Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. (First off, I would use a more vague term like 'most' or 'the majority' rather then give a number without what Xeno said, giving a citation, but whatever) There is indeed a science delusion. The delusion isn't in anyway a problem with the scientific process itself, merely a delusion on the part of the practitioners of it (the mainstream scientific establishment), and those who defend them. A good article that truly lays this problem out says the following: Science is merely a tool. It is a method of collecting data, and the data (as well as simple observations) are the only 'facts' in science. Everything else it up to the human thoughts, beliefs, interpretations, acts, etc. of fallible human beings. Yet many actively believe and defend the conclusions of these fallible human beings as if their conclusions are infallible and authoritative - no different then any other religion. A great book on this topic (with the same title as the thread) is by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake. Here's his brilliant TED talk (that was conveniently banned since it challenged the status quo of course) by him if you care to watch:
  3. always sad that anyone dies near xmas...especially when it wasnt their time... the poor families left behind
  4. Well, for some reason some people think they were immortal. That was the trick of the serpent, that he played with the literality of God's warning. The whole reason God gives for kicking them out, is that they might eat from the tree of life next, which gives eternal life, and be equal to the gods. Because, when they were made, it says, "Now let us make man in our image." Signifying the plural, and it never says who the 'our' exactly is. So, there's a lot of things going on it doesn't tell us. Probably God would have anticipated the fall of Eden, but let his angels orchestrate everything for him. So, it seems to be some sort of life lesson about losing, and life goes on, but it's not the same anymore. Whether it was God directly doing it, or his children doing his work. There's a snake in every Eden. The serpent says things like, "Ye shall be as the gods if you eat the fruit," and, "You surely won't die." But, anyway, they couldn't stay naked anymore after they ate it, as if something inside them died when they woke up. Jesus says in the Gospel too, "Be wise as a serpent and harmless as doves, because I send you out like sheep among wolves." This also grants some forgiveness to the snake, and how it uses its cunning.
  5. Okay. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to walk us through the restrictions that Net Neutrality legislation has put in place, that you believe is stopping new ISP's jumping into the market, right now.
  6. Actually by legal definition he may have just commited treason " 18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason US Code Notes prev | next Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)"
  7. what militia? i'm not aware of any in the city of Chicago, if anything, i do not see why militias in Illinois would even care. chitown is a gang infested liberal failure always has been. ., not militias concern. gangs however, which Chicago has in abundance, would sure mind it,
  8. Scrunchkruckets

    They were all sick that day

    womens health.png

  9. The name does not change the fact that it was inviting a foreign military onto US soil.
  10. As Kalgoorlie man Brad Nicklin sat on his front porch easing his hangover with a cup of coffee one Sunday morning, he noticed a patch of grass missing from his usually immaculate lawn. Confused, he walked over for a closer look. "I noticed it was done with a shovel, not an animal, so I went through the [home security] cameras," he said.
  11. I think if militias see peace keepers as an act of war, the problem is with the militias (between their ears to be precise).
  12. Second most corrupt. You should see Camden, New Jersey.....
  13. Okay. Caught up again. From the revised article: Kelly told the analysts that “certain words” in the CDC’s budget drafts were being sent back to the agency for correction. Three words that had been flagged in these drafts were “vulnerable,” “entitlement” and “diversity.” Kelly told the group the ban on the other words had been conveyed verbally. That's new (to me) & definitely changes things. One of them is definitely lying. Will be interesting to see if a copy of the returned budget draft with flagged words makes it's way out of the building, at some stage. If not -- then I guess we'll see where the truth is when the CDC's budget draft is finalised.
  14. The article was not clear to me but I think that the idea is to make a probe that travels to a distant star system and not send people. The famous equation F=ma can be written as a=F/m. By making m smaller, the acceleration is larger. The use of lasers to push a light sail means that no propulsion system needs to be sent with the probe into space. The push comes form the ground. Anyways, that was my take on the article.
  15. Amtrak Cascade Rollout 2017 How ironic! ...and sad...
  16. This sorta goes off topic into whether or not morals exist in the first place, but since this topic loosely relates to it I'll respond anyway... I can agree on the 'absolutist' style approach, but I do think these moral values can be objectively measured. I hear a number of people surprisingly say this sorta thing, that morality is subjective, that it's all a matter of opinion, and this troubles me. Regardless of culture, belief system, or personal opinion, kidnapping and torturing children for fun (for example) is morally wrong because we can objectively measure the amount of pain and suffering that comes as a result of this. Not just to those children, but to society as a whole if such actions were allowed. The harm that this causes to the overall health and well-being of not just those individuals but to the society/culture that allows such acts can be objectively measured and thereby determined as to whether or not such acts should be deemed 'wrong'. Take by analogy the concept of physical health. If you were to ask me to define a 'healthy person', I'd struggle to find an answer, as it can appear to be sorta relative when compared to others. Yet despite this there is a clear distinction between a healthy person and someone who let's say has cancer or some debilitating disease. No doctors go around debating one another as to whether or not physical health even exists, because clearly it does despite of it's somewhat loosely defined nature. In order to further this topic, I think we all need to first and foremost agree that objective moral principles do indeed exist, so that we can therefore extrapolate beyond that into the question of how said principles relate to our intellect (if they in fact even do so at all).
  17. The more I see, the less of reality I believe science really understands at this time. I like science, but do not have the delusion that it is the only way to learn about reality.
  18. Even that is stretching it.
  19. When a long leaf pin needle is spun by a dust devil in sugar sand, it forms a perfect circle. He wasn't looking hard enough.....
  20. A philosopher isn't a scientist by the way and I require citations for this "99%" figure you've given.
  21. All of the things you list only work on a captive subscriber base, like on cable TV. Without the restrictions currently laid on us by net neutrality you will have an expanded list of ISP's to choose from and any that want to keep or increase their subscriber base would never in their right mind do what your fear mongering suggest's. They could also charge you a million dollars and hour to access the internet. Would they? Why not?
  22. not clear yet. could be human error, or could be poor construction, or could be design flaw. this was brand new route. but if in doubt, blame trump
  23. Perhaps they're both telling the truth, and the message Fitzgerald wanted the analysts to hear didn't make it's way down to the briefing intact. I don't believe she gave -- or was present at -- the briefing herself. From the Wapo Article: At the CDC, the meeting about the banned terms was led by Alison Kelly, a career civil servant who is a senior leader in the agency’s Office of Financial Services, according to the CDC analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly. Kelly did not say why the words are being banned, according to the analyst, and told the group that she was merely relaying the information. ETA: Actually -- give me a minute or two to catch up again -- The WaPo article has changed from when it was first issued.
  24. Quick question.
  25. Physicists are puzzled by dark matter. Basically, dark matter interacts with gravity but nothing else. It currently falls into the category of an unexplained phenomenon. Similarly, about a century ago Rutherford discovered the nuclei of atoms are tiny concentrations of positively charged matter. He then discovered nuclei consist of separate positively charged particles, which he called protons. He immediately asked: "Why don't they repel one another?" At that time the only forces known were gravity and electromagnetism, so physicists were puzzled. It wasn't until decades later - with the discovery of neutrons, and then the concept of the strong nuclear force and quarks - that an explanation for why protons stick together was found. This is the process of physics and all science. My issue with man-made climate change science is that there are many unknowns, estimates, tentative equations, approximate models, adjustments, and so on. That in itself is fine. However, it is the surety of the outcome that I find disturbing. Perhaps this is because politicians have so much influence. By their nature politicians have to deal in certainties: "Vote for me and I will create jobs". No one supports the politician who says: "Vote for me and I might create jobs". I feel many climate scientists' voices are being drowned out (or perhaps some are afraid to have their careers ruined by being referred to as climate change deniers?). The politicians can do that because they have positioned themselves between the scientists and the public. Now it may be that climate scientists are entirely correct with their predictions, but I am always suspicious when politicians are involved in anything. Here is an example from the UK. The leadership of the Labor Party have been life-long critics of the EU. Yet their current position is to object to Britain leaving the EU, and are suggesting a second referendum should be held. Why? Because they know young people in general don't want to leave the EU. So Labor hopes to be elected to government by courting the young vote. I don't think you have to be a rocket scientist to work out what happens next. Personally I do not believe politics and science mix. When politicians are forcing the agenda of science, integrity falls by the wayside. This may sound like an exaggeration, but I feel politicians have agreed an almost Faustian pact with regards to man made climate change science. Basically, they will fund climate change science provided they are able to interpret the results as saying: "If we don't stop using fossil fuels the Earth will suffer". I'm waiting for those scientists who say the Earth might suffer to raise their voices. Like I said before, I believe we should cut back and then stop using fossil fuels because they are running out, they are polluting, and they might be responsible for the current global warming.
  1. Load more activity