|
|
Post by nicky on Jul 23, 2006 19:26:46 GMT
Which means i am agreeing with Johnny.  You know it makes sense.   |
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jul 23, 2006 19:42:29 GMT
Which means i am agreeing with Johnny. You know it makes sense. Only this once. |
|
|
|
Post by enigmatictraveller on Jul 26, 2006 8:08:41 GMT
Back in dusty and the sometimes dark past people used 'magic' potions and did crazy things with rocks and bits of plants etc some called them magicians others heritics for what they practiced scoffing their claims that they could create gold etc they called themselves alchemists- the first chemists...
Science is full of these kinds of things magic influencing its investigation and research and development alot of things have their origins in superstitious beliefs or in an individuals aim to disprove such a belief... It has been chipping away at areas first thought to be the 'occult' for centuries...and like many say it is not infallible it is also not the be all and end all of the world and to follow its belief to the letter excluding everything else would result in the halting of its progression and evolution....
Some of the most famous and accredited scientists were free thinkers while at the same time dreamers
|
|
|
|
Post by nicky on Jul 26, 2006 9:30:17 GMT
to follow its belief to the letter excluding everything else would result in the halting of its progression and evolution....  |
|
|
|
Post by antmania on Jul 29, 2006 8:29:54 GMT
Science is very valuable but most definately shouldn't be taken as gospel.Science is more theory than fact but it annoys me when Scientists state things as actual fact.
Science will tell us telepathy for example does not exist but how do they know this.Animals and insects seem to have a very keen sense of telepathy as do identical twins.Just because it doesn't make sense scientifically doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Science can only theorise it is not real.
Science tell us how the universe was formed but surely this can only be more theory when science will also tell us that something cannot be created from nothing so what was there before the universe? Nothing? I don't think so!
Also from what I have read, many scientists are in fact very interested in testing paranormal and indeed many privately agree there may be more to life than meets the eye but of course they are scared to come out publicly for fear of ridicule from their peers etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicky on Jul 29, 2006 10:14:16 GMT
Science is very valuable but most definately shouldn't be taken as gospel.Science is more theory than fact but it annoys me when Scientists state things as actual fact. Science will tell us telepathy for example does not exist but how do they know this.Animals and insects seem to have a very keen sense of telepathy as do identical twins.Just because it doesn't make sense scientifically doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Science can only theorise it is not real. Science tell us how the universe was formed but surely this can only be more theory when science will also tell us that something cannot be created from nothing so what was there before the universe? Nothing? I don't think so! Also from what I have read, many scientists are in fact very interested in testing paranormal and indeed many privately agree there may be more to life than meets the eye but of course they are scared to come out publicly for fear of ridicule from their peers etc. |
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jul 29, 2006 10:18:47 GMT
Also from what I have read, many scientists are in fact very interested in testing paranormal and indeed many privately agree there may be more to life than meets the eye but of course they are scared to come out publicly for fear of ridicule from their peers etc. So very true and very sad. |
|
|
|
Post by Little Claire on Aug 5, 2006 15:46:16 GMT
And the reason they don't openly state it is that science relies on replication of results and testing hypotheses, none of which has been achieved with the paranormal.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Aug 5, 2006 17:38:29 GMT
And the reason they don't openly state it is that science relies on replication of results and testing hypotheses, none of which has been achieved with the paranormal. As yet and as has been stated very few attempts have been tried. For the reasons stated in this post,chicken and egg. |
|
|
|
Post by enigmatictraveller on Aug 10, 2006 9:08:19 GMT
Now thats not entirely true now is it? There is a lot of science out there that is based and less that 100% replication results. The best areas to find this is in astronomy and physcis and quantum physics... In fact inaqurate results or anomilous results cause the scientist to investigate and has on several occasions resulted in revolutionary theories to be developed
|
|
|
|
Post by lodx on Aug 13, 2006 13:20:01 GMT
Science is human lead. Humans are flawed in many ways. The Paranormal is human lead. Humans are flawed in many ways. Forums are human lead Humans are flawed in many ways. Nuff said. |
|
|
|
Post by enigmatictraveller on Aug 19, 2006 8:29:02 GMT
Annnnd lets not forget 1 + 1 definately doesnt always add up to 2 |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Aug 19, 2006 8:41:37 GMT
Yes it does
|
|
|
|
Post by enigmatictraveller on Aug 22, 2006 8:28:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Aug 22, 2006 8:44:26 GMT
I know
|
|
imapotato
Sperm
Victim of government created killer nano-robot infection
Posts: 58
|
Post by imapotato on Nov 3, 2006 5:17:59 GMT
Some of these posts...wow.
It is nice to keep an open mind, but not so open that it spills out unto the floor, get my drift?
Ghost and mediums go against very OLD, time tested Scientific FACT...not new theories.
Gravity, inertia, magnetic pulls.
People who are deathly afraid of dying, wish for us to have life after death...want to believe in a soul, but really, it is literally all in your head. We use 10% of our mental functions (people who think Most Haunted is real...much less) The rest is complex machinery, which may make us see things that are not there, hear voices in our native language much less, and see faces in shadows and outlying features.
Just live with what you have here and now...because quite frankly, I believe the only thing I feel we have to look forward to when we die, is to be recycled into the food chain
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 3, 2006 9:10:52 GMT
hmmm, i dont like that 10% claim.
It is too close to the "we use 10% of our brain" claim.
We use 100% of our brain,
|
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Nov 3, 2006 11:31:56 GMT
hmmm, i dont like that 10% claim. It is too close to the "we use 10% of our brain" claim. We use 100% of our brain, But that is changing as a concept on a daily basis. Only recently it has been discovered that one part of the brain which was considered only to have a basic function in fact controls a much more complex process. The name and full story escapes me but the principle stands. We do not know everything about the brain and how it works so to place percentages on use is a guess,at best. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Nov 3, 2006 11:52:31 GMT
So yet again the one thing we do know is that 100% of the brain is used in whatever capacity
|
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Nov 3, 2006 15:07:35 GMT
So yet again the one thing we do know is that 100% of the brain is used in whatever capacity No we do not know enough of the workings of the brain to place any value on it. We can guess but i know i am not nor i doubt you qualified to make that guess. |
|
