oly Posted February 26, 2012 #51 Share Posted February 26, 2012 You may wish to seriously consider upgrading the level of your research/documentation. To address just a few of the "examples" presented in your "references": http://paleo.cc/palu...osaur-claim.htm http://www.ramtops.co.uk/coso.html http://www.ooparts.u...orp-spheres.htm http://www.badarchae...om/?page_id=334 http://pseudoarchaeo...g/b03-ross.html Have you found supplied references to genetic/mutation suppression to be of interest? Edit: Aquatus - Chuckle. Was writing as you were submitting. yes, thanks for links about suppressed mutations, some not exactly in laymans terms. The links about the ooparts didn't really do much. Someone saying "they're fake" isn't debunking. Seems like evidence that is inconvenient to mainstream science is dismissed. The motives are clear, it's just a shame that the mainstream aren't more forward thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted February 26, 2012 #52 Share Posted February 26, 2012 The links about the ooparts didn't really do much. Someone saying "they're fake" isn't debunking. Perhaps the problem is not in the explanation, but in the listener. Seems like evidence that is inconvenient to mainstream science is dismissed. Not at all. It is simply explained. Not understanding the explanation is not the fault of the people explaining. The motives are clear, Yes, the fight against the perpetuation of deception. it's just a shame that the mainstream aren't more forward thinking. You've got your directions reversed. Pretending we still live in the past isn't forward thinking, whether it relies on quoting a 150 year old study and thinking it is still relevant, or ignoring all the "no" arguments in favor of the pitifully few "yes" arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oly Posted February 26, 2012 #53 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Yes, the fight against the perpetuation of deception. Interesting, despite how scientifically advanced we are, we are still governed by politics, which manipulates whatever it can, including science. One could argue we are governed by rational intelligent beings, but I'd disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted February 26, 2012 #54 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Interesting, despite how scientifically advanced we are, we are still governed by politics, which manipulates whatever it can, including science. Which is why it is so important for people to understand how to properly apply skepticism, so that they can determine the probability of any given claim (scientific or political) in terms of credibility and validity. One could argue we are governed by rational intelligent beings, but I'd disagree. I wouldn't. After all, the easiest course for a rational, intelligent being is to manipulate people by appealing to their most influential triggers. For the vast majority of people (including skeptics), those are emotional appeals (which, for whatever reason, tend to be faith-based). If a person is well-versed in the mental kung-fu known as skepticism, they are much better equipped to point out when the subject under discussion is not actually the purpose of the discussion. For instance, not a single exchange on this page actually references the OP. If you wish to make another post, Oly, please do so regarding the thread topic. **Everyone, myself included, Back on topic.** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurthurBB Posted February 26, 2012 #55 Share Posted February 26, 2012 There seem to be a number of anomalies with the timescale, which the whole theory hangs on. Old carving of a stegasaurus: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm A few other anomalies: http://clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2007/2/8/82470.html The theory does not depend on a timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FurthurBB Posted February 26, 2012 #56 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) yes, thanks for links about suppressed mutations, some not exactly in laymans terms. The links about the ooparts didn't really do much. Someone saying "they're fake" isn't debunking. Seems like evidence that is inconvenient to mainstream science is dismissed. The motives are clear, it's just a shame that the mainstream aren't more forward thinking. Oh, yes, it is a shame that rigorous standards are in place and there must be evidence to back things up. How much better we would all be if we just imagined what we want to be true and then shopped for evidence to support it. Edited February 26, 2012 by FurthurBB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now