Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Hazzard

Best evidence for ET visitation - 4th edition

375 posts in this topic

Now Im confused ? Is being Left handed going to help me meet E.T faster of get Eatten quicker?

Now I shall run to my bunker and re-program my Left-handedness ! Off to the Mind melt room !

Some times known as the Lue , Can, Water closet,$hitter ! Well I`ll contact you all in a few days ! :clap:

Now I`ll be Ampredextrious !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried reading that, but I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what it's actually saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where you refering to me there Psyche about asking if you guys came to an agreement on that case?

Gidday Mate'

Yes I was. I was under the impression that Q was getting a hard time for speaking about Pascagoula, and I just wanted to point out that he did not even bring it up, in fact he even suggested people head over to the other thread. Nothing malicious I assure you, just that I well respect Quillius' input, and would like to stand for him having a fair go where I can.

And suffice to say, not that there was anything wrong with the question you had asked either in fact, that is indeed the very point of this thread as I understand it and it was a fair question. Sorry for any confusion. And sorry for the late reply, work has been keeping me over the top busy of late.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

:o

Psyche,...?

:D

lionelhutzalien.jpg

LOL, peer reviewed? An abuse of the term. Every so-called peer-reviewed article has been published in their own “peer reviewed” journal (BIO-Complexity), based on “research” from their own creation science lab (Biologic Institute), and then promoted by their own “peer reviewed” vanity press operation (Discovery Institute Press).

From the provided extract:

Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal.

Information signal? But where is this message? It seems they did not actually find one to support the claim. What they did find was some organisation, like we see in the periodic table of elements, which I do feel is hardly proof of intelligent design. It's just creationist claptrap peer reviewed by creationists. You have to pay to read the entire thing, so I'll only bother with the extract for the moment. If anyone wants to pay for this (Zoser? Nah, that would be reading, something akin to learning) I do not mind having a red hot crack at tearing holes right through the entire article when time permits.

I have linked the above places (I'll refrain from using an adjective associated with learning for the moment) that "peer reviewed" this article, I suggest everyone has a click and a read. It's Zoser level garbology mate. All anti Darwin and Deity driven nonsense.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried reading that, but I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what it's actually saying.

I am not entirely sure that the authors and reviewers are entirely sure what they are actually saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be my opinion as well,... thanks buddie. :lol: If the WOW signal contained something like that one would think we would have heard about it. Considering the many times we have been over it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be my opinion as well,... thanks buddie. :lol: If the WOW signal contained something like that one would think we would have heard about it. Considering the many times we have been over it.

My pleasure mate :D

Even worse is their home brand creationist peer review process, and trying to pass it off as legit. ;) Sneaky buggers think they wil get the science zealots that they think exist because religious zealots exist, hopefully they are beginning to relise religion is dogma, science is not. The Homo Florensis debate proves that one just cannot make a claim where science is concerned, you have to prove you claim, even if your claim is "hitting an egg against a fry pan will break it". Words will not do, only empirical evidence will. That is the barrier creationists will never surpass because their source is but a story in a book.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good, this has turned into another dawkins lovefest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oh good, this has turned into another dawkins lovefest.

Would you rather hear what guys that believes the world is less than 10,000 years old has to say about it?

Part from the comedy aspect of it all I mean.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, peer reviewed? An abuse of the term. Every so-called peer-reviewed article has been published in their own “peer reviewed” journal (BIO-Complexity), based on “research” from their own creation science lab (Biologic Institute), and then promoted by their own “peer reviewed” vanity press operation (Discovery Institute Press).

hiya matey... i do not doubt for a moment that garbage does indeed pass peer review at times depending on the circumstances... anyhow, i hadn't researched that link when i posted it here and seeing your comment, kinda got me curious... here's the full paper (author's version) http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.6739.pdf it's basically from kazakhstan, it was published in icarus... hmmm... where did you come across that info? appreciated mate :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part from the comedy aspect of it all I mean.

Are there other sides to this idiotic idea as well??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@psyche.. i googled about that article and 'bio-complexity' and came across this... http://sensuouscurmu...gns-wow-signal/ which i believe is the source of the info which you mentioned... but that write-up is regarding the following article... http://www.evolution...l_of069941.html so, just to clarify i don't think that the actual authors of the published work from kazakhstan have any affiliation to the discovery institute... anyway, i would like to see what other scientists have got to say on all this.... here is an interesting comment about the non-randomness... http://www.reddit.co...l_genetic_code/ but would the reviewers from icarus miss that? idk... cheers

Edited by mcrom901

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there other sides to this idiotic idea as well??

Well, there can also be a dangerous side to it. If we were to teach this kind of nonsense to our kids, we might as well teach them astrology, numerology and alchemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO I guess a Frying pan full of Pan-spermia taught in our schools will be out of the question? Its sad we only Look for the Answers that are controled by the Greed machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, there can also be a dangerous side to it. If we were to teach this kind of nonsense to our kids, we might as well teach them astrology, numerology and alchemy.

i don't know, don't forget that there was a very fine line between "legitimate" science and all those things that Rational people now consign to the category of "bunkum". How fine a line there was between alchemists & numerololoogists and "legitimate" scientists in people like Paracelsus, John Dee, Francis Bacon and so on.Not to mention the Islamic alcehmists during the "dark Ages" who more or less kept learning & science going after the Roman empire collapsed. There was essentially no distinction drawn between Astrology and Astronomy until the Enlighthenment. I wonder how many great scientific discoveries would never have been made, or never have been taken seriously, if there'd always been these rigid division between Cranks & Loons and Legitimate Science.

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the line must be drawn somewhere...... Creationism is absolutely on the other side of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the line must be drawn somewhere...... Creationism is absolutely on the other side of it.

THe Sooner we rid this world of Creationism the quicker we can evolve into beings of logic,and caring ,Peaceful evolution is even possible Albeit a very unlikely as shown by us so far ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had personal encounters with aliens and have witnessed some of their work. To me, questioning their existence is just ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had personal encounters with aliens and have witnessed some of their work. To me, questioning their existence is just ridiculous.

And for anyone who has not shared that experience to take your word for it is equally ridiculous.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had personal encounters with aliens and have witnessed some of their work. To me, questioning their existence is just ridiculous.

Personal encounters in what way? And you didnt think to take a camera? Or gather any 'trinket' of evidence whatsoever? And what work have you witnessed them doing? ... Its normal for you is it, to meet aliens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had personal encounters with aliens and have witnessed some of their work. To me, questioning their existence is just ridiculous.

This is interesting,... please tell me all about it. What "work",... where was this, when was this, did anyone else see them, etc,...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had personal encounters with aliens and have witnessed some of their work. To me, questioning their existence is just ridiculous.

Where these actual aliens that you witnessed, or were they in fact the demons that you posted about elsewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.