What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[ecco]

OK......... I've had a 'THINK!' and I just thought about how US shuttles needed such long landing strips......... but fixed departure points.

Did ya miss this part?

With just the comparatively rudimentary technology of the early 21st Century, Elon Musk can land a rocket on a figurative postage stamp without the need for "landing strips". Yet, you believe von Daniken's fully debunked interpretation.

THINK!

 

[ecco]

Creating a geological marker that will be
obvious and highly recognizable for hundreds
of millions of years.
Creating millions of sq. mi of desert.
All that w/ o meaning to.

So, the aliens are going to check out Mars. Cool.

 

[ecco]

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that von Daniken is right, you need to have a theory as to the origin of the aliens. If they didn't evolve naturally, then cladking, what could the alternative be?

True terrestrial life exists only in the deep oceans at the expanding plate boundaries. All other life on earth originated elsewhere from a single source.

OK That's your opinion. However, you still haven't addressed the origins of sentient beings. By origins, I am not asking where, I am asking how.

 

[ecco]

Species didn't "evolve" because none of the mechanisms proposed by biologists are sufficient to drive the change in species that is observed and the "theory" fails to support observation as well. Most change occurs at population bottlenecks which select for BEHAVIOR and not fitness.

Your opinion is noted.

Most change in species represented on earth occurred before there was life on earth.

? ? ?
You do realize that the term "species" refers to living things - life.
How could species, living things, have changed before there was life on earth?

 

[Audie]

So, the aliens are going to check out Mars. Cool.

Huh?

 

[ecco]

Ads jump right into the dialog box and take over. I'll be back when I have a new computer.

Become a member for $3.95 - no ads.

 

[cladking]

OK That's your opinion. However, you still haven't addressed the origins of sentient beings. By origins, I am not asking where, I am asking how.

All beings are sentient.

Modern language fools us into believing there's something special about human consciousness.

In a sense there is something special but it's not what you think. Humans are not more 'intelligent" than other animals but merely have more knowledge and a different way to think.

Life and the very origin of change in species is sentience.

 

[ecco]

Huh?

You did say...

Creating a geological marker that will be
obvious and highly recognizable for hundreds
of millions of years.
Creating millions of sq. mi of desert.

Mars is millions of miles of desert.
It is a marker that will be highly recognizable for hundreds
of millions of years.

What is the point of a marker that is highly recognizable for millions of years if not to attract visitors.

Hence - So, the aliens are going to check out Mars. Cool.



Sorry if the humor was too dry. Oh, is that another desert pun?

 

[cladking]

In other words, your notions are non-falsifiable, and therefore, logically incapable of being put to any serious test. Much like the ideas that all women suffer from penis envy or that all men wish to marry their mothers.

No. I'm suggesting this is what all the evidence and experiments already show. We are merely misinterpreting the results.

Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals. This is what gave rise to agriculture and the domestication of dogs and cats.

Just because you can drive change in lower life forms by killing off some members in the lab doesn't mean mother nature uses such a process to change species. Just because you can observe minor changes in species by the introduction (or identification) of agents that will favor one characteristic over another does not prove that speciation occurs so simply.
Darwin was wrong when he said he believed populations were stable over the long term. They are only stable over the short term and it's the large swings in the long term that cause speciation; certainly not "fitness".

 

[ecco]

All beings are sentient.

Modern language fools us into believing there's something special about human consciousness.

In a sense there is something special but it's not what you think. Humans are not more 'intelligent" than other animals but merely have more knowledge and a different way to think.

Life and the very origin of change in species is sentience.

You continue to dodge answering the question I posed to you.

However, I will adjust the language a little...

You haven't addressed the origins of beings at or above the scientific knowledge of humans. By origins, I am not asking where, I am asking how.

In other words, how did the entities that von Daniken referred to come into existence?

 

[cladking]

You continue to dodge answering the question I posed to you.

However, I will adjust the language a little...

You haven't addressed the origins of beings at or above the scientific knowledge of humans. By origins, I am not asking where, I am asking how.

In other words, how did the entities that von Daniken referred to come into existence?

I know nothing of Von Daniken or any of his theories.

Somewhere life evolved countless billions of years ago. Now long before a planet is capable of evolving life by itself it is seeded from the outside by the solar winds and cosmic debris. This life has already been in existence (and changing) for billions of years.

Consciousness is apparently innate to life. It is the only thing provided by nature for survival because "fitness" is irrelevant to survival, or at least, to change in species.

 

[Audie]

I know nothing of Von Daniken or any of his theories.

Somewhere life evolved countless billions of years ago. Now long before a planet is capable of evolving life by itself it is seeded from the outside by the solar winds and cosmic debris. This life has already been in existence (and changing) for billions of years.

Consciousness is apparently innate to life. It is the only thing provided by nature for survival because "fitness" is irrelevant to survival, or at least, to change in species.

So..do you read this stuff somewhere, or make it up
yourself?

 

[cladking]

So..do you read this stuff somewhere, or make it up
yourself?

I am a nexialist who has rediscovered ancient science.

Ancient science provides a different perspective which rings true with my pre-existing beliefs and understanding. But more importantly it is consistent with observation and experiment.

There are many reasons people don't accept modern science. From its holier than thou attitude to its omniscience to the fact that it is so often wrong and always incomplete.

There's nothing wrong with modern science but there are problems with modern scientists and communication. There is a great deal wrong with the 5th estate which intentionally misreports and confuses. We have pop science while real science is still stuck in the 1920's.

You can say, yes, I made it all up myself but the reality is I had help from metaphysicians from the modern day dating back to even before the invention of writing in 3200 BC. I've had a lot of help from my friends and those who came before.

I think therefore I was taught language.

 

[oldbadger]

I once read one of his books about this ... can't remember the name. Anyway, his "evidence" was that there was no evidence, since the aliens would have taken it all with them to hide it from us. Which of course made me laugh out loud, put the book down and walk away from it.

We all need a good laugh, occasionally.

Where did you put it? The book?
I hope you didn't leave litter.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, but it also irritates me when valid science is ignored because it is lumped in with the quasi-s. This happens mostly with science relevant to politics: creationism and climate science deniers. But you see it in many conspiracy theories also.

Oh, don't get upset by creationists.......... I mean, if you saw a telly article about an Indian tribe that believed in the Great Grey Wolf in the sky or whatever, would it spoil your day that much? And before you tell me about those creationists and their damage, I'm much more irritated by charities who want me to pay £3 a month to save working donkeys in deepest Africa and its Chief Executive receives £150,000 pa.

There.......... just look at that:- 'Valid Science'.
And that is the first time that I have read such a title, 'valid science'. Maybe there should be a valid-science movement, because if it can become a popular enough descriptive and be fashionable, then maybe we will hear, read and see it as the ultimate truth?

But you know people, and once newscasters are reporting the opinions of 'valid scientists' etc then the word science will be dumped and the pseudos will flock to the new word, the new truth-pill.

Can you imagine?
Newscaster to a studio guest:- And in the studio this morning we have Doctor Mary Wenlock of the (whatever) institute. Tell us, Doctor Wenlock, as a Valid Scientist, what is your view about ................... (whatever)

 

[oldbadger]

Termites have got the wood science nailed.

Ha ha! Fortunately they don't live in the UK, but we do have the common furniture beetle, the wood boring weevil and several other annoying little insects and fungi. And they all create thousands of employments for the treatment and replacement companies.......... hmmm, useful little devils for some mortgage payers.

 

[oldbadger]

Did ya miss this part?

Yeah, I had a really good 'THINK!' and decided that if lifeforms exist elsewhere in the Universe that neither you nor I have the first clue about anything that they might be able to do...... at all.

And your rocket-man probably can't land his craft on a postage stamp, either......... Oh...... what the hell...... go on. Show a vid of this bloke or something, it'll give you something to do.

 

[sayak83]

Ha ha! Fortunately they don't live in the UK, but we do have the common furniture beetle, the wood boring weevil and several other annoying little insects and fungi. And they all create thousands of employments for the treatment and replacement companies.......... hmmm, useful little devils for some mortgage payers.

Anyways. To answer your question, there is something called material science. Here is an example of an MIT materials scientist doing research on growing important materials and composites by making bacteria and viruses grow them.
Using nature to grow batteries

People

Usually you will know that a Wood scientists is actually a scientist if he/she is researching something on how to convert woody pulp into plastic replacements or how to make wood structures stronger through altering its fiber structures to nano-synthesis etc. Such things, if done and if published in good journals, will make him/her a scientist who does research in wood. Otherwise not.

 

[oldbadger]

I am a nexialist who has rediscovered ancient science.

The above was sent to another, but it interested me.......

Ancient science provides a different perspective which rings true with my pre-existing beliefs and understanding. But more importantly it is consistent with observation and experiment.

OK........... but do you use modern equipment......... would you permit yourself to use a kettle, for instance?

There are many reasons people don't accept modern science. From its holier than thou attitude to its omniscience to the fact that it is so often wrong and always incomplete.

True......... That is true.
And when the invention (or whatever) goes horribly wrong, everybody forgets that they ever believed in it and goes into instant denial, pointing fingers at anybody else in range.
True.....

There's nothing wrong with modern science but there are problems with modern scientists and communication. There is a great deal wrong with the 5th estate which intentionally misreports and confuses. We have pop science while real science is still stuck in the 1920's.

And that's another new word I've leaned today..... POP-SCIENCE! I love it!
If you've been reading Polymath's posts you will have seen that real science is 'VALID-SCIENCE'
POP-SCIENCE is obviously just BS-SCIENCE used to impress, con and deceive innocent folks........ like little ol' me.

You can say, yes, I made it all up myself but the reality is I had help from metaphysicians from the modern day dating back to even before the invention of writing in 3200 BC. I've had a lot of help from my friends and those who came before.

I think therefore I was taught language.

OK, but your qualifications are no good to me today, all I need today is somebody who knows anything, absolutely anything about bloody electric bike brushless motors......... what the hell was ever wrong with brushed motors?

 

[oldbadger]

Anyways. To answer your question, there is something called material science. Here is an example of an MIT materials scientist doing research on growing important materials and composites by making bacteria and viruses grow them.
Using nature to grow batteries

People

I will look up your link later.......... must go now.