See how far the rabbit hole goes.
See how far the rabbit hole goes.
What a tenuous point you are striving to make.
their is a lot of room between modern scientific methods, and the view of the creationists(hacks lol)
science trys to label everything, andthat which it cannot fathom, is ignored, or given a lame excuse.
See that's not really true unless you think the answer "we don't currently know what the answer to this question is" is a way of ignoring "that which it cannot fathom", or is a lame excuse.
Science is a continual process that seeks to answer all questions within it's own methodology.
no i disagree,. their are things science could have found out if it wanted, (or released into the public domain) DNA / RNA western views v's russian views on dna/rna and they use's, instead of the 'we know almost 100% of human genomes' what they dont say is they know 5% of the total, as 95% they label as junk dna. those who have researched 'junk' dna has said its. anything BUT junk.
but yet mainstream ignores it. doesnt even want to look into it,
the same goes for the ancient astronaught theory, the evidence if their in droves,. but the time and effort will not be put into it, as it contradicts the modern 'way'
and it will bring to question everything that we hold so dear ( isnt that what science is supposed to do?) even mainstream science says, they had ancient observatorys,. that some of the ancient citys found, pre date the last ice age ( citys of the coast of india, in the mediterranian/ off the west indies)
why does science totally ignore this? and leave it too those, who get no funding or resources?? do they not think, learning how they built those citys with their 'supposed technology' and knowing how the solar system worked, when we have only found out more recently?? (last 200 years)
the knowledge is their. but 'science' ignores it
on lets say.. weather anomolies.. i check woweather every day. i check the noah weather satelites daily aswell.. you can tell by watching the infrared sat's when haarp, or a scalar type instrument is being used ( circles appear from nowhere, usually over lapping ones) when ever these circles appear, between 2-4 days after that place gets hit by a minor earthquake or, has really weird weather..
i been checking this for 2 months.. lol.
why hasnt a meteroligist caught on? ( ok i lie.. 2 have caught on now ) and have linked a guy(dutchsinse) who shows how to spot these anomalies..
mainstream media/science.. have just ignore these coincidences,. let alone try to see if their is a pattern,.
in science you can basically research, what ever you are funded for, the institutes provide this., and they tell you weather you can continue your research, or just shelf it..
almost all independant nuclear researchers knew that fukushima was gonna go meltdown..theirs been 13 neutron beams,. which only occur during meltdown.. the so called scientists and experts on the mainstream media keep saying. low level.. .. 1st words they always say are low level..
but if anyone was to research themselves.. and see what low level means,, and
what the actual readings/levels are ( woweather.com ) you will see that the news / media is saying. is not low levels at all,. if you want i can link reports by nuclear industry conglomerats who state this is the worst even in modern human history, and the fall out has already made the world back ground radiation higher..
but yet.. the 1st words from every report is. low levels LOL
you dont need science to tell you this.
just common sence and research.
sorry bit of a rant.. lol.. i hope you can see the points im trying to make
@ Soul Controller.
I'll preface this by saying I'd prefer not to get into a circular arguement that achieves nothing for either party. However, I think there are a few points I should get across to you.
I think you are viewing science in an 'us vs. them' mentality. The science you see portrayed in the mainstream media and alternatively, on 'independant' blogs is not representative of current scientific research.
There are two reasons for this.
For one, the majority of published scientific work can only be read in scientific journals, for which you must pay a subscription. This limits the access the general public has to such information and in my view, is terribly unfortunate. It is perhaps necessary given how poorly funded scientific research often is, combined with the need for academic peer review.
Additionally, science cannot really be discussed in such general terms, as you have just done. It is divided up into so many different disciplines that it is shortsighted to do so. You cannot really view the research of a marine community ecologist and a quantum physicist through the same lens. It would be illogical.
It appears to me, this is exactly what you're doing.
You seem to imply that science has some sort of unrelenting will to do things when its many internal disciplines are in opposition by their very nature. It would certainly be unwise to say that science 'ignores' when internally, it is always in a constant state of turmoil, as different disciplines assess the same problems with differing results, therefore contributing to the overall understanding of these problems.
Trying to imply science has its own will with statements like: "their are things science could have found out if it wanted", "but yet mainstream ignores it. doesn't even want to look into it", "why does science totally ignore this?", is misguided, palin and simple.
That's not even considering integrated scientific research, which seeks to perform research through the integration of several different disciplines, from classical sciences to philosophy and social science.
I think you're simplying science to a degree where your interpretation is far removed from the actual practice.
in science you can basically research, what ever you are funded for, the institutes provide this., and they tell you weather you can continue your research, or just shelf it
This was the only part of what you wrote that annoyed me. It's blatantly false.
Tertiary institutes do not shelve scientific research or allow you to continue it per se, it is peer reviewed by other scientists (outside that institution) but this doesn't prevent a scientist from continuing their research (as long as it is scientific).
What curtails scientific endeavour is this: The majority of scientists are poorly paid, work doggedly for a cause they believe in with no reward (financial or otherwise), and do this with great difficulty in the face of government bereaucracy and minimal funding.
I have recently spent 6 months volunteering with a non-profit scientific foundation on the Galapagos Islands. My department alone received a yearly allowance of $30,000 to conduct all its research. That is a fucking pittance. We had one of the world's best Aquatic Tropical Ecologists running a department on a stupidly low salary, making the most of a bad situation. Do you think he, and others working in the department, were doing this for personal gain?
This guy is the supervisor of one of my friends and works at my university.
Do any of your sweeping generalisations apply to this man?
The two scientists who are likely to be supervising my own thesis have, over the last 20 years, undertaken their own study of rocky intertidal communities on a coastal island near our coastline. They have done this in their own time with their own money purely because they are fascinated with what they research and want to further the understanding of intertidal invertebrate assemblages.
Do not think these are exceptions to the rule.
I see the points you are trying to make but I see this as more of an indictment of the mainstream media than the scientific community.
i think that those who don't believe in the divine source are just unable to experience the divine in their daily life (3rd dimension) or even when searching for it (higher vibration). it might be that their equipment is either damaged or never worked from day one.
diet? genetics? psychosomatic? conditioning? a combination?... who knows... but obviously there is a fundamental difference between a believer and an atheist.
^because its an easy way to defend there faith from there perspective. but in reality it creates the never ending cycle of this argument. personally, if one holds faith in something undefinable then it is acting as an escape mechinism, essentially hope for a continuation or betterment.
Rich People sitting in Jacuzzis counting their bank.
Do the math Robert.