Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: Alternative Interpretations of Science - Intelligent Design Orientated

  1. #11
    Fore said:
    "Can you imagine, a well funded group finding data that suggests that alternative-spatial phenomena can alter cellular performance? Inhibiting growth or augmenting it's performance?

    It would be like finding higher dimensional penicillin.

    Can you imagine what a single (just one) generic psi pattern generator affecting the growth of a gamut of cellular diseases could bring in terms of money?
    We would no longer have to flood the human body with chemicals in order to effectuate the same treatment of diseases.

    And what would we find when we study natural biological systems and their invisible counterparts?
    Imagine the advances in communication and technologies that could be built on just that single corner stone".
    Well Fore, something to think about, relative to diseases and their causes - as you ponder about these such things.........

    * Are diseases and afflictions of the body simply natural happenstance?
    * How about death of the body - is death also just a natural event at the end?
    * Is there anything anybody can do to actually make any difference in how our bodies are affected by disease and death?
    * Are diseases and death simply a product of the natural physical state, or, are they a product of the spiritual state of man and this world?

    If the such is natural, then great minds could make broad changes to actual limit and or eliminate disease and death. If such is spiritually caused, then the research of man is not going to make any difference of significance.

    Now, for my view on this, from a Biblical standpoint.......another question.......While there are many scriptures in the Bible about Jesus, who in his the physical body was all human, is there any scripture that discusses Jesus being sick?? The answer is no.......and yes!! No in the natural sense, but yes in the spiritual sense!!! Isaiah 53-4 Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, And our pains — he hath carried them, And we — we have esteemed him plagued, Smitten of God, and afflicted". And Matthew 8-17 also says, “He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases.”


    So, in a "spiritual sense" he carried all of our diseases to the cross with him. Man does put names on all of the various infections and disease bacteria, but the root cause for all sickness comes straight from the spiritual darkness (satan) initiated by man's disobedience in the Garden of Eden. So, when man finds a new pill that works against a known disease, a new disease just seems to pop up, doesn't it??? - that is the spiritual nature of the world we live in, isn't it!!??
    Last edited by calikid; 07-14-2017 at 01:19 AM. Reason: Add quote markup

  2. #12
    Lead Moderator calikid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    8,221
    Blog Entries
    19
    IMHO, while their belief seems sincere, maybe this is one step too far in the "skeptical of science" camp?


    These Coloradans say Earth is flat. And gravity’s a hoax. Now, they’re being persecuted.
    The Flat Earth movement is growing in Colorado, thanks to technology and skepticism about science

    ...They call themselves Flat Earthers. Because they believe Earth — the blue, majestic, spinning orb of life — is as flat as a table.
    Story Continues
    The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
    progress. -- Joseph Joubert
    Attachment 1008

  3. #13
    Lead Moderator calikid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    8,221
    Blog Entries
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Fore View Post
    I have the a video for you that covers that question and the inconsistencies.

    Is Genesis History (2017)
    IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6360332/
    https://openload.co/f/eSsONPnPULM/Is...-PHASE.mkv.mp4

    I recommend watching the whole thing but the most interesting parts start at 34 minutes in.
    The thing about "genetics" is that they give you the watered down *and simplified version* in school.
    So it totally looks plausible as long as it is "as simple" as they describe it.

    When you get to 1 hour and 1 minute they describe genetics in a more involved and realistic sense, I start to question whether the conventional idea of genes and their functionality (in peoples minds) are truly aware of how complex it all actually is. Had they taught me in school the version this guy points out of understanding DNA functionality (and its byproducts in a 4D conventions)...I would have been pretty darn skeptical of certain supposedly plausible ideas in the mainstream.

    Anyway, I recommend you watch it and then give your ideas about it.
    My browser was "unable to connect to website" (openload link), and then Norton flashed a warning something about malware.
    But looked up title on YouTube, hopefully same video you referenced.

    The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but
    progress. -- Joseph Joubert
    Attachment 1008

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Fore View Post
    ET cannot rewrite physics but they can shed light on some of it's darkest corners.

    And if they point out something that is obvious that has been overlooked or misinterpreted, then obviously some funny business has been going on in the worlds academia.

    I've been looking into this for a long time. My conclusion is that scientists since the 1800s have been outsmarted, manipulated, and deceived by aliens without knowing it. Why? Because you need something smarter than human to outsmart the smartest humans. Once non-public / shadow / black ops science got off the ground (late 1800s?) they joined in on that suppression effort too.

    So aliens may eventually be offering humanity a cure (new science knowledge) for a problem they helped create in the first place (suppression of forbidden science). Nothing new or surprising there. Same can be said for global warming / climate change ... suppress fringe technologies to promote fossil fuels, do this at a time when climate cycles are naturally converging toward disaster, blame humans for destroying the planet, and swoop in dangling the tech solution with strings attached.

    ---

    Long explanation:

    Ever notice how pseudo-skeptics evaluate anything metaphysical via an outdated system of standards that pre-dates the age of quantum physics? Independence of the observer, 100% repeatability, 100% objective, 100% measurable using material-based tools, perceivable with the 5 senses, deterministic, etc. That only applies to 100% matter. It's like all they have is a 12-inch ruler and so any talk of "weight" and "color" and "temperature" is metaphysical nonsense.

    But as to where the funny business is exactly, I believe it can be found starting with electrodynamics and quantum physics.

    Electrodynamics is the study of magnetic and electric fields and electromagnetic waves. In the mid-late 1800s James Maxwell published his theory on electromagnetism. According to Maxwell, electric and magnetic fields were byproducts of simpler and more fundamental fields called 'potentials.' His equations were written in terms of these potentials. And his math showed that potentials could, in theory, produce other types of fields than just electric and magnetic... but Maxwell himself said since no one's measured these yet we can just ignore them. First mistake.

    Couple decades later, Oliver Heaviside reformulated Maxwell's theory to exclude any talk of these potentials, and all modern electrical engineering follows from Heaviside's handicapped version. At best, potentials were considered mere "mathematical conveniences" that had no basis in reality. This meant that science from that point forward was locked into only working with electric and magnetic fields, and hence gravity and such remains a mystery. Heaviside said in his own words that the potentials were an "absurdity" that should be "murdered" from the theory. Pretty strong words, right? Why so emotional, so irrational? Was there a subconscious nudge driving him on?

    There's a math technique in electrodynamics called "gauge fixing" which means, "since the potentials have no physical meaning, then wherever they show up in an equation, just set them to zero to get rid of them." But all that does is limit the system to those specific cases where the potentials play no role. Meaning, this "convenient" math trick ensures that all electrical simulations, designs, that follow are ones that minimize, to the greatest degree possible, the generation of any fringe phenomena. Second mistake, and here we are. And so with that sleight of hand, everything the public now has in terms of radios, generators, computers, vehicles, digital cameras, etc. was limited to conventional material operation.

    One day, aliens may show up and explain how electromagnetism is just the surface of the ocean and that Earth science has been oblivious to the deeper undercurrents and compressive distortions in that ocean of spacetime. That we came so close in the 1800s but missed the mark, or maybe that certain human elites realized the implication but suppressed it because they were getting rich off oil and coal.

    The other funny area is quantum physics. In a nutshell, the quantum realm is where metaphysical phenomena begin to poke through into the material realm. Except, these phenomena are viewed as mere "randomness" or "chaos" or "coincidence" or "statistical chance" by physicists. They're okay with not exploring it further. My quantum physics professor said that it's not our job to understand why, but to calculate and get results.

    When quantum mechanics was first put together, it was in the form of "wave mechanics" which uses the physics of waves to understand what's going on at the atomic level. Which is nice because you can visualize waves. But just as Heaviside did his thing with electromagnetism, Werner Heisenberg created a new quantum formulation called "matrix mechanics" which is really abstract and basically involves manipulating arrays of numbers. You get the correct answer that agrees with experiment, but you lose intuitive understanding of the fundamental reality. Physics students ever since Heisenberg have been indoctrinated into this ritualistic "matrix mechanics" where they crank the handle of the mystery box and get an answer and that's good enough for them. No wonder Feynman said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." The worst part is that academia is okay with not knowing. They've accepted that quantum physics works in mysterious ways.

    The math in quantum physics is where it starts to outsmart the smartest humans. It's like a super complex shell game that confuses everyone. There's something deeply flawed with the modern formulation of quantum physics, and some of it ties into the potentials that were suppressed in the theory of electromagnetism. The math (due to being based on false premises) is overly complicated, enough that if a skeptic says we don't need "consciousness" to explain quantum physics, he can come up with an elaborate pile of math to "prove" it, but it's just a longwinded sleight of hand that almost no one has the time or intelligence to pick apart and find the flaw. At which point, it comes down to majority consensus and credentials to determine which pile of spaghetti gets taught in class.

    So my takeaway from physicists, academia, etc. is that they're fumbling around like the Keystone Cops. There are several dozen different interpretations of quantum mechanics... how is that possible if they are all such "experts"? More like the Three Blind Men and the Elephant. Which, if that's the case, then who are they to dismiss fringe research? They're not even qualified to understand their own math. They don't know what they're doing, yet they have to project an image of competence and authority to the public. They talk with circular reasoning, judge everything by their own flawed system of standards, and use group consensus and authority to squash dissent.

    Apparently, becoming intellectually sophisticated doesn't make you a better or wiser person, many are emotional children, some are rodent-like egos dressed up in diplomas, and all of them are easy game for alien TI and mind programming, in my opinion.
    Last edited by montalk; 07-20-2017 at 01:42 AM.

  5. #15
    @ Calikid

    Thanks for finding a better source for that video. I looked at that episode of Ancient Aliens that you pointed out.
    It's also worse than the episode describes:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/does-ligh...204052247.html

    The potential cracks in the current interpretation of science are some very serious ones.

    ------------------------------

    @ Montalk
    Good to see you after such a long time. As always you point to the bread and butter of the situation.

    It's true, you can't have remodeling of scientific theory to fit the preconceptions of a purely material reality.
    If the fringe is real, then obviously someone has been pretty abusive and obtrusive with the scientific principles to discard them from observations.
    The deeper they go into scientific principles the closer they get to deep contradictions caused by bad interpretations and simple bad practices.
    For every action, there is a corresponding over-reaction. -- Anonymous

  6. #16
    Fore here's something you as well as some others may find very interesting written by Michael Heiser. It really shines a light on supernatural vs natural.


    I quote Michael Heiser below.

    Some folks also comfort themselves with thoughts like “Well, supernatural beings couldn’t have done X because that doesn’t conform to what science has taught us.” Without realizing it, those who think such things have just argued that tools that apply to the natural world are fit for service in a world that isn’t natural. That simply isn’t coherent. When biblical material touches on the natural world, we can legitimately use the tools of science. Sometimes that shows us (no shock here) that biblical writers didn’t know as much as we now know about the natural world – but God knew that when he picked them, so that alone tells us that “doing science” that would satisfy a 21st century (and beyond) audience wasn’t what God was interested in with respect to the enterprise of producing Scripture for posterity).

    The truth is that we don’t know much about the spiritual world except for what Scripture tells us, so it’s unwise to think we can speak with clarity about what a divine being can or cannot do. The tools of analyzing the natural world are of no use for analyzing the supernatural world. For the latter we need rules of logic, and the supernatural beliefs of the biblical writers are quite defensible in that arena. I’ll end this response by rephrasing the earlier question: Why are you uncomfortable with the supernaturalist worldview of the biblical writers? Evangelicals don’t want to just say, “Well, the inspired writers were wrong about some of their beliefs about the spiritual world and its inhabitants.”

    That really doesn’t work in a confessional situation! So instead we come up with excuses and interpretations that allow us to remake the biblical writers in our own post-Enlightenment image. I understand that impulse, but it’s not honest.

  7. #17
    Looks to me like this is another example of people trying to make things fit into their own limited subjective view of "truths." I'm not dissing where anyone is at in their subjective journey, everyone has to be someplace. But me thinks it is more about ego when anyone thinks they have reached enlightenment or in the parlance of this discussion the mind of God. It has long been my thought that what we can scenes physically or scenes with the enhancement or extension we have developed through science, they must be taken for what they are, some things we discuss today in science are indeed theory. On the other hand I wouldn't be in such a hurry dismiss those thing we know to be based at least on factual information, In other word truth but modifiable truth. "For now we only see in part."
    Now here's the thing I can not back up in anyway, but to say I see some things with out my physical scenes and those thing I don't even see clearly. I think we will live to know the whole truth at some point LOL I don't know that it will even be in this thing we call "time." I am I feel on my own inside track, with what I call the progenitor but that in itself is hard to put into words. All "I know in part" is that nothing is here by mistake. To confine, or try, to confine the totality of infinite is just, well silly.
    "The beginning of wisdom," is not to become stupid. It is to know that you are not yet wise.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by whoknows View Post
    Looks to me like this is another example of people trying to make things fit into their own limited subjective view of "truths." I'm not dissing where anyone is at in their subjective journey, everyone has to be someplace.
    Thats exactly what it is for me. You've hit the nail on the head.

    Quote Originally Posted by whoknows View Post
    But me thinks it is more about ego when anyone thinks they have reached enlightenment or in the parlance of this discussion the mind of God.
    Personally, anytime God shows up (for me at least) it seems to me that the gulf in what I think and what He knows, about everything, increases greatly.

    It is a humbling experience to say the least. At the very least He knows me better than I know myself. In fact, in one conversation he pointed out I really don't know who I am on the inside. It is like being in front of someone who is truly worthy of the titles that He's racked up in all his appearances around the world and throughout time.

    No single word or phrase can really describe Him. And it is also "very fun" (or maybe Amazing) to see and experience what others have seen in Him throughout the ages.

    Quote Originally Posted by whoknows View Post
    It has long been my thought that what we can scenes physically or scenes with the enhancement or extension we have developed through science, they must be taken for what they are, some things we discuss today in science are indeed theory. On the other hand I wouldn't be in such a hurry dismiss those thing we know to be based at least on factual information, In other word truth but modifiable truth. "For now we only see in part."
    Well, it's not that I am ignorant (at least not anymore anyway) about how scientific understandings have evolved or the content therein.

    It's mostly that I can appreciate where the cracks are in the interpretations. It's not that science is wrong, but its interpretation of what it sees in the measurements and the assumptions that seems to be closer to a matter of faith in dogma than anything else.

    You have to really know what is the current paradigm in depth to really appreciate where the cracks are showing and just how fragile some of the interpretations really are. It is no mystery that scientific understanding is frequently being turned on it's head with a new discovery.

    Quote Originally Posted by whoknows View Post
    Now here's the thing I can not back up in anyway, but to say I see some things with out my physical scenes and those thing I don't even see clearly. I think we will live to know the whole truth at some point LOL I don't know that it will even be in this thing we call "time." I am I feel on my own inside track, with what I call the progenitor but that in itself is hard to put into words. All "I know in part" is that nothing is here by mistake. To confine, or try, to confine the totality of infinite is just, well silly.
    "The beginning of wisdom," is not to become stupid. It is to know that you are not yet wise.
    I think that the thoughts we all are capable of producing are prone to limitations. That logic has it's limits when you really carefully evaluate the idea that you can know everything from researching any single part.

    I believe that someday that very logic will definitely lead to us committing a global consensus in error. Something/Someone, other than us, is out there. It is very intelligent and cunning (and malevolent). I think we are all low on the pecking order of life forms. Whether we like to admit it or not.

    I now believe the study of consciousness itself, how it was designed and formulates reasoning, may be something which being(s) who have been around for far longer than the ET can appreciate and understand. Including seeing the "vulnerabilities" that our order of life suffers from.

    We suffer a condition, one where we see and hear and experience a....tiny horizon....of a given time and within a given space. Anything beyond that and we are ignorant of it. We can draw logical conclusion but they may as well be outright guesses. I also think that humanity tends to believe it knows and understands more than it actually does.

    So if someone brings a landing party down to our little bubble, and whispers things about what is beyond it, we are as innocent as children to them. We won't know the truth from fiction. Not even the application of logic is enough to (IMO) discern what is truth from falsehood. People who cannot know any better are at serious risk of assuming things which may be completely fictional if fooled into believing certain presumed realities.

    I think montalk is right when he assumes that someone non-human has been overseeing our development for a later convenience.
    Last edited by Fore; 07-28-2017 at 05:05 AM.
    For every action, there is a corresponding over-reaction. -- Anonymous

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Fore View Post
    @ Montalk
    Good to see you after such a long time.
    Likewise, glad to be back. Nice to see other familiar names here too.

    --

    Couple recent thoughts about this subject.

    First, what you're talking about reminds me of retroactive continuity or retconning in fiction. Where the prior plot is artificially re-contextualized to smooth over a discontinuity that would otherwise conflict with what must happen next. Like the Vatican appearing to be prepping to retcon itself in context of aliens showing up inevitably. "Aliens are our brother, God created life across the cosmos not just here, etc."

    Science will have to be retconned somehow. History, biology, evolution, archeology, genetics, too. I think it'll be done partly through alternative interpretations of scientific concepts. Take the skeptic's device of the Fermi paradox. If aliens or time travelers are real, they should be here. Since "they aren't here" therefore they don't exist. Of course the other explanation is that they're here but very good at hiding traces of themselves. Which has been the case. So aliens would just have to say, "You chose interpretation A, but it was B all along." Or the Drake Equation, they could just say, "You forgot the panspermia variable. Once life develops on one planet, it can spread to others and create more life, thus life multiplies exponentially and your sector of the galaxy is actually quite crowded."

    Second, regarding how it is that underfunded garage scientists have found fringe anomalies but well-funded mainstream physics projects have not ... I get the impression there's a deeper more omnipresent quarantine going on. It's compartmentalizing people from experiences they shouldn't be having. Like what you've discussed before, if I recall correctly, that you would sometimes get warnings or a certain feeling of wrongness when you tried to show proof of psi or aliens to people who somehow weren't supposed to be exposed to it. Thought crossed my mind, to what degree might Higher Order Entities be involved in keeping the status quo mainstream. Because say someone did invent and release a ghost camera or something, that would so perturb the world that it would decimate the "path" of millions of people, and the premature aspect of that kind of table flipping could invoke intervention from "above" to prevent it?

  10. #20
    I think you may all appreciate a copy of Maxwell's original paper: http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/155/459
    Unadulterated and unabridged, it is the complete rendering of his line of thought at the time. The Royal Society has many other interesting publications freely available, I encourage you to link to them during discussion so that others may access the material and utilize it. For the more adventurous, I suspect implementing an experiment or two involving potential energies would be prudent, just be sure to be far enough away from the experiment that you don't become the result

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •