.

www.enigmas.org/aef/lib/archeo/askulls.shtml

John casts:

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

Q bites:

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

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

Besides, your link is not working. I receive a 'page not found' error.

I just went back and tried accessing that page twice, Q, and it worked both time for me. After supper I'll look for another copy of it somewhere.

<i>Corporate/government science continues to direct what is permissable to be published in their ever ongoing agenda of controlling society. None of them have any science supporting their Ultimate Creation Theory, yet they continue to support it and simultaneously continue to supress any science that refutes it, which is all the scientific evidence they've gleaned since they came up with their quasi-religious set of theories.</i>

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

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

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

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

Well, good luck to you.

I went back to that other post and changed the URL I was presenting. Here, again, is the replacement copy:

www.enigmas.org/aef/lib/archeo/askulls.shtml

Just because I am convinced of my position, Q, is no reason to end the discussion. I haven't exactly heard anyone else endorsing any of what I had to say.

John MacNeil:

Why is it you never answer James R's questions? If we, for the moment, presume that you possess capabilities superior to his, surely his questions represent no challenge to, or strain on, you. If you have some sort of problem conversing with James R, you are quite free to imagine instead that I have asked those questions of you.

I believe a sufficient amount has been stated about Unified Field Theory so that we all know that no one can ever shake my belief in it or out-argue me on the subject of it,....
Yes, I supppose you can state such, since you couch your arguments and proofs in terms without common scientific meaning or known scientific utility. And the fact that you can cling to your beliefs with such tenactity is not evidence of anything other than the tenacity with which you can cling to your beliefs.

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

Answer the questions, before we move on.

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

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

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

It is true, James, that corporate/science invented the internet, but they also invented nuclear weapons and look at the pickle they've gotten themselves into with those.

While I cannot comment intelligently on the elongated skulls, I believe that the onion-shaped skull is that of a young child, not an adult. The first thing I noticed were the large eye sockets - a tell-tale sign of infant skulls in many species, including humans. But an even larger clue is that the plates of the skull aren't fused together yet; there are even openings at the temples, where three plates come together.

I am not an expert, but the onion-head looks like an example of infant hydrocephalus ( http://sun.science.wayne.edu/~bio340/StudentPages/Gumma/).

Peace.

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

John MacNeil:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


As for the skull photos from your link to one of the websites of David Icke, truth teller (http://www.davidicke.com/), one can also find this bit of wisdom at his main site:

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

Frankly, I find Mr. Icke to be one very disturbed individual, indeed. And having spent much time today reading his thoughts in print, I now am forced to devote much of the rest of the day cleaning out my bullshit filter.

Actually, Mr.G., I never heard of davidicke before last night when I hurriedly searched for a replacement of my original reference site which quit working. I will now go and find Robert Connolly's photos from a different site so that you don't think I am endorsing a mind control conspiracy. Still, the skulls are real so why don't you address that subject?

Here is my original reference, with a couple of more letters included, to Robert Connolly's pictures of hominid skulls that are anatomically different from our own:

www.enigmas.org/aef/lib/archeo/askulls.shtml

Just because I am convinced of my position, Q, is no reason to end the discussion.

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

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

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

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

Are they real ? Of course, there is no reason to believe those skulls were "cosmetically doctored" in any way. Can you produce any links to these findings from a reputable source ?

Both "J" and "M" types are bordering on biological impossibility... Any conjectures that what these specimens represent are simply deformations or pathological cases can be hardly substantiated.I have to disagree, I have provided a plausible explanation for the type “M” skull, so what makes him think there is none for the other?

Peace.

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

At first observation the onion-shaped head looks hydrocepahlic, but when you look closer at it, Goofyfish, you see that it can't be the skull of a child. The jaw is slightly larger than an adult human's and the teeth are adult type teeth.

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

www.nohoax.com/Peruvian%20skulls.html

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

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

John MacNeil:

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

Certainly there are extant linkable anthropological studies of these skulls that are not associated with sources devoted to UFOs and New Ageism? Surely actual SETI researchers would have been all over these skulls ages ago, too. What have they determined from first-hand analysis of the skulls? How about some reports from studies by forensic pathologists?

And how about those answers to James R's questions?

My,..My,.Mr.G., do we sense a little panic? Made of clay? You think? The old religious house of Ultimate Creation seems to be crumbling before our very eyes. It must be quite a shock to realize you've devoted a large part of your life to a scam that is not going to be perpetuated throughout your lifetime. If you're falling apart already, what are you going to do when I advance the discussion to the next level? And the next after that? Why, I'm just getting started, Mr.G. I'm not even warmed up yet.

John MacNeil:

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

John,

I've asked what I believe to be very reasonable questions, which should be very easy for you to answer given your profound comprehension of your subject. Yet strangely, no answers seem to be forthcoming - only further claims. Why is that?

John McNeil:
The pictures of those skulls are neat. I've seen some big skulls in my time, still inside breathing people. One guy I saw in the navy had a huge head that looked like the monster from Alien.

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

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

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

John Le Coq

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

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

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

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

I don't know if anyone has answered this yet or not - I have no intention of reading through this entire thread - but about those weird skulls... From the time the baby is born, its head is wrapped in slats of wood or bone which are bound in place, forcing the skull to grow in weird ways. This is still done in some places in South America, occasionally. There's nothing at all mysterious about it. This was covered in year 12 sociology/anthropology, I'm sure it's covered in university in other countries.

In Defense of John MacNeil:

Some preamble; Quoth John:

That last photon will almost instantly reverse course and follow the path of least resistence until it can come to a rest state. That is the self preservation principle that all matter is subject to.

All matter follows the preservation principle which states that matter will assume a stable posture as soonest as is possible...

..the self preservation principle forces them to assume a stable state...

The special property of photon transference occurs at the speed of light squared + the speed of light...

...the classical mechanical view of light quanta as having both quanta and wave properties...

The instant of those sub-photonic particles being acted upon by a force and becoming radient is described as the action of illumination...

the sub-photons will be a different particle than they were when they were a pre-photonic sub-photonic particle.

The law of equivalence dictates that those leading photons will not be able to continue to be radiant and still maintain their total mass. The self preservation principle dictates that they will seek a rest state in which they are not dispensing their limited energy gratuitously.

...means it is attempting to disperse a portion of it's energy, which is a description of a particle in flux. For any particle to be in a radiant state, it's electromagnetic field must be extended further beyond the surface of the particle than when it is in a non-radiant state.

At this point we begin to see John's learning curve increase as he begins to comprehend the terminology, somewhat:

When James stated in his post that he studies physics and stated in the same post that he doesn't know what 'heat' or 'equivalence' is and that he'd never even heard of the 'conservation of energy', then what conclusion could I make other than to believe that he has less than a high school education in physics...

And that he, after studying physics, does not know what equivalence, the state of being radiant, or the conservation of energy are? Am I to believe that James, or you, Mr.G., have never heard of the particle/wave theory of light?

And if James had an aptitude for physics, wouldn't he already know what conservation of energy is? Wouldn't he have heard of the particle/wave theory of light? Wouldn't he know about equivalence and heat?

I went back through this thread in order to extract certain statements which John was unable or refused to qualify. Although John has yet to explain his pseudo-brand of terms, he appears to be changing those terms labels to somewhat more appropriate labels over the life of the thread. This state of change can only be explained by the fact John is beginning to learn something about science. It is clear he has not yet grasped the fundamentals of these terms nor has placed any urgencies on formulating clear and concise representations of said terms. However, it is apparent that a little of what has been explained to him is beginning to rub off.

And although his hands are clasped tightly round his eyes and ears, a certain amount of information is leaking past the barricade and is starting to stick. There is hope for John yet.

So, in defense of John MacNeil, I say kudos to you, you're learning. Keep it up. :)

Yes, Q, I'm glad I'm finally catching on, but we can get back to that later.

What you didn't mention was anything about the elongated skulls and their implication for being the proof that Darwinian Theory of Evolution does not hold true for all species on the planet and therefore cannot be a valid scientific theory as it was presented.

Originally posted by Adam
I don't know if anyone has answered this yet or not - I have no intention of reading through this entire thread - but about those weird skulls... From the time the baby is born, its head is wrapped in slats of wood or bone which are bound in place, forcing the skull to grow in weird ways. This is still done in some places in South America, occasionally. There's nothing at all mysterious about it. This was covered in year 12 sociology/anthropology, I'm sure it's covered in university in other countries.

These skulls have no effect in any discussion of evolution. It is a modification made upon birth, when the child's skull is still in pieces and has not yet fused into a single piece.

John,

I will first reproduce requests from myself and Mr. G respectively:


Are they real ? Of course, there is no reason to believe those skulls were "cosmetically doctored" in any way. Can you produce any links to these findings from a reputable source ?


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

Certainly there are extant linkable anthropological studies of these skulls that are not associated with sources devoted to UFOs and New Ageism? Surely actual SETI researchers would have been all over these skulls ages ago, too. What have they determined from first-hand analysis of the skulls? How about some reports from studies by forensic pathologists?

You cannot expect us to comment without some verifiable evidence from reliable sources, especially since your sources have been for the most part from crank sites.

Really..Q, this is not new news. My original source for the skulls story wasn't a crank site, only the temporary replacement site was.

The Discovery Channel had a program about those skulls, and others, on their affiliate TLC just within the last week. I don't get the TLC channel so I couldn't direct you to it exactly, but I'm sure you probably have the resources and capability of tracing that program. If the Discovery Channel broadcast it on TLC then we must believe that the skulls are real and not made of clay.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
If the Discovery Channel broadcast it on TLC then we must believe that the skulls are real and not made of clay.Hardly. The Discovery Channel and TLC have become nothing more than a Fox wannabees. The Discovery Channel - "Bermuda Triangle - Mystery Solved?"
TLC - "Bermuda Triangle - Secrets Revealed."
The Discovery Channel - "Bigfoot Bioacoustics"
The Loch Ness Monster
AtlantisAll presented in that mystical Leonard Nemoy style. Sorry, if the Discovery Channel broadcast it on TLC then we must take it with a grain of salt.

Peace.

John

If the Discovery Channel broadcast it on TLC then we must believe that the skulls are real and not made of clay.

Since I don't watch television, I cannot comment on TLC or the Discovery Channel. However, I will comment on the notion that anyone who places a high regard on the credibility of television programming is indeed deluded and in need of some serious education. Turn off the TV and pick up a book.

I'm reminded of a song by Joe Jackson; Sunday Papers.

John,

The Discovery Channel had a program about those skulls, and others, on their affiliate TLC just within the last week.

Is there time in between TV shows for you to pop out and catch a movie ? I hear Paramount produces excellent educational films.

http://images.pricegrabber.com/muze_images/Video/DVD/96/173996_118x160.jpg

John,

<i>And if James had an aptitude for physics, wouldn't he already know what conservation of energy is? Wouldn't he have heard of the particle/wave theory of light? Wouldn't he know about equivalence and heat?</i>

Did you bother reading my previous replies at all, John?

I don't want to know what Einstein thinks the terms you used mean. I want to know what <b>you</b> think they mean.

<i>If James and Mr.G. or anyone else were able to defend their phony Ultimate Creation cum Evolution theory, (or is it vice versa), they would be doing so instead of trying to divert the discussion onto definitions of terms that are well known and understood.</i>

What is there to defend against? You've provided no evidence against the big bang theory. The theory of evolution is quite separate.

I cannot comment on your skulls at this stage, because I admit I have not researched the matter, and it is outside my field of expertise. However, I am in a position to comment on any supposed challenges you might level at the big bang theory. So far, I haven't seen anything from you on that topic which stands up to even minimal scrutiny.

And you still haven't answered my questions.

The White House gives briefings almost every day that are meant for, and are, broadcast on live T.V. CNN, a division of AOL Time-Warner, airs them on their network religiously. Are we, the general public, now to believe that all of what the government tells us, through the medium of television, is a lie? And, by proxy, that AOL Time-Warner knowingly participates in this big lie? Or are you saying that AOL Time-Warner is also being deluded?

If the Discovery Channel is also a part of the big lie, then their corporate owners, The News Corporation Limited, must also be a big lie. Since the News Corporation publishes a fifth of the world's print media, including The Times of London and The New York Post, and book publishers such as William Morrow & Company and HarperCollins Publishers, then they must also be a part of this big lie. When we hear categorical denunciation of such large segments of our culture, shouldn't we then logically wonder just what is truth and just what is part of the Big Lie Theory? Perhaps, Q, you could tell us exactly which media publications we can get the truth from so we don't make the mistake of referencing any of the BLT in future posts?

The fact of the matter is, the skulls, which prove Darwinian Theory of Evolution does not apply to all the life systems on this planet and therefore cannot be a viable theory, do exist. The only people who can pretend that they do not exist are those people who have ulterior motives for that denial. To say that the skulls do not exist because a cat-scan is needed to prove they exist is a phony argument. Cat-scans are a relatively new procedure and we certainly knew a lot about artifacts before that procedure was developed. By Mr.G.'s illogical reasoning, they didn't know that Tutankhamen was real when Mr. Carter found him because Mr. Carter didn't have a cat-scan to verify that great discovery. So, logically, the cat-scan requirement can only be viewed as a diversionary tactic employed to avoid discussing the real subject.

Earth to John:

Perhaps, Q, you could tell us exactly which media publications we can get the truth from so we don't make the mistake of referencing any of the BLT in future posts?

The media are not interested in the truth.

...they didn't know that Tutanhkamon was real when Mr. Carter found...

Unlike your skulls, information on Tutankhamon can be found at reputable sites like university sites for example:

http://www.wisc.edu/arth/ah201/03.egypt.html

http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/prehistory/egypt/history/people/tutankhamun.html

or perhaps a museum site:

http://www.egyptianmuseum.gov.eg/piece.asp

If your so-called skulls are undeniably authentic, they should appear in similar such sites exhibited as alleged alien artifacts. Can you produce ?

I wasn't asking what the media are interested in. I was asking which of them can we trust to give us information which is credible.

You see information about Tutankhamen in museums now, but you couldn't have seen such presentations when the Tomb was first opened, nor for years afterward. But people did flock to the site to get a tour directed by Mr. Carter. This was because back in those more innocent days people still believed that knowledge should be disseminated and not hoarded.

The fact that you classify the elongated homind skulls as alien artifacts is interesting, Q. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning for such a classification?

John MacNeil:

....the cat-scan requirement can only be viewed as a diversionary tactic employed to avoid discussing the real subject.
The 'cat-scan requirement' is one part of a methodical means of eliminating possiblities. You know, Sherlock Holmes? "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth." From which arises the need to resort to forensic and other scientific evidences from demonstrably reliable sources. Holmes would never just take the words of an interested party as being the truth. He systematically searched for corroborative evidences and testimonies as his principal methodology for eliminating all other factors.

The fact that you do not see the wisdom in, let alone recognize the merits of, such an approach bespeaks your low threshhold for evidence discrimination.

John,

I wasn't asking what the media are interested in. I was asking which of them can we trust to give us information which is credible.

My response should have answered your question.

You see information about Tutanhkamun in museums now, but you couldn't have seen such presentations when the Tomb was first opened, nor for years afterward. But people did flock to the site to get a tour directed by Mr. Carter. This was because back in those more innocent days people still believed that knowledge should be disseminated and not hoarded.

In other words, you can't produce a reputable site other than crank. As time goes by...

The fact that you classify the elongated homind skulls as alien artifacts is interesting, Q. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning for such a classification?

Did you not add the so-called 'evidence' of the skulls to this thread in support of your intelligent design theory ? Have you not all along been proponent to alien visitations ? You've certainly posted enough crank sites with alien connections that it was clear to me you are supportive.

When I referenced the Smithsonian Institution for photographic evidence that modern humans are not pylogenically related to Neanderthals or Skhul V, it was to point out the obvious differences that could not possibly occur through natural selection within a timeframe proposed by Darwinian Theory of Evolution. There is an equally distinct difference between the elongated skulls and the Nenderthals and Skhul V. As there is an equally distinct difference between the elongated skulls and modern man. We know for fact that we have these physical specimens with their pronounced differences and we also know for fact that we have no phylgenic proof that they evolved from the same common ancester. Therefore we must conclude that Darwinian Theory of Evolution does not apply for all species on this planet and so cannot be a viable theory as it was presented and as it is currently being touted by the scientific community. On these points we must face the factual evidence and not jump to conclusions before any evidence has been proffered to allow us to speculate on alien origin of anything.

My interest is not in proving or speculating on the absolute origin of anything, although it certainly would be nice to have the answers to everything. Rather, my interest is in evaluating the known evidence and learning as much truth about them as possible so that science is served. If science is not about truth, then it is about nothing. If truth is excluded from science, then all you are left with is construction.

Some of you people are learning from this thread exactly how the creationists felt when you hounded them to wise up and face reality. I notice how they haven't returned to post in this thread, since they realized they couldn't possibly discuss the subject effectively against people with better evidence. I hope you people aren't going to start to disappear like they did.

John concludes:

We know for fact that we have these physical specimens with their pronounced differences and we also know for fact that we have no phylgenic proof that they evolved from the same common ancester.

What you don't have is evidence that these elongated skulls have not been altered in any way such as to represent the elongation. Remember the monkey/mermaid; the torso of a monkey attached to a fish.

Therefore we must conclude that Darwinian Theory of Evolution does not apply for all species on this planet and so cannot be a viable theory as it was presented and as it is currently being touted by the scientific community

If ever there was a straw man argument...

Rather, my interest is in evaluating the known evidence and learning as much truth about them as possible so that science is served.

If that is true, then by all means, research further the findings of the skulls. Provide more information to analyze, preferably from reliable sources. Due diligence. Don't base your entire argument on crank sites interpretations.

I hope you people aren't going to start to disappear like they did.

Still here. :)

John MacNeil:

I notice how they haven't returned to post in this thread, since they realized they couldn'tpossibly discuss the subject effectively against people with better evidence.
No one is disputing that you have better evidence. Rather, we're effectively disputing that your evidence is evidence of anything not entirely subjective.

"When you go high enough, you always come to one man."--Porter

Mr.G.,

Who is the authority who can officially decide the elongated skulls are real? I was under the impression that the Smithsonian Institution was the virtual spokesman for the scientific community, on our continent, at least, and I've referenced them numerous time but Q keeps referring to them as something less than savorable. Q has also called into question the morals of virtually everyone associated with any type of media and said he wouldn't believe anything from any of them, or at least that is the impression I got from the way he was phrasing his posts. So I, and I'm sure everyone else, would like to know where the final authority lies, exactly.

John

I was under the impression that the Smithsonian Institution was the virtual spokesman for the scientific community...

Where is your link from the Smithsonian ?

Q has also called into question the morals of virtually everyone associated with any type of media and said he wouldn't believe anything from any of them, or at least that is the impression I got from the way he was phrasing his posts.

I merely stated that the media is not interested in the truth. They are in the business of selling news hence, they have a bottom line, that which is their shareholders. The dividend precludes the truth. ;)

John MacNeil:

Who is the authority who can officially decide the elongated skulls are real?
The very scientists you wish you could be like but dis, instead, from Fog Island.

So I, and I'm sure everyone else, would like to know where the final authority lies, exactly.
Group consensus: formally, the very group of professional Scientists you're so sure are clueless idiots. Informally, it lies with your less-rigorously compelled, fellow SciForumers--none of whom have come to the defense of any of your ill-supported propositions.

You're suspecting another conspiracy right about now, aren't you? :rolleyes:

So, Q, since the dividend precludes the truth for the media then we can rule out the journals Nature, New Scientist et al. as being part of your peer review that you folks can fall back on later to try and buttress your failing argument. Since you, understandably, refrain from specifying exactly who has responsibility, so that you can arbitrarily jettison any which fail to uphold the Big Lie Theory, we'll content ourselves with whittling away at your support, which dialectally transfers belief away from your Big Lie Theory and towards my more rational realism.

The Darwinian Theory of Evolution states unequivocally that hominids first developed on this planet approximately 65 million year ago. As another huge nail in the coffin of the long dead evolution theory, here is evidence that proves hominids were on this planet hundreds of million of year ago. This evidence is supported by the irrefutable cat-scan, as required by Mr.G., and by other scientific procedures initiated by the leading world authority in their field. Re: Men As Old As Coal.

www.edconrad.com

And, Mr.G., I am not daunted by having to hold up my end of the discussion by myself, thank you very much. And if you think I would ever wish to be associated with those scientists who religiously refrain from being truthful and who wholeheartedly endorse such an abomination as the Big Lie Theory, you are sadly mistaken.

John

hehe - thanks for the link - I had a good chuckle.

What's interesting though, is that you used the Smithsonian as support for your claims, without providing said evidence I might add, and now you produce the Ed Conrad link (still chuckling) who denounces the Smithsonian on grounds of lack of integrity.

You've got quite the sense of humor.

Here's another site (http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/news/index.cfm?instanceid=45962) for you to cite, John.

:rolleyes:

I think this would be more reflective of the reality, Mr.G.,

www.geocities.com/hillbillygirl16/LOLBH.jpg

Yes. Your fringe ideas, and the community from which they are expressed, are just like the Beverly Hillbillies: folks, not unlike wannabe lottery winners, who wish the shear effort of wishing would only be the equivalent of others' educated, hard work.

You complain that professional Science ignores your camp's hypotheses. Why don't you also complain that professional baseball, professional wrestling, professional escort services, and professional plumbers also aren't returning your phone calls?

After all, the professions are usually about skills in addition to imagination. Everyone has an imagination. It's skills that separate the men from the boys.

Demonstrate your professional-level skills; answer James R's questions (James, right now, is working on his PhD in Physics. Surely, were you requiring surgery, even you would go to a graduated, certified Doctor, and not to a voodoo Shaman.).

Your credibility remains an open question. Demonstrate you know as much about Physics, including particle physics, as does James R.

Answer his questions.

You've had more than enough time since James R. first asked for clarification to Google search for the answers and cut'n'paste them into a knowledgeable-like response.

If you cannot divine from available sources the answers to his questions, how is anyone to be convinced that you can divine better than others the ultimate significance of a couple of misshappen skulls and the actual thoughts of Albert Einstein, whom you've never met, but claim to have read and drawn quite discordant conclusions from everyone else?

Answer the questions.

You guys are really so funny, Mr.G. You are exactly like the creationists when faced with the reality contradicting their faith based beliefs. You'll do anything, try any dodge, to avoid having to confront evidence that is staring you right in the face but which contradicts your phony theories.

Now.., I'm sure James is a good kid and I don't mean to belittle him in any way, but he really should read more about classical mechanics and get the silly notions of the Ultimate Creation Theory, Black Hole Theory, and those even stupider String Theories out of his head. Those theories are dead and buried, Mr.G. All the top scientists know that, and have known it for more than a decade, but the transition of knowledge hasn't filtered down to the junior levels yet. I said earlier that we could go back to discussing photon construction later on, but first we must regard other evidence and evaluate it in order to assemble our case. I don't know if you've had any training in law, but a good lawyer will present many facets of his evidence, so that they are regarded individually, before linking them all together with a summation. So I think insead of dodging every bit of evidence that is presented, you should attempt to logically refute the evidence, or agree that it is logical evidence.

Your view that you are successfully disputing the evidence that I present can only be a personal viewpoint. If you read over the previous posts, you'll notice that I have been presenting the logical viewpoint consistent with the classical mechanics of physics as it relates to the Unified Field Theory, and it has been you who has repeatedly refused to engage in the discussion.

From an objective viewpoint, it would appear that science is not defined properly for students of science. Essentially, science is the search for truth. If evidence is allowed to be ignored or purposely given a less than idealistic decription, then the science is not constructed on a sound foundation and eventually that will be found out. It would be impossible for it not to be so. If I am not convincing you that science dictates a logical interaction, as opposed to chaos, then that is perfectly fine. You have every right to believe whatever you wish to, but I believe it is encumbant on you to at least discuss the subject from a logical viewpoint, without resorting to emotionalism.

John MacNeil:

Evidence? What evidence? All you have is idle speculations--about invisible aliens, misshapen skulls, a vast science-wing conspiracy, and at least one dead person. Your speculations, based on 'evidence' and the lack thereof, are quite able to be interpreted in many ways other than how you've chosen to interpret them. Of course, you have the freedom to believe, think and say whatever you want. You even have the freedom to raise your own funds so you can conduct your own scientific reseach to prove to the world the "Truth", as you see it.

You're also free to continue your obituarial proclamations regarding formal Science's great theories: the Standard Cosmological Model, Quantum Mechanics, Evolution and Plate Tectonics, as long as you like. You may eventually find someone who actually finds your 'evidence' and 'truth' persuasive.

You're free to use logic to speak for your 'evidence' when it has so little to say by itself, or to correct the speaking 'evidence' if it is saying the wrong thing.

You're free to think that Science is the search for "Truth", even though it isn't. You're free to believe that Science has a preconceived notion of what it wants to find and purposely excludes from consideration whatever might be evidence for something for which Science isn't looking.

You're free to think and say whatever floats your boat. We're free to observe your bilge pump isn't working.

Mr. G.,

Why rant? All of the evidence that I've supplied is worthy of discussion. If you can't understand that, then you must have some type of mental block restricting your thought processes.

Here's a book by Col. Philip J. Corso called 'The Day After Roswell' c.1997. Why don't you go out and buy it and read it so you can get with reality?

www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=30107843&loc=106

In the book are documents pertaining to the subject by Lt. Gen. Arthur G. Trudeau and by Lt. Gen. N.F. Twining, Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force. The foreword to the book is written by the long serving U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond.

As I've mentioned before, the U.S. government has a gradual program of making the public aware of what's really going on, but that appears to have passed you by completely.

Just off topic, I use to Rant at Mr. G, But reading that last post.. I've got nothing but respect for the man.

Is it me or are "Scientologists" trying to creep into the Real science fields?

John MacNeil:

A Review by Stanton Friedman of: "The Day After Roswell" (http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfcorso.html)

Bestselling Book Exposed as a Hoax! (http://www.roswell-ufo-incident.com/14.htm)

Ufo enthusiasts can't even agree amongst themselves about the 'Truth', so why would you expect show-me-the-evidence skeptics to buy into the aliens-all-around-us hypothesis until an actual alien materializes?

It's anecdotes, all the way down.

I wasn't saying you had to buy into anything, Mr.G. I'm mostly saying to at least discuss the evidence I present in a logical fashion. I'm not a person who believes in ghosts or fairy tales either, hence my rejection of the Ultimate Creation Theory.

As for the two links which you provided that are intended to claim Col. Corso's book as a hoax, neither one of them rings true. The first reference, to Stanton Friedman, atempted to give a renunciation but mostly questioned trivial particulars which have no bearing on the major substance of the book. Mr. Friedman complained about there not being an index, but he never mentioned General Twining's signed memo to Brig. General George Schulgen, Commanding General of the Army Air Forces, about the UFO's that Lieutenant General Twining's command was investigating. On the first page of that signed memo it states,

1. As requested by AC/AS-2 there is presented below the considered opinion of this Command concerning the so-called "Flying Discs". This opinion is based on interrogation report data furnished by AC/AS-2 and preliminary studies by personnel of T-2 and Aircraft Laboratory, Engineering Division T-3. This opinion was arrived at in a conference between personnel from the Air Institute of Technology, Intelligence T-2, Office, Chief of Enginering Division, and the Aircraft, Power Plant and Propeller Laboratories of Engineering Division T-3.

2. It is the opinion that;

a. The phenomena reported is something real and not visionary or ficticious.

b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft.

c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.

d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.

e. The apparent common description of the objects is as follows:

(1) Metallic or light reflecting surface.

(2) Absence of trail, except in a few instances when the object was apparently operating under high performance conditions.

(3) Circular or eliptical in shape, flat on bottom and domed on top.

(4) Several reports of well kept formation flights varying from three to nine objects.

(5) Normally no associated sound, except in three instances a substantial rumbling roar was noted.

(6) Level flight speeds normally above 300 knots are estimated.

Stanton Friedman makes no mention of the above signed memo or the other reports in the book by Lieutenant General Twining. Friedman's own book had just come out previous to Col. Corso's book, so his critique of the book cannot be without conflict of interest, especially since Col. Corso's book has a signed memo from the General in charge. And at the end, Friedman didn't denounce the book, he stated that "Time will tell."

The second site you referenced doesn't refute or mention the signed memo by General Twining either. Nor does it mention the other reports by General Twining. It is obviously just some guy's website which isn't even very good.

Perhaps you should read and assess the book yourself. It is definately an interesting account.

Perhaps you should read and assess the book yourself.
Perhaps I should experience, first-hand, suicide--for the insights believed by some to be worth it. :rolleyes:

Sorry. My bullshit filter cuts off my oxygen whenever it senses I might be accommodating such drivel.

To give you something else to read about The Disclosure Project, I'll post a couple of links. You'll notice by the preponderance of military personnel in the first report that there must be tacit government approval at some level or it just wouldn't happen.

www.disclosureproject.org/GreatestSecret2pgs.htm

www.disclosureproject.org/

<i>All of the evidence that I've supplied is worthy of discussion.</i>

Yet you refuse to discuss it.

If you want discussion, start by answering my questions. Stop avoiding them. That's how discussion works:

1. You put your view.
2. I ask you to clarify it.
3. You do so.
4. I then put my view, which may be different.
5. You ask for any clarification you need.
6. In light of our respective exchange of views, we revise and/or refine our positions.
7. If we are not yet in agreement, return to step 1.
8. Stop.

In this discussion, we haven't quite managed to get to step 3 yet. The ball's in your court.

The way you guys carry on a discussion, the ball's always been in my court, James. You seem to be hoping to win by hanging out behind the baseline. If you want to win, you have to go with the flow and you have to come to the net when that is required. You can't win by refusing to touch the ball.

Out of curiosity, since Mr.G. said you were studying for your Phd. in physics, how many, and which, books by Einstein were, or are, part of your curriculum?

And how many, and which ones, have you read?

The odd thing is, having been in the military with Secret and Crypto clearance, I know there are some veruy odd secrets out there, but I rarely believe them when I hear (or read) them.

Crop Circles and Aliens: What's The Evidence? --by Carl Sagan (http://www.2think.org/sagcrop.shtml)


The way you guys carry on a discussion, the ball's always been in my court....
Because you're the person who's making all the claims: Alien Ark Hypothesis, Big Bang is Dead Hypothesis, Scientists are clueless but effective conspirators Hpothesis, etc.

Stupid UFOlogy Tricks (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/tricks.html)

John,

I have read some papers by Einstein.

You have to realise that the theory of special relativity was written in 1905. That's almost 100 years ago. A lot has happened in physics and in relativity itself since then. People have found better ways of explaining things and solving problems than were available when Einstein wrote his theory down for the first time. Whilst going back to the source can be an interesting exercise from a historical point of view, it is often unnecessary in science. The litmus test for a scientific theory is whether it matches observation - not whether it is true to the vision of its founder. Modern relativity stacks up very well. In essence it has not changed in 100 years, but we understand it and its implications a lot better. Other people have expanded on Einstein's work. Einstein was the first word in relativity, but not the last by a long shot.

[Edited for relevance.]

The claim central to the position of advocates of the ET hypothesis is that aliens are(/were) visiting the Earth. To prove this, they must disprove the null hypothesis that aliens are(/were) not visiting the Earth. That is to say, they must produce something that can only be explained in terms of alien visitations, like an alien, or an artifact with extraterrestrial isotope ratios. (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/tricks.html)

Positivists say that the invisible and the non-existant look very much alike. Much as aliens and indisputable evidence of aliens.

So how useful is non-supernatural intelligent design(alien version) as a probative tool? Can non-supernatural intelligent design theory(alien version) ever be considered an Epistomology so long as indesputable evidence that supports it's claim(s) remains absent?

Absolutly no relevnce what so ever, just wanted to get the topic to 2000 posts :D

EEEKKK!!! Zombies walk amongst us! ;)

James, Einstein was a genius. The last genius we had before him was perhaps Newton, several century earlier. Even the great Newton didn't accomplish as much as Einstein. Newton was only active in science for a part of his life and then he took a managment position. Einstein was the quintessential scientist for all of his life. Einstein raised science to a whole new level, far beyond what the thinkers of his day were capable of and his theories have stood the test of time and are still valid today. No scientist since Einstein has made any leap to a next level. There are plenty of smart people in science and they are building on science in the bricks and mortar fashion, step by plodding step. Einstein's Unified Field Theory is the one that is going to pass the litmus test. If your scientists are believing in the chaos of the big bang theory and all those other ridiculous theory, then their conceptual thought is being somewhat retarded by fanciful imaginations.

Einstein was a fairly prolific writer and if you read his books you will find that he expressed his opinions and beliefs with uncommon clarity. If you are studying physics then you should read Einstein in your free time, so that you can evaluate his work for yourself. Here are a few more exceptional book by Einstein;

Ideas and Opinions--A.E.

Out Of My Later Years--A.E.

On Peace--A.E.

The World As I See It--A.E.

Einstein is going to be coming back in vogue before too long, as will be his Unified Field Theory, so if you begin reading him now, you will be in tune with the prevailing trend as logic is restored once again to theoretical physics.

Mr.G., you are like the Japanese soldiers stranded on remote islands after WW11, continuing the war and living a life that made sense to them as the modern world passed them by.

Mr.G., you are like...
Sure, John. Whatever you say: yet more laser-like analysis from a true visionary, no doubt. :rolleyes:

Einstein seems to be a jesus-like figure for you. You know, cult of personality-wise.

Maybe he was really an alien.

The claim central to the position of advocates of the ET hypothesis is that aliens are(/were) visiting the Earth. To prove this, they must disprove the null hypothesis that aliens are(/were) not visiting the Earth. That is to say, they must produce something that can only be explained in terms of alien visitations, like an alien, or an artifact with extraterrestrial isotope ratios. (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/tricks.html)

It's funny, as in strange, how you keep bringing up religion and quacky UFO sites all the time, Mr.G., while religiously avoiding discussing all presented evidence that doesn't conform to your creationist theories.

Your isolationist view will have no effect on people who think about reality. The trend is towards a more open and honest society and that is something that cannot be stopped. Those who thrived on secrecy have seen firsthand how debilitating that simple-minded policy is for society and the environment and they are among those who wish for more openness. If you read any of the articles from the links I posted you would have understood that. By crying UFO's! and Religion! all the time, while consistently refusing to discuss reality, you advance the discussion no further. People are even starting to run for congress on the disclosure ticket;

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/25/37217.html

If you want to discuss intelligently, why don't you review some of those evidence I presented and pick one at a time to either disprove scientifically, or admit that they are legitimate. I imagine it must be tough to grapple with the reality that your argument for the Ultimate Creation Theory and Darwinian Theory of Evolution are just as flawed as the 'God did it' creationism belief, but your personal obstinacy can in no way prevent the supremacy of the Unified Field Theory.

John MacNeil:

....review some of those evidence I presented and pick one at a time to either disprove scientifically,....
Since your reading comprehension is awfully selective, here's another excerpt: "....it is the burden of the claimant to prove his claim. In the case of UFOs the skeptic would assert that the object was unidentified. This claim is proved by default, because nobody knows what it was. It is for those that wish to claim that it was an alien space ship to prove that it was (1) a space ship and (2) alien. .... The burden of proof falls upon the claimant, not those skeptical of the claim." (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/tricks.html)

Buy a vowel. We're the skeptics, you're the claimant. It isn't our burden to prove your evidence is not evidence for whatever it is you are claiming today. It is your burden to prove your evidence is evidence that proves your claim, to our satisfaction--at which point we instantaneously lose our skepticism and you find happiness.

You claim aliens brought humans to this planet. Prove that aliens exist, then prove that they brought us here. No rhetorical anecdotes. No obfuscating indirections and redirections. Just present to us cold, hard, unambiguous, smoking-gun evidence as your proof.

Do the same for your claims that the Standard Cosmological Model is dead (you'll need really serious mathematics to do this), that some misshappen skulls are not Homo Sapiens, and that Einstein is the center of the intellectual universe--to name but a few.

As far as I/we can tell from all your evidence, you've done nothing more than state your opinions--they can be nothing else if not accompanied by the kind of evidence that will change my/our mind(s) (your stated goal).

I'm sure you have good reasons for believing what you do. So far, I don't find your reasons compelling enough to cause me to change my mind. Now that may be a defect of my own, as you've accused, or it is a defect in your estimation of your own good reasoning. Either way, it's just a couple more opinions thrown into the mix.

John,

Yes, Einstein was a genius. But so were Bohr, Rutherford, Feynman, Maxwell, Ampere, Boltzmann, Fermi, Dirac and many many others. Why put Einstein on a pedestal above the rest?

Also, need I remind you yet again that Einstein didn't manage to come up with a unified field theory? What is this non-existent theory you keep referring to? It is a fantasy, nothing more.

UFO is referred to now, in my organization anyway, as UAP or unidentified aerial phenomena and defined as " the visual stimulus that provokes a sighting report of an object or light seen in the skiy, the appearance and/or flight dynamics of which do not suggest a logical, conventional flying object and which remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making both a full technical identification as well as a common-sense identification, if one is possible". - Haines, 1980.

So Mr. G you are correct, but not entirely. The issue really is that there has to be a category of observation like this to begin with. There really are observations and incidents that have at their root a phenomena with this definition. This is not a statement of misidentification, it is a definition of a particular category of aerial phenomena. This doesn't rule out unusual natural phenomena, rarely or never documented and poorly understood or never encountered before. But it does include lights and objects that can not be categorized any other way.

Further, though there is no hard, cold evidence, as you put it, of ET incursion into the Earth domain there are many indicators that some of the UAP that we study are associated with a very high degree of intelligence, deliberate flight control, and advanced energy management. (Haines, 1979, 1983, 1993, 9194, 1999). Others have done the same (Good, 1988; Hall, 1964, 2001; Ruppelt, 1956; Hynek, 1972; COMETA 1999; Guzman, 2001;Rodriguez 2002) Further we have data from across the entire history of powered flight that demonstrates commonalties in description and characteristics that not only should not be ignored, they strongly suggest that some of the reported objects and supporting radar data and witness testimony are indicative of technology and intelligence.

Our organization is not concerned with the ET debate though I find it very interesting. NARCAP is concerned with specific effects on avionics systems, crew physiology, cockpit resource management and safe flying procedures. The chief of the Aviation Safety Office at NASA Ames Research Center, Brian Smith is quoted on our homepage - he is a participating advisor along with several other current and former NASA scientists and administrators...

The fact is that while the debate rages, there is a very real phenomena demonstrating very unusual qualities and manifesting globally. We have case files from official sources including the CAA of the UK, the Chilean Air Force, the US Government and a host of other sources. The three main incident data bases maintained by the FAA and the NTSB, including the NASA administrated ASRS have incidents in their files involving UAP. The director of the ASRS, Linda Connell is on record in this regard and acknowledges UAP reports in the ASRS incident database - a confidential database, by the way.

While not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources - like various government agencies... say the National Security Agency www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/ufo.htm Take a look at the Tehran, Iran documentation from the DIA....

Anyway, I am not offering proof, I don't know. But I know better than to say "definately not".

What does this have to do with the topic of the thread, well... it seems that these observations of flying objects predate the modern era by hundreds of years and probably millenia. Commentary regarding descriptions of aerial phenomena from 3,000 BC are consistent with those in our own case files. Our own myths of how we came to be describe us as "created".... The presence of irriduceably complex systems within our physiology - like the clotting sequence suggest that either our knowledge of the evolution of protien systems is incomplete or there are "modular" components in our physiology( Behe, 1997). There is a debate regarding these things, not a dismissal.... This debate will lead to a better model of reality, perhaps one that none of us can recognize, yet.

ted

there are many indicators that some of the UAP that we study are associated with a very high degree of intelligence, deliberate flight control, and advanced energy management.

they strongly suggest that some of the reported objects and supporting radar data and witness testimony are indicative of technology and intelligence.

While not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources

I get the strong impression you and/or NARCAP are convinced a link exists between UAP and ET. That would of course seriously damage you and your organizations credibility.

Are your comments representative of all personnel working for NARCAP ? Are your organizations' priorities geared towards attempting to link ET with UAP ? How is NARCAP funded ?

"I get the strong impression you and/or NARCAP are convinced a link exists between UAP and ET. That would of course seriously damage you and your organizations credibility."

From the point of view of NARCAP, the extraterrestrial debate is immaterial. We do not presume they are ET and we do not presume they are not. It is a fact that some UAP have characteristics that suggest technology and intelligence.

From my point of view, a personal point of view, the debate is very interesting and I have a birds eye view. As someone who is regularly involved with information and research around the topic of UAP I am exposed to a lot of good information regarding the entire range of UAP including that category that seems so interesting to all of us. My contribution to this debate is based on that exposure. My suggestion is that the matter is not resolved, the definitive work has not been done and that some UAP have characteristics that seem to demonstrate technology and intelligence. I don't think that hurts our credibility even if it does seem to support the believers. It is a simple fact. We certainly aren't alone in that perspective. I can name several official organizations belonging to various governments that will say the same thing.

Allow me to point out that our research includes UAP that do not seem to have characteristics of technology and intelligence......

"Are your comments representative of all personnel working for NARCAP?"

With regards to those comments about NARCAP and its mission and staff, yes. With respect to referenced research and UAP data, yes. With respect to the topic of this thread - no. I am simply participating in the forum.


Are your organizations' priorities geared towards attempting to link ET with UAP ?

No, and I think a review of our site will support that contention.
www.narcap.org

How is NARCAP funded ?
Privately.

Einstein does deserve to be put on a pedestal. He was a mental giant compared to all those other scientists that you named, James. In his lifetime he was never accorded the respect which he deserved, and yet he was the most famous person of his times. He received one Nobel Prize, for his description of the photoelectric effect, but he never received a nobel for either his special or general theory of relativity, both of which are foundation theory of modern science.

His Unified Field Theory was never given a mathematical completion, but he stated often enough that what he believed was that the universe was a complete system and not the result of chaos. That means that the universe is comprised of a single source field that emanates from the center of the universe and encompasses all matter in the universe. All of the scientific evidence that has been gathered to date agrees with that assessment, and no scientific evidence agrees with the Ultimate Creation Theory.

The people who are steering belief back to a reality base are the professionals in science, like this woman;

--"Imagine seeing a bullet shot through a sheet of material only to have the material instantly "heal" behind the bullet! Remember, this is not science fiction. Self healing materials actually exist, and LaRC scientists are working to unravel their secrets. What we did at NASA-Langley was basically dissect that material to answer the question, 'how does it do that?'"--Anna McGowan, Program Manager, NASA

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/morphingmetals.html

The above website, where that quote came from, is officially recommended to undergraduate students by their physics professor at Princeton University.

The thread is about whether or not Alien intervention is an acceptable argument for a creationist point of view. I think better arguments for this lie with Drake, Asimov, Sullivan, Bracewell, Sagan, etc.... In the first place it is most likely a mathematical certainty that there are other civilizations, technically advanced, within our own galaxy.

Unfortunately the stretch between that fact and irreducibly complex systems and/or other evidence of "creation" within our own physiology is too far to span at this point. We first must prove that there are ET, that they come here and/or came here regularly during critical points in our evolution, that evidence within our physiology exists of manipulation or creation, that this physiological evidence points towards the ET in question, etc. So unless we can discuss the matter with "them" directly, it will be a long and difficult process to arrive at this knowledge with any certainty. Of course we can be suspicious, and we can learn all we can about the reality we occupy.

I don't know if you read all ten page of this thread, Ted, but if you did I'm sure you would find that my position throughout has been consistently to adhere to the belief in physics. Some of my discussion has reiterated my view that the Standard Cosmological Model (the big bang!), which I refer to as the Ultimate Creation Theory, is not a viable theory for the organization of the universe. I've also disputed Darwinian Theory of Evolution, and shown proof that it, too, can no longer be viewed as a viable theory. As I have not presented any evidence in support of, nor any evidence to indicate, an alien presence, I do not believe that this thread should be addressing the subject of possible alien presence on our planet at this time. However, Mr.G. keeps bringing up the subject of aliens and UFO's for speculative and diversionary reasons.

ted

I asked:

Are your organizations' priorities geared towards attempting to link ET with UAP ?

You said:

No, and I think a review of our site will support that contention. We do not presume they are ET and we do not presume they are not.

Then I would presume this claim is yours if not NARCAP:

While not all UAP are ET

Here, you've clearly stated ET exists. What evidence has confirmed to you that UAP are ET ?

John, I am not critical of your position in this nor am I swayed by Mr G's assertions.

I feel that it is difficult to create an argument about whether or not a non-supernatural intelligence is responsible for our existance without making some kind of case for the existance of that intelligence. It isn't quite enough to have some origins of life scientists pointing at an elephant in the living room.....

Michael Behe addressed the idea of creationism versus evolution by pointing out that some components of not only human physiology but of other life forms as well seem to have irreducibly complex systems that are not easily explained by current models of evolution. Examples include the mechanism that drives flagellum, the clotting sequence, and a couple of other seeming anomalies. He pointed out that while certain structures like celia are well understood by function, the evolution of these structures is not understood at all. While he strongly suggested that a "creator" was a possible source of these anomalies, he didn't commit to who or what he felt was responsible.

So getting back to who or what could have played a role in all this, well, I don't think the answer lies with examining UAP. Our current understanding of UAP is too rudimentary at this point.

With respect to the most correct cosmological model, there is a debate regarding whether or not the Big Bang ever happened.... it is only a model of how things might have happened, and it seemed to work in many ways but not all ways. Like Newtonian physics. To address these inconsistencies, new theories are employed and some are a bit radical - like suggesting that we were created or that somehow a "nonsupernatural intelligence" is responsible for our presence. But "radical" is only the relationship between the theory and the current paradigm. It is radical because it is a minority position. The real question is "Does it work?" and "How can we tell we are correct?".

The idea that there is a unifying principal behind the function of reality is probably a correct one but our understanding of what that principal is and how it came to be is going to change, probably many times. I am happy to give Einstein credit for making it to high enough ground to suspect that there is a unifying principal. Some would suggest that principal is the Zero-point, or the basic energy field that reality arises from. Others have other viewpoints.

Paradigms exist in science that are not based so much on fact as consensus and agreement (bias). The consensus and agreement in 17th century France was that it was impossible for stones to fall from the sky. When, in the face of irrefuteable evidence, that paradigm was undermined the response was niether immediate nor unanimous. Rocks falling from the sky was not consistent with understandings of physics at that time. No one knew about space, that it is a gravity-free vacuum, that it is filled with rocks and debris that are sometimes captured by Earths gravitational field.

The same argument applies to UAP as well as the debate over creationism vs evolution. It took four hundred years to get the Catholic Church to apologize for its egregious treatment of Galileo and other scientists. The transition was slow and went from burning thinkers and scientists alive to the Pope suggesting that "not all scriptures should be taken literally". Curiously enough, the Vatican position is that there are extraterrestrial intelligences, they do visit Earth and they are probably more spiritually advanced than we are - according to Father Balducci - Chief Demonologist of the Vatican....

Anyway, perhaps the question of evolution vs creationism is better applied to the history and condition of knowledge rather than our physical existance.....

John day-dreams:

I'm sure you would find that my position throughout has been consistently to adhere to the belief in physics.

Perhaps, but your understanding of physics is in no way representative of your beliefs. You've shown time and again on this and other threads complete ignorance of scientific methods and terminologies in various categories. And although members have gone to great lengths to show you your errors and contradictions, you refuse to listen and continue to spout pseudo-babble.

The entire sentence read: "While not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources...."

My point is that there is no basis for a certainty that no UAP represent incursions by ET. Those who entertain that certainty perhaps would not be so certain if they looked more closely at some UAP observations and incidents. I, for one, am not at all certain that no UAP represent ET, and to the extent that my organization is directly involved with the subject matter - well - we are not certain that no UAP represent ET, either. The debate is far from closed and though we are not directly concerned with it we are interested in all potential sources of UAP. Frankly, ET is a potential source of UAP.

ted

The entire sentence read: "While not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources...." My point is that there is no basis for a certainty that no UAP represent incursions by ET.

Yeah, I got the point. However, you began the sentence with, "While not all UAP are ET." This is clearly a claim that you or your organization have confirmed some UAP are ET. What evidence do you have ? Where are these ET ?

The next paragraph reads:

"Anyway, I am not offering proof, I don't know. But I know better than to say "definately not". "

I think my position has been clear throughout. You can dissect any portion of any paragraph or sentence and twist it however it pleases you but taken in context, my comments stand. I think you will have a harder time proving that we are pro ET than I will have proving that we are not certain....

In our review of the various efforts to determine the sources of UAP it is clear that the definitive work has not been done and all possibilities remain open. Again, while not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources.......I am not offering proof, I don't know. But I know better than to say "definitely not".

ted

I think my position has been clear throughout.You can dissect any portion of any paragraph or sentence and twist it however it pleases you but taken in context, my comments stand.

I have not twisted your words. You made a claim that UAP are ET. Those are your words. Therefore, your claim clearly places your position in that of having proven ET exists.

Please provide the evidence, if not, admit your claim has no credibility.

John MacNeil:

Mr.G. keeps bringing up the subject of aliens and UFO's for speculative and diversionary reasons.
From your own post of 08-27-02 at 05:56 AM on page 2....

"There is abundant evidence of unexplained markings and happenings on this planet that no scientist can explain, and so it is only logical to think that someone smart is instrumental in arranging the sequence of events. That means, that since our planetary science is incapable of providing description for the unexplained events, the people who are responsible must come from some other planet."

....and your post of 08-30-02 at 01:28 AM same page....

"The evidence for people from other planets having visited this planet is voluminous...."

....and your post of 08-31-02 at 07:54 PM on page 3....

"Aliens....may have been instrumental in bringing different species of us humans to this planet."

Whenever you repeat, or allude to, your claim that aliens are responsible for homo sapiens existing on Earth, or that aliens have crashed on Earth, or aliens have flown their spaceships through Earth's atmosphere, I shall remind you that the only uncontestable evidence that can prove aliens have been to Earth is a real alien or a real, alien-origined artifact.

The purpose of periodically refering back to your aliens claims that you've tendered since the earliest pages of this discussion is to remind you that still you have not produced alien-proving evidence to support such claims. What you think Einstein might have thought is mostly off-topic and I am permitted to move the discussion back on-topic, even if it diverts you from your diversions.

I think I have been as clear as I could be. What is it about " I am not offering proof, I don't know. But I know better than to say "definitely not"." that you don't understand? And why are you so devoted to attacking me by citing incomplete commentary taken out of context? Why not take it to a higher level and discuss some of the complete thoughts I am entertaining?

The fact is that for two years I have been working inside an organization that has developed a terrific amount of information about UAP, and I have some questions and commentary that I would like to bounce off of others. This is a free forum and I feel it is an ideal opportunity to ask some peripheral questions that I have around this topic.... I shouldn't have to feel like I am walking on eggs and that any two words I use can be isolated from their context and interpreted as meaning things that are clearly not consistent with my overall premis.

I notice that you are not offering any commentary on any topic other than criticism.... where are your original thoughts? Why not put yourself on the line to defend your position rather than snipe at others around you while offering no useful commentary...And by the way, have you actually read any of our technical reports or reviewed our website?

Obviously you have some opinions about this topic, lets hear them Q - but be careful of the words you choose....

ted

I think I have been as clear as I could be.

Yes, quite clear. You have not denied your claim that UAP are ET. Therefore I can only conclude you firmly believe that ET exists. I am interested to see your evidence confirming your beliefs.

And why are you so devoted to attacking me by citing incomplete commentary taken out of context?

I am not attacking you,. I am attacking your claim which btw was not taken out of context. You claimed UPA are ET.

Why not take it to a higher level and discuss some of the complete thoughts I am entertaining?

First, show some evidence supporting your claim, then we can discuss your so-called complete thoughts.

I shouldn't have to feel like I am walking on eggs and that any two words I use can be isolated from their context and interpreted as meaning things that are clearly not consistent with my overall premis

Actually, I am beginning to suspect your claim that UAP are ET *IS* consistent with your overall premise. More to come on that later.

I notice that you are not offering any commentary on any topic other than criticism.... where are your original thoughts?

Please don't skirt the issue. Either support your claim or admit it is nothing but hot air.

Why not put yourself on the line to defend your position rather than snipe at others around you while offering no useful commentary

My commentary would be quite useful if I could show your organization is little more than a front for UFO cranks. Are you a betting man ?

And by the way, have you actually read any of our technical reports or reviewed our website?

Yes I have. For example:

P. O. Box 140, Boulder Creek, CA 95006 USA

Your website claims the above as your business office. It is in fact, a post office box. Your business address does not exist anywhere on the website. For all we know, NARCAP could be a one man operation in a basement suite. A good website designer can make anyone look like a viable corporation.

but be careful of the words you choose....

I see you're beginning to understand my point. ;)

If we are to conduct ourselves with proper adherence to scientific principles, then our object should be to study the physical and the phenomenal from an objective viewpoint. Personal preferences for pre-established hypotheses should not impede objective analysis.

I don't agree with creationism or evolutionism because neither satisfactorily explain the existent state of matter and systems as we have come to know them. Therefore it is incumbant on us to have the facility to entertain other hypotheses without having to endure ridicule.

And, Mr.G., if you would ever read my posts in context, you will find in the last one that I said I haven't presented any evidence of intelligent intervention,...yet. Therefore you should restrict yourself to discussing the evidence that I have presented, since you continuously claim I am the one who must present evidence, which refutes evolutionism and ultimate creationism. If you keep jumping to conclusions of what you think my future argument is going to be, without ever addressing the evidence in the order of my presenting it, how can you claim to be engaging in the discussion objectively?

OK Q, you are right, my word choice was wrong, I do not claim that either my organization nor I have any evidence to support a claim that UAP are ET. Further that was not my intention. I intended to suggest that there is no certainty to the idea that no UAP are ET. Of course you know that, and are simply feeding your ego....you admitted that you understood what I intended...

I said "While not all UAP are ET, those who believe that no UAP are ET should look much closer at the information from credible sources...." My point is that there is no basis for a certainty that no UAP represent incursions by ET. "

and you replied,
"Yeah, I got the point"

As an administrator, not a scientist, I find the work we are doing, and particularily some of the data around this type of case profile very exciting. The potential relationship between these phenomena we are studying and this debate is intriguing and I appreciate an opportunity to explore it. I do stand by our reports and supporting casefiles that some UAP demonstrate traits of intelligence and technology, though those cases are only a portion of the types of UAP reports we work with. Additionally I will tell you that some of our staff are certain that UAP do not represent ET, ever. Myself and others aren't so certain, and some of our group are more than adament that these things are ET....it is a simple demographic fact. That has nothing to do with our mission or our position as an organization with respect to this debate. Our official position is.... that UAP are a threat to aviation safety and whatever their characteristics, the threat should be mitigated. We don't feel the threat is particularly widespread, it is more like windshear or birdstrikes, but we feel the aviation community needs to look closer at the data.

As for your insults to myself, staff and organization, I won't waste my time.

So lets hear what you have to say, Q. About the thread, you know, nonsupernatural design: viable epistemology.... or are you bent on further criticism?

ted

I do not claim that either my organization nor I have any evidence to support a claim that UAP are ET

Thank you, now we're getting somewhere. Let's move on to other claims:

As an administrator, not a scientist...Additionally I will tell you that some of our staff are certain that UAP do not represent ET, ever. Myself and others aren't so certain, and some of our group are more than adament that these things are ET....it is a simple demographic fact.

Allow me to point out the very obvious. Your organization appears to represent safety in aviation according to your mission statement:

To help enhance aviation safety in the USA by better understanding the nature and potential effects of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) upon ground and airborne systems, piloting, and cockpit/aircrew procedures.

I find that specious at best. If your organization actually was in the business of aviation safety, it would by no means infer in any way, shape or form, anything to do with ET. IMO, your organization is dedicated to infer the existence of ET:


I do not presume here that UAP are extraterrestrial nor do I presume that they are not. The data must be permitted to "speak" for themselves. I have, however, collected and analyzed hundreds of UAP reports over the years which appear to suggest that they are associated with a very high degree of intelligence, deliberate flight control, and advanced energy management (cf. Haines, 1979, 1983, 1993, 1994, 1999).

..and UFO conspiracies:


Following Captain Peter Kilian’s (American Airlines) widely publicized 45 minute-long pacing on February 24, 1959 by three UAP over central Pennsylvania and the U.S. Air Force’s poorly conducted investigation of the matter (Maney, The New UFO Policy of the U.S. Air Force. Flying Saucer Review, Vol. 6, No. 5, Pp. 7-8, Sept-Oct. 1960), Kilian issued a press statement to the Long Island Daily Press (March 24, 1959) stating (in part), "If the Air Force wants to believe that (viz., their explanation that what he and his FO saw was a KC-97 mid-air refueling operation with a B-47)... it can. But I know what (these aircraft look like) in operation at night. And that’s not what I saw." Captain Kilian stopped discussing his sighting because American Airlines, "through Air Force insistence, was forced to silence Kilian, their attitude being that good relations with officialdom must be maintained at all costs.

As for your insults to myself, staff and organization, I won't waste my time.

I suspected as much. Cranks and crackpots are usually under the delusion they're being attacked. I see no staff nor any organization. I see one individual disguising himself as some sort of pseudo-safety board for aviation in an attempt to perpetuate UFO quackery.

Any organization representing aviation safety that wished to remain credible would focus their entire campaign on terrestrial evidence and phenomena, and would never imply what you and NARCAP advocate.

Believe what you want Q, our advisory staff includes the Branch Chief of the Aviation Safety Program at NASA Ames Research Center, Brian Smith - he is quoted directly on our homepage and our chief scientist is the former chief of the Space and Human Factors office at NASA Ames, Dr. Richard Haines.... I think they are both concerned about the relationship between unidentified aerial phenomena and aviation safety.... as is the Director of the NASA ASRS, Linda Connell who is on record in this regard. And don't think they aren't aware of the case profiles of UAP incidents.

Any study of a relationship between unidentified aerial phenomena and aviation safety is incomplete if it does not review all existing data. That would include Project Blue Book and other sources commonly identified with "Ufology".

With respect to conspiracy theories, JANAP 146 was the issue that Capt. Killian was up against. It was used to contain all pilot reports of unusual observations. There was no satellite coverage of the Soviet Union at that time and the military used the commercial pilots of Canada, England and the US as forward observation corps to look for anything unusual. Along with reports of Russian bombers and unidentified aircraft pilots also reported unusual aerial phenomena. For its part the Air Force didn't look that closely at many of the reports, and did its best to keep any reports through CIRVIS out of the media -usually with threats of fines and prison and dismissive cover stories. The practice continues today....

Regarding the rest of my staff, a somewhat complete list is posted on the site.

Your opinion regarding whether or not an organization that was seriously interested in aviation safety would examine ufo reports and incidents is simply that, a misinformed opinion. The fact is that whether or not some UAP might be described as craft by witnesses does not immediately disqualify the observation. Especially when it is supported by multiple witnesses and radar data. The key is to review those events which are categorized as UAP incidents for all available data and develop base metrics regarding frequency of occurance, etc.

And be advised that there are other, official organizations whose mission is identical to ours, CEFAA for example - through the Air Technical School of the Chilean Air Force or an even better example is SEPRA of CNES the French Space agency. SEPRA gathers UAP data across all aviation and police beuracracies in France. Their case files and concerns parallel ours in most regards.
So when do we get back to the thread, Q?

"Any organization representing aviation safety that wished to remain credible would focus their entire campaign on terrestrial evidence and phenomena, and would never imply what you and NARCAP advocate."

Apparently you missed the half of the homepage devoted to so-called "earthlights" and the technical reports at www.itacomm.net and www.hessdalen.org .......:bugeye:

John,

<i>Einstein does deserve to be put on a pedestal. He was a mental giant compared to all those other scientists that you named, James.</i>

To take just one of those names: Neils Bohr had frequent disputes with Einstein, and almost always was shown to be correct (whilst Einstein was wrong).

<i>In his lifetime he was never accorded the respect which he deserved, and yet he was the most famous person of his times. He received one Nobel Prize, for his description of the photoelectric effect, but he never received a nobel for either his special or general theory of relativity, both of which are foundation theory of modern science.</i>

Do you know why, John? I suggest you do a bit of research.

<i>His Unified Field Theory was never given a mathematical completion, but he stated often enough that what he believed was that the universe was a complete system and not the result of chaos.</i>

Lots of people have made similar statements and have similarly failed to produce a unified theory.

<i>...no scientific evidence agrees with the Ultimate Creation Theory.</i>

The big bang theory is supported by a wealth of scientific evidence. Your undestanding of that theory and the evidence which supports it has been shown to be shakey at best.

ted

Any study of a relationship between unidentified aerial phenomena and aviation safety is incomplete if it does not review all existing data.

Good point. However, your organization does not do that. From your Executive Study:

This paper addresses the question of whether there is reliable data demonstrating a significant relationship between aviation safety in America today and unidentified aerial phenomena [UAP] (also called unidentified flying objects [UFO] or flying saucers).

http://www.narcap.org/reports/airsafety.htm

All references cited are UFO related. There is nothing on aviation safety, nothing on meteorological phenomena, nothing on terrestrial crafts and phenomena. Every reference cited has the same agenda, to perpetuate UFO/ET nonsense. The use of the term airsafety in the above URL is deceptively misleading since the page contains little relevancy to air safety.

And be advised that there are other, official organizations whose mission is identical to ours

Of course there are others. Did you think you were the first here to present clandestine UFOlogy ?

So when do we get back to the thread, Q?

I am on the thread, didn't you notice. I am questioning you and your organizations credibility. And the more I read your website and responses to this thread, the more I'm convinced your organization has no legitimate credibility with air safety at all and is more concerned with the propagation of UFO/ET conspiracy theories.

That is simply my opinion. And don't worry, I won't let the cat out of the bag. ;)

I wonder how many NTSB (http://www.ntsb.gov/) and FAA (http://www.faa.gov/) investigators attend UFO conferences and sell close-encounter books for $$?

So, ted_roe:

Why doesn't your web site list all the NARCAP personnel it claims to have enlisted in various capacities? You know: Dept. heads. Advisory committee members. Field experts, etc. Phone numbers, media contacts, funding sources (you know, private sources--like you and the good Doctor). And being an educational not-for-profit, although more work than most people want to assume in support of their personal causes, in-and-of-itself does not automatically convey credibility to it's directors. Just ask the IRS. They eat 501(c)(3)'s and (c)(4)'s for breakfast.

Google searches reveal only yourself (associated only with NARCAP and UFO conferences), and Dr. Haines (a psychologist, and an ex-NASA "non-rocket scientist" employee who writes close-encounter books for profit and hocks them at UFO conferences and on the Web).

What's really going on with NARCAP? UAP <> UFO because you'll get no respect? As if no one knows that UAP = UFO?

This is planet Earth, you know: home of some intelligent life forms.

The same question could be asked of you, Mr.G. You post here all the time and don't list your name. How do we know you are not an emissary for the Vatican or some other religious organization?

John. You're not ted. Why are you being so defensive? Oh, yeah. I hit close to your home, too.

:)

You are the one who is coming off as defensive, Mr.G. The person who invented the Ultimate Creation Theory was a catholic priest and you continuously defend that theory to the exclusion of all others. You dismiss or ignore all evidence that I, or anyone else, present without giving it any scientific rebuttal, while continually calling for more evidence. You display no scientific curiosity. What you do, is behave very similar to religious fanatics in the way you won't entertain any idea that opposes your iconoclastic agenda. If you wish to give yourself and your view credibility, then change your 'web' name to your real name, or don't require such clarification from others.

I'm not claiming authority. I am Mr. G because that's what my students used to call me. It doesn't bother me that that's not enough information for you.

ted_roe is claiming authority. I'm questioning that authority. That bothers you. I find that rather interesting.
As interesting as you being bothered by my questioning your authority.

How do we know you (Mr.G) are not an emissary for the Vatican or some other religious organization?

Forgive me, Father G, for I have not sinned.

I have used rationale and reasoning to smite my oppressors and cast out those who would have me believe in little green men. And as I walk through the valley of conspiracies, I shall fear no UFOlogists. Surely intelligence and logic shall follow me all the days of my life. For thine is the wisdom, the savvy and the aplomb. Amen.

How do we know you (Mr.G) are not an emissary for the Vatican or some other religious organization?

Let's call (http://www.payphone-project.com/payphones/photos/vatican/) and find out. :)

What happened to,

"Dream on, John MacNeil."

that you posted last evening, Mr.G.?

The fact of the matter is, Mr.G., that you are claiming to be an authority. Not only are you claiming to be an authority, but you are claiming to be an authority in many fields. You routinely dismiss scientific evidence that is accumulated by experts, without showing cause, and expect everyone to believe you over them. You constantly question other people's credentials. That means that you regard yourself as the arbiter of last resort, which is assuming authority.

No one really cares if you use your real name or some monicker, but you have to realize that by choosing to use a label that doesn't represent you legally, your view will always be regarded somewhat less than the view of someone who portrays his or herself for who they really are. Also, claiming to be a teacher is attempting to put yourself in the favorable guise of an authority figure, but when you do not display teacheresque qualities, that ego-stroking claim can be disregarded as not pertaining to the subject. You have made similar authority-figure claims on behalf of JamesR, saying that he is studying for a Phd in physics, yet when you read JamesR's writings on physics, such as this line,

"The Earth's surface is not an inertial frame because it accelerates upward."--JamesR,

it is obvious that JamesR doesn't understand physics, even though he, coincidentally, just yesterday claimed he is a teacher of physics. The fact that you guys make such claims on the internet while displaying minimal knowledge of the subject matter is reason enough for us to ask you to qualify your rejection of evidence. It is also reason enough for us to question your identity if you question the credentials of certified professionals. However, if you wish to keep your identity secret, then you must realize that there are credibility restrictions that go with that posture.

John MacNeil:

If that IS your real name... :D

No one really cares if you use your real name or some monicker, but you have to realize that by choosing to use a label that doesn't represent you legally, your view will always be regarded somewhat less than the view of someone who portrays his or herself for who they really are.

You may choose to use whatever label/moniker/userid/name/handle you wish. It doesn't matter. I will never consider your view any less credible then I do now.

Yes, Q, I use my real name. And we've already witnessed your propensity to call physicists and astronomers "crackpots" whenever you disagree with their learned view. And I wasn't implying you shouldn't use a monicker, just that more credibility is associated with a full legal name and that it would be improper to ask for certain clarifications of others when not supplying any clarification for yourself.

"....you are claiming to be an authority in many fields."

Precisely how have I argued that I possess granted authority that is the equivalent of compelling scientific evidence?

"You routinely dismiss scientific evidence that is accumulated by experts,...."

And you never do, is that right? Besides, my experts can beat the crap out of your experts.

"....and expect everyone to believe you over them...."

That would be a rather pointless expectation, don't you think? How can an anonymous voice on the internet expect to compel anyone to believe something without their willing consent? Though not wanting to be told what they should think, most people still are generally appreciative of engaging discourse that stimultes, and somethimes modifies, their own free thinking. And that's a big part of why arguments from authority are destined to fail.

"You constantly question other people's credentials."

Only those people whom I feel compelled to question for the probative value. Not everyone's credentials are necessarily relevent to a science-related discussion/debate.

"....you regard yourself as the arbiter of last resort, which is assuming authority."

Only for myself, as a free thinker. I decide whom and what is most relevent to me. What others decide is not up to me, though I may indirectly play a part in their decision-making. That is not command-type authority to which you choose to allude.

"....you have to realize that by choosing to use a label that doesn't represent you legally,...."

Baloney. Since when did you offer up your driver license, passport, birth certificate, retinal scan and whatever that conclusively proves to us that you are someone actually named John MacNeil? The fact that no one can be certain you aren't just calling yourself John MacNeil makes your next quoted point rather pointless:

>>>>>>> "to use a label that doesn't represent you legally, your view will always be regarded somewhat less than the view of someone who portrays his or herself for who they really are." :rolleyes:

It's not about what's in a name, it's about what's in a brain.

"....claiming to be a teacher is attempting to put yourself in the favorable guise of an authority figure...."

How many students think favorably of their teachers? It's a pretty problematic authority high to hope for. Besides, claiming to be a teacher doesn't require anyone to believe the claim, which is a point differing only in form that I've made many times before during our protracted conversation herein: just because you make a claim does not obligate anyone to accept it as being true or certain.

"....it is obvious that JamesR doesn't understand physics..."

What is even more obvious is that James R. understands physics far, far better than do you. You're claim can only be correct if you were to phrase it as James R. doesn't understand your personal interpretations of modern physics. You're free to have them, of course--as free as are we to reject them on their merits.

"....you guys make such claims on the internet while displaying minimal knowledge of the subject matter...."

Ah. There's that "arbitor of last resort" "ego-stroking" you were talking about.

"It is also reason enough for us to question your identity if you question the credentials of certified professionals.

So, I'd better not question authority if I know what's good for me, eh? :rolleyes: Had a pretty tough childhood, did you? We should only question the credentials of our "certified professionals" but not yours?

"....if you wish to keep your identity secret, then you must realize that there are credibility restrictions that go with that posture.

You're quite free to choose any criteria for restricting my "credibility". Why not add to your list of credibility restrictions that I'm not even male? Oh, wait. You already incorporate that into your credibilty restrictions. And that's just another reason why you're John MacNeil and I'm not.

John,

You quoted a statement I made in the context of general relativity. The fact that you claim it is wrong shows that you know about as much about that subject as you do about the big bang theory.

I do not need to question your credentials. Your posts speak eloquently for themselves.

James, you may have read some books and assimilated disparate parts of them, but you definately do not have a conceptual understanding of physics. In the Physics & Math section you have displayed that lack of understanding repeatedly in Frencheneesz's thread. On numerous occasion Frencheneesz asked you for a clarification of what you said and your reply was that you couldn't supply an understandable answer in the space of a whole thread, and that you would have to write a book to explain it (as if!), and that Frencheneesz should read a bunch of book to get the answer to the single question. The only reason that you wouldn't be able to supply a readily understandable, and concise, explanation of what you said, is if you didn't know what you were talking about. Which clearly is the case, as is indicated by all your posts in Frencheneesz's physics thread.

Mr.G., as usual, your childish post is all obfuscation. You are the one who hosted this thread. That obligates you to at least address the evidence that you called for. If you dismiss all evidence presented, without giving valid renunciations, then that is assuming authority over the work of professionals.

The only way that you can have credibility is if you address the evidence that was presented, in the order that it was presented.

John challenges:

The only reason that you wouldn't be able to supply a readily understandable, and concise, explanation of what you said, is if you didn't know what you were talking about.

If you believe JamesR doesn't know what he's talking about, that would lead me to conclude you know the answers. Why then, don't you join in the thread and dispute, point for point, JamesR alleged errors. You claim to have read Einstein's theories, so there should be no reason why you can't also explain to Frenchy, General Relativity.

*Q waits patiently for John's next lame excuse*

Q, if you would just read this thread from the beginning, you will notice I have been trying from the first page to get you guys to engage in an actual discussion, but that, apparently, is about as easy as rounding up the mice plague in Australia with a coffee can.

John

Q, if you would just read this thread from the beginning, you will notice I have been trying from the first page to get you guys to engage in an actual discussion

I've read every word of this thread and would gladly engage in discussion. But first, please visit the following thread and point out JamesR errors and also explain to Frencheneez, relativity. Thanks in advance.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=10436

"Mr.G.,....your childish...."

Ah. One of your promised 'credibility restrictions'. Might I suggest for your future use: 'infantile', adolescent', 'pre-pubescent', 'juvenile', 'immature' and 'puerile'. :)

"....at least address the evidence...."

Okay: "Hello, Mister Alien. Nice to meet you. How's Epsilon Eridani this time of year?"

"....without giving valid renunciations,...."

That presumes valid enunciations have been offered for renuncing.

"....that is assuming authority over the work of professionals."

Baloney. You're saying that proffessional wrestling can't be dismissed by anyone as being staged theater until they themselves become proffessional wrestlers.

"The only way that you can have credibility is if you address the evidence that was presented, in the order that it was presented."

You mean, again?

John,

There's no need for me to reply to your comments, since what I would say has already been said.

You are hereby invited to critique my answers in the other thread. I await your erudite comments with baited breath.

Earth to John. Earth to John. Come in, John.

John

The arena awaits your presence... we have a nice table for one ringside....are you perhaps taking a crash course in Relativity ?

The fact of the matter is, Mr.G., that you are claiming to be an authority. Not only are you claiming to be an authority, but you are claiming to be an authority in many fields. You routinely dismiss scientific evidence that is accumulated by experts, without showing cause, and expect everyone to believe you over them. You constantly question other people's credentials. That means that you regard yourself as the arbiter of last resort, which is assuming authority.

A few weeks ago back when I was wasting time with this thread Mr. McNeil called my credentials into question, to wit:


Your view of the early universe is confusing and it is obvious that astrophysics is not your specialty.

I was not even trying to argue the validity of the Big Bang ("Ultimate Creation Theory"-these are derisive quotation marks of only the finest imported derision) but trying to state what I thought was meant by the theory and that your statement that all matter springing from infinetesimal geometry might as well been pure creationism was logically in error, you chose instead for an ad hominem comment rather than continue the argument. In a purely logical argument people don't call other people's credentials into question, but only using the strength or validity of the argument itself. It doesn't surprise me that this thread has devolved into a mudfight over credentials, with John MacNeil leading the fray.

About the time I started reading your crap about photons pushing each other out of the way was when I realized any discussion of physics with you was wasted time. Kind of like this and any further post here, or the endless exercise of pointing out your fallacies.

Le Coq

I can't help it... I just got ta

Mr. McNeil's derision thus:


"The Earth's surface is not an inertial frame because it accelerates upward."--JamesR
(McNeil: )
it is obvious that JamesR doesn't understand physics, even though he, coincidentally, just yesterday claimed he is a teacher of physics.


John, if you understood Einstein as well as you aggrandize him, then you would understand the principle of equivalence that he described for his general theory of relativity, in which he stated that acceleration due to gravity or acceleration due to a reference frame itself accelerating are indistinguishable. The earth accelerates upwards toward a body, just as you accelerate towards the earth (in line with Newton's 3rd Law).

Le Coq, Esq.
Non-PhD-havin' mofo

You children have expressed no knowledge of any subject that is under discussion in this thread. If you think that your immature critique passes for discussion, then the only ones you are fooling is yourselves.

John

I take it then, you won't be visiting that other thread and challenging JamesR's so-called errors on relativity? I suspected as much.

You've yet to formulate a coherent statement which holds an iota of reason or rationale. Your extraordinary claims are equaled only by your overwhelmingly inadequate understanding of the very basics of which you dispute. If you feel comments towards you are childish and immature, it is only because that is the magnitude of intellect you've shown to tender. Surely you must know if you enter the realm of a science forum only to make outlandish claims without providing any reasonable evidence, you're bound to meet severe criticism. I cannot believe you've visited other science forums and were met with open-armed agreement all the while spewing forth the same nonsense you've entertained here.

Am I sounding too harsh ?

If you're serious about what you believe, my comments should only serve to further entrench your views, as they would any crackpot, kook or loon. If it is a game you play, rest assured I am also having a good chuckle. ;)

Le Coq:

The thread has predictably evolved as others of a philosophic nature. Where uncontestable evidence does not exist to speak for itself, people argue over translations and interpretations of facsimile evidence. Inevitably, such conversations touch upon who is better at translating and interpretation because the facsimile evidence itself isn't authoritative.

And adding to your own comments about credentials and credibilities as components of the discussion: ted_roe began his postings here by introducing himself as "Executive Director" and stating that his "Organization" and its familiars advocate interchanging the acronyms UFO and UAP because to use UFO diminishes their "credibility". He also stated that his partner, "Dr." Haines, is an ex-"NASA" employee. By interjecting into the conversation the notion that credentials and credibility have utilitarian roles in conversational treatment of the subjects at hand, ted_roe also opened the door to our attempts to verify his 'credentials', his organization's credibility, and the extent of that utility. Once we posed our initial questions, ted_roe disappeared. Since then, John MacNeil has admonsished us for having brought credentials and credibility into the discussion. Frankly, I don't think issues of credentials and credibility should be forbidden topics or debate tools. I don't mind John MacNeil questioning me about mine. It hasn't driven me out of the thread like he might have believed was the case with ted_roe.

So, I ask myself why I think ted_roe felt compelled to leave the conversation when he did, just as we brought our skepticisms to bear. I guess we made him uncomfortable, not like all the friendly folks at all those UFO conferences he and his partner attend.

Or maybe it's just that we have bad breath.

;)

John MacNeil:

You children...immature...fooling...yourselves.
You have an obvious disdain for children. I hope you don't live near an elementary school.

As usual, Mr.G., you pretend to miss the point. You started this thread by compiling a list of another person's quotes with the intention of isolating and decimating that person with your rapier wit and superior belief system. When I posted in this thread and questioned your belief system as well as the other belief system, you were obviously at a loss, at first, on how to categorize me. You eventually revealed your belief that I was another creationist using a different tact to attack your own position. That, of course, was not the case. I know, and now everybody else who reads this thread knows, that my position is that your Ultimate Creation Theory is nothing more than the next generation creation belief system. Since I believe in the physics that describes the universe, as exemplified by the Unified Field Theory, all of the evidence I presented for discussion is based on physical evidence. All of which, as everyone observed, you religiously refrained from discussing, as if to infer that it was not worthy of discussion by it's very nature of being contrary to your religion based belief system.

As for your credentials, which you talk about but fail to supply, it is immaterial to me if you hide behind a monicker. You religionists can pretend to believe in science all you want, but if you can't defend your creationist view in the course of the discussion, or scientifically refute the evidence I have presented in the course of the discussion, or partake in the discussion in any manner other than the obfuscation and criticism that you have displayed throughout, then your active participation in the discussion is immature, regardless of how you view your performance.

I know, and now everybody else who reads this thread knows... All of which, as everyone observed...

Uh, John... Not one single person has supported anything you've ever said here, so far. In fact, various members have taken the time to show non-support of your extraordinary claims. In other words, you've been entirely on your own.

*John romanticizes - "It's lonely at the top."*

John MacNeil:

This thread was begun for the specific purpose of further investigating Warren's claim in another thread of non-supernatural intelligent design of the universe. I created this thread to distance the discussion from supernatural design irrationalities. Thereafter, Warren never offered to suggest nor explain, in any terms--particularly rational terms--any possible agents of non-supernatural intelligent design of the universe. In fact, no one has. The thread's purpose therefore is fulfilled: not only is no one aware of any evidence to support non-supernatural intelligent design of the universe, no one even knows how to characterize possible agents behind NSID.

Then you spoke up with your more limited-in-scope alien intervention/alien ark hypothesis (for which you have absolutely no incontrovertible evidence that aliens brought humans to this planet, nor even that aliens actually exist) and used it to announce the death of Darwinian Evolution Theory that most everyone else in Science considers being alive and doing quite well, based on actual evidence. Then you added your hypothesis that Halton Arp & his anamolous redshifts has killed the Standard Cosmological Model Theory that most everyone else in Science considers alive and doing quite well, based on actual evidence. Then you moved on to the SMC is just another religion operating in support of just another self-serving creation myth even though it is derived from the very same physics and mathematics in which you claim to believe. And then you claim that only Einstein is capable of determining the truth of the origin and workings of the universe because nobody else has finished Einstein's earlier version of the currently non-existant unified field theory which modern Science is working toward under the such names as the Grand Unified Theory with more physics, math and resources than was available to Einstein.

Invisible, non-existant, or impossibly isolated aliens haven't killed Evolution. Arp hasn't killed the Big Bang. Science is not a religion, scientists aren't automatically "supernatural creation"-ists, and the SMC is not another super-natural creation myth. Einstein, though inarguably a great thinker, isn't the only great thinker the planet has known or will know. Einstein's unified field theory is incomplete and thus not field-unified except in theory.

And everyone but you is an immature, foolish child for not seeing things your way. :rolleyes:

This thread continues to have utilitarian purpose, though the original purpose so far has been satisfied. Thus your opining that this thread is due an overdue, merciful death are premature but characteristic.

I think it's pretty funny how you guys (John and Mr. G) fluff your intellectual feathers and try to outdo each other with increasingly terse sentence structures. Mr. G, you're a smart guy, why waste your time? John, why aren't you out scanning the skies for flying saucers with your whiz-bang buddies?

- Warren

....why waste your time?
To get the thread to 2000 views. ;)
To find John's embarassment threshold.
Argument's sake.
Writing practice.
Beats housework.

:)

Mr.G., you know very well that all of science doesn't agree with your creationist view, as I've presented many example of scientists, including Nobel Laureates, who think that the Ultimate Creation Theory is so much hogwash. If you persist in denying reality, you should at least be gracious enough to refer to the proponents of your view as the supporters of "corporate/science", a group with a particular interest in "going along to get along".

And why do you think the person who you set this thread up to ambush hasn't stepped into the ambush? If it wasn't an ambush, then why didn't you offer your own lucid commentary to present your view?

And why are you so afraid of discussing the evidence that I have presented, which you so plaintively called for? And why won't you defend the theories you profess to believe and which I have given evidence against? There can only be one reason. You can't, and you know it. You can wail on and on about how the thread has fulfilled it's purpose, for you, but you can't hide the fact that you haven't presented one post in the whole thread that defended your creationist view or which scientifically refuted the evidence that I have presented. So what are your posts about? Obviously, ...obfuscation. And why? Equally obviously ...you can't engage in the discussion because you know your stated position is not defensible. Otherwise, you would be jumping into the debate to prove me wrong and prove you right.

The Grand Unified Theory that you say physicists are working on can be discussed later in this thread, as well, and it can be shown to be so much heretical nonsense, as is your Ultimate Creation Theory. Where we differ in our outlook is that I have a definitive understanding of my view and you can only have a foggy understanding of your stated view. My view is all based on physics and your view is based on a creationist concept which the proponents of try to use some theoretical physics to justify some aspects of, with the caveat emptor that your theory is malleable. The Unified Field Theory that Einstein proposed is based on his famous theories, and your creationist view is based on wishy-washy fantasy.

John exclaims:

My view is all based on physics

There are high school students on this forum with a better understanding of physics than yourself. You've made that quite evident time and again. But of course, you can redeem yourself by simply visiting the following thread and engaging JamesR's so-called relativity errors. Please RSVP, ASAP. Don't delay. :)

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=10436

John MacNeil:

....your creationist view....
I'm an atheist. I have no creationist's views.

....the Ultimate Creation Theory is so much hogwash....
Why is it you folks always give to theories you find disagreable decidedly derisive alternative names, and then give to your own pet theories decidedly impressive, scientific-sounding names? What's that all about?

If you persist in denying reality....
I'm just denying your reality, not mine nor the reality of others with whom I agree--same as you.

....why are you so afraid of discussing the evidence that I have presented....
You're having trouble getting people to discuss your evidence, and we're having trouble getting from you evidence that speaks to us on its own. All we're hearing is you. The evidence's deafening silence makes refutation unnecessarily redundant.

I have a definitive understanding of my view....
Of course. :rolleyes:

So, much can be said about intelligent design, but none of it is informatively conclusive.

Which leaves us free to speculate about equally--even more--likely alternatives.

I'd dare say unintelligence rules, but then we'd have to entertain unconvincing intelligent design issues all over again. The Universe being unable to reason is quite different from reasoning gone amiss.

--Signing off.

You were signed off from the first page of this thread, Mr.G. If you refuse to entertain the evidence, while dercying the lack of evidence, then the question must be asked, What are you doing in a science based thread? The kind of responses that you and some others have supplied in this thread were decidedly non-discussable and would be more appropriate for a Chat! room than a discussion forum.

John

The kind of responses that you and some others have supplied in this thread were decidedly non-discussable...

That is because the kind of responses you yourself have supplied in this thread, and others, were decidedly non-sense...

...and would be more appropriate for a Chat! room than a discussion forum.

...and would be more appropriate in Pseudoscience.