Jump to content
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. Atheism is incompatible with science

    It wouldn't change their attitude. It wouldn't change a thing.
  3. Atheism is incompatible with science

    Of course, and don't want to understand why they have that predisposition. I'd have said before I became aware, that there probably was a "supreme being" of some kind, but couldn't see much point in speculating, but doubted there was any such thing as an afterlife, I really could not see why. Today I am not in any doubt about the latter, but as to the former, well all bets are off when you see the latter is real.
  4. Atheism is incompatible with science

    Who is they? And how is this relevant to your evidence for god?
  5. Atheism is incompatible with science

    What is Science and how does one apply it. Stick with this. We will help you.
  6. Atheism is incompatible with science

    No. Like Thomas, they want to see the holes and the wound.
  7. Atheism is incompatible with science

    Faith-based, something that can be described but not shared. Hah! You'd teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.
  8. Atheism is incompatible with science

    They want there not to be an afterlife, not to be a God.
  9. Atheism is incompatible with science

    I am perfectly at home with science. Pseudo-science no. There is no science that contradicts an afterlife. Which comes as no surprise to me, knowing what I know.
  10. I was wrong about this, or I was being too picky. Oort noticed that they are moving at about the same speed, contrary to what one might think. It seems to indicate that something else is in play. Sorry about the persnicketyness.
  11. Atheism is incompatible with science

    Of course,Pm me anytime.
  12. Atheism is incompatible with science

    The only evidence is directed, it is not open access, and if that throws you into a spin, too bad.
  13. Atheism is incompatible with science

    Quit using common sense this is your problem. Set it aside and be open to learning. You can get this. What is Science? Is a good inquiry, you want to think critically you start by asking questions. So what is Science?
  14. Atheism is incompatible with science

    No evidence=the emperor has no clothes. So, you admit your arguments are purely faith-based.
  15. Atheism is incompatible with science

    No, I certainly don't peddle religion, I only peddle the simple creed, what you don't know, you don't know, so stop pretending otherwise. Anyone who thinks they can safely assign probabilities in these questions, without evidence, is a lost cause.
  16. Atheism is incompatible with science

    Thanks. I'd like to learn more one day when you have to time. I hold you in high regard so I'd be interested to see what you saw
  17. Atheism is incompatible with science

    What is science ? I have news for you, science really can't help with this, being a case of proving a negative, and all. But common sense tells you that.
  18. Atheism is incompatible with science

    Your thinking is magical, you have not refined it. It is easy to learn to think critically. In fact, Hammer is trying to teach you.
  19. Atheism is incompatible with science

    That, sir, is a statement of faith. deal with it. The conclusions they draw is from the absence of evidence to support you faith-based ones. You really should get over yourself--You're no Billy Graham.
  20. Atheism is incompatible with science

    Or Napoleon. Amirite or what
  21. Atheism is incompatible with science

    Habitat this is science, if you disagree you must provide something else from science to negate this. Hell, I am open to it, too. You don’t offer anything but angry Stewie outbursts.
  22. The part concerning the an inquiry concerning the deaths of astronauts is what I remember.
  23. Atheism is incompatible with science

    I said there is no science to say it doesn't, only a crackpot would make that claim, but I have my own experience to say it does, good enough for me, of course not good enough for anyone else, but to be drawing conclusions in the negative, is just a commentary on the person "bold" enough to do that, and it is a very unflattering commentary at that. If you can't see that, you are lost.
  24. {un}holy haiku - 3rd Edition

    casfs purple Shadows Night outside perfect as cats not afraid of selves
  25. The truth sounds so much better, doesn't it.
  26. One aspect that is never mentioned is the G in the PGF. I believe at the time Bob Gimlin was a known tracker and it is difficult to believe that Roger Patterson, knowing Bob, would think he could fool Bob with fake feet. I can't speak to the casts. But Bob Gimlin would have seen the actual prints after being freshly laid and would have been able to recognize a fake print (and probably a man in a suit) fairly quickly. My understanding is he was not part of nor involved in the inital activity by Patterson and DeAtley of the film, marketing showings and such. Seems he would not have much of a reason to cover a hoax and actually could stand to gain quite a bit financially from a debunker story. Everyone is gone now, wouldn't hurt a thing. So it seems he believes what he saw. Locomotion - It is logical that bipedal species would locomotor (if that's a word) in a similar fashion having evolved to move as efficiently as possible given their specific body types. Just google videos of various quadrupedal African felids striding. So the locomotion should look natural and real/fluid. A suit - who knows, that is why the debate still rages after 52 years. One interesting point brought to my attention was the head turn. The head turn exibits Gorilla type motion because of where the spine would enter the skull. The spine is in this position, forcing the jaw wider and lower, because of the way a gorilla walks and the skull structure with large sagital crest and accompanying muscles. In order for a gorilla to turn its head around as we see in the PGF, at a certain point it contacts the shoulder forcing an upper chest rotation to continue to looking farther around. This can be seen on videos. This argument stated that a fully bi-pedal animal would not have a need for the spine to be in that "gorilla" position but instead should be as in humans who do not need to rotate the upper chest to look that far around. Personally i feel too many assumptions are made here as we have no good data to reference, but i like the argument because it was a sound criticism. Now throw on that monkey suit with some padding for effect, put on some homemade 2x6 feet about half a size bigger than your foot at least and head on out to the woods, start walking like that and turn around like that and then keep walking. See if you trip, fall down or not and how many takes you need to get it right like in the film. Anyone ever tried to turn around while striding like that in snow shoes?
  1. Load more activity