Posts by Abaddon

69

Have you ever had an encounter with a UFO?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

when i was about 16 years old, a group of us friends would go hiking a lot on the weekend.

we would rough it to some degree, just a sleeping back and sleeping under the stars.

one night, while hiking into a lake in northern california, we all were sleeping in a clearing just out of legal distance from a small mountain lake we liked to fish in.

Abaddon

skyking

So, you don't bother reading posts you respond to properly, refuse to believe expert archaeologists about a well-known feature of Egyptian inscriptions and monuments because in this case you prefer your own uninformed opinion, repeat (unknowingly I guess given the level of research you undertake) false claims about the origin of coins and misleading characterisations of golden ornaments, make utterly false statements like "we have more proof of UFO's than we do the Sun burning Hydrogen" and idolise those with the same pathological tendancy towards pseudoscientific nonsense, and THEN all of a sudden I am a bad guy?

First off I do not have an opinion about this anyway shape or form.

So was it the aliens that typed "we have more proof of UFO's than we do the Sun burning Hydrogen"? That sure looks like an opinion. Or do you mean now that it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about you no longer feel like making sweeping statements and unsupported, grandious claims?

What I am trying to state here is be opened minded.

So open minded the top of your head has fallen off...? Since when did credulous acceptence of any old rubbish some idiot puts online equate with being open minded?

Don't be so pathetic. Don't you have ANY self-respect? Or do you dislike it when the rubbish you come up with gets shown to be rubbish? And don't make this an issue of intelligence; as I point out, the accurate information is freely available to those who are bothered enough to look for it; a failure to do so is laziness or stopping your 'research' when you've found someone saying what you want them to say. If you want to avoid having people point out you post garbage, stop posting garbage, take responsibility for your actions.

Your pro 'electric' sun links are out-of-date as you either ignored or didn't get the caveat I put in, as I knew in advance you'd come up with some crackpot chuntering on about 'missing neutrinos' because they are ignoring or ignorant of the most recent research.

AuldSoul

Four; FTL (faster than light) travel is possible; in this scenario;

1/ People see super advanced aliens as a deliberate part of the aliens study of humans

This is against aound scientific practise unless you WANT to effect the subject you are studying, for example;

specifically researching how people who have seen aliens or believe in them for illogical reasons are treated by those who haven't seen aliens and/or don't believe in their presense here for logical reasons
destabilising human culture
preparing humans for first contact

All this assumes a high enough level of 'specialness' about humans to justify the expenditure of resources. Statistically we are unlikely to be all that special, just such compliocated interactions require a leap of faith.

2/ People see super advanced aliens because the aliens have a mechanical problem

Which I exclude as if this was so there would be more evidence, as the 'hey I forgot to take any photos' beam would be SNAFU along with the cloaking device.

3/ People see super advanced aliens because the specific aliens they are seeing have not developed a means of remaining unseen

We are far closer to 'invisability' than FTL, so this is unlikely.

4/ People see super advanced aliens because the specific aliens they are seeing are oblivious to the fact that the humans see them, or do not identify humans as intelligent enough to attach significance to what they are seeing

Would require aliens of far greater mental capacities than humans, and if they're like that what are they doing hanging round Earth as it's unlikely to be special enough to be of even passing interest.

5/ People see super advanced aliens because there are insufficient numbers of people seeing them to arouse any concern in the aliens

Sloppy alines? Mmmmm...

All of the 'Fours' do require a bit of a streach, IMFFHO

jimbo

Scenario three IS seeing 'em. What I saw would influence whether I thought it was scenario one or two. Small ships would iprobably ndicate non-FTL with a mothership somewhere. Big ships would be more likely 'starships' as opposed to in-system transport.

69

Have you ever had an encounter with a UFO?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

when i was about 16 years old, a group of us friends would go hiking a lot on the weekend.

we would rough it to some degree, just a sleeping back and sleeping under the stars.

one night, while hiking into a lake in northern california, we all were sleeping in a clearing just out of legal distance from a small mountain lake we liked to fish in.

Abaddon

skyking

The hieroglyph does not prove UFO's are real. Some think that this hieroglyph has a new hieroglyph re-carved over an older one. Like a double exposed picture. But this also takes a big leap in faith too believe this. There is on proof for this double exposure theory. I have read dozens of reports about this assumption and that is all it is an assumption based on finding any reason to disprove it.

No, it takes listening to people who know what they are talking about who can prove what they are talking about. The Egyptians defaced or wrote-over the inscriptions and statuary of previous Pharaohs/Dynasties on a regular basis; this is not the only example, just the only one that happens to look like a helicopter.

To disregard the opinion of experts based on a regular occurrence with multiple examples you need to come up with something better than 'ah, I'll believe what I like'. This is something of a pattern skyking; AGAIN, you choose to disregard the testimony of experts in order to hold-on to some favourite belief. You're welcome too, just don't expect it to be taken as a good argument based on facts.

The glider is well-known. If a genuine artifact (there are possible problems with the story http://kjmatthews.users.btopenworld.com/cult_archaeology/out_of_place_artefacts_2.html) is no more-or-less surprising than clockwork mechanisms made by ancient Greeks; remember, the Egyptians carried out primitive brain surgery. Do you know how amazingly close to the actual diameter of Earth Eratosthenes's measurement was? If you start with a false premise of how primitive 'primitive' people are you can easily make much ado about nothing. But claims it is anything more than a toy or votive offering to Horus are unsubstantiated.

The golden aeroplanes are a wonderful example of 'true believers' willingness to misrepresent things in a light favourable to their beliefs; the one that looks a little like an A4 Skyhawk is just one of a collection of highly-stylised ornaments intended to hang from a necklace that resembled winged insects, birds, bats and sting rays. The selection of one out of context is rightfully described here http://kjmatthews.users.btopenworld.com/cult_archaeology/out_of_place_artefacts_6.html as "disingenuous and borders on dishonesty".

"Here is an old Roman coin" is either proof of your poor research and standards of evidence, or your gullibility in repeating some idiot's error as I found the same false claim made elsewhere. It is French, dating from 1680 http://www.dudeman.net/siriusly/ufo/art.shtml. Whether it is Ezekiel's wheel, a contemporaneous sighting, or whatever is scarcely the point as the fact that people see stuff in the sky and have done for Milena is not disputed.

At least you agree "there really is no concrete proof".

But we have more proof of UFO's than we do the Sun burning Hydrogen and Helium.

Okay, I call you on this piece of BULL. Prove this statement; or is this another example of uncritical and credulous thinking? Make sure you take into account work on the 'neutrino problem' done since 1990 and that your replacement model can explain heavy elements.

69

Have you ever had an encounter with a UFO?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

when i was about 16 years old, a group of us friends would go hiking a lot on the weekend.

we would rough it to some degree, just a sleeping back and sleeping under the stars.

one night, while hiking into a lake in northern california, we all were sleeping in a clearing just out of legal distance from a small mountain lake we liked to fish in.

Abaddon

skyking

LOL. So you think President Carter and Reagan are credible witnesses? How low do you want to set the bar? A nematode couldn't limbo under it if you count those two. You also miss the fact I say MADE CONTACT. None of the people you mention claim to have made contact with aliens. Please try to respond to what I say rather than going off on one...

I fully accept people see stuff they can't explain, I just find the jump from 'can't explain' to 'alien ship' a rather large one as such an explanation fails to explain things that need explaining, like how super-advanced aliens need Earthlings or Earth, or how their ability to screen their presense is not significantly advanced to our own despite having travelled between stars.

But I am glad you agree there is a lack of physical proof. What proof is there then? It isn't the classic hieroglyph helicopter...

http://www.ufocom.org/pages/v_us/m_archeo/Abydos/abydos.html

http://members.tripod.com/~A_U_R_A/abydos.html

... it is no more proof of UFO's or ancient helicopters than my hairy arse.

Of course, quite why people don't type 'hieroglyphs helicopter' into a search engine and find out what the deal for themselves is I don't know. They seem to stop when they find something that proves what they want to believe and go no further - be it 9/11 or UFO's. The pathology of belief...

It isn't hard too find out facts, you just have to want to. Yes, it would be cool if Egyptians saw/used helicopters, but something being cool is not a determinant of whether it is true or not.

Come on, roll up roll up, any more proof of UFO's?

Or do we have to put them in the same group of 'unexplained stuff people say they saw' like yeti, bigfoot, nessie, the Virgin Mary, ghosties, demons, and lets not forget the demonised blue smurf walking down the aisle of the Kingdom Hall...?

How come it is so easy to see any claim of smurfs walking down the KH aisle as a lie, as we know this doesn't happen in real life, and so gladly accept other stuff we know doesn't happen in real life as real?

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

Abaddon

AuldSoul

If there is evidence of a Creator why not just provide it rather than trying to instigate (in a nice way I am not offended by) a discussion where one tries to prove the possibility of entity which I have not denied?

There's a difference between 'there is no evidence of a Creator' and 'there is no such thing as a Creator'.

All the best

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

Abaddon

Spectrum

Can someone explain to me the assertion that a Designer requires a designer. This assertion it seems is always prompted by the statement that life requires a Designer?

I would say that 'the designer requires a designer' is more correctly a response to the claim that 'complexity requires design, therefore complexity requires a designer'.

There are a myriad explanations as to the origin of life and there are a myriad for the origin of God.

'Explanation' means "to give the reason for or cause". The word 'explanation' doesn't give an insight into the validity of what is offered; a child can explain something like thunder as 'angels fighting', for example. If one accepts any explanation, then yes, there are a lot of explanations for a god's existence... including them springing from a cosmic egg, being eternal in nature, being formed from the blood or semen of another god... all of these are about as relaible as a belief in Santa Claus. I think you would be better to use either 'hypothesis' or 'theory'. 'Hypothesis' implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation 'Theory' implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth. By all means provide some theories as to the origin of a god, I don't think you will find there are a myriad of theories

Perhaps only one is correct for the origin of life and only one for God the two that are the truth don't have to be related as perceived in human logic terms ie if we were created by god then who created god. Therefore one of these myriad of explanations could be that biological life requires a designer but the designer does not require a designer.

This is known as special pleading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading. You are basically saying 'I say that two different rules apply' in order to allow yourself to maintain hoding to a belief or an argument even when you cannot prove that two different rules apply.

If life was spontaneous then perhaps life would just crop up all the time all over the place and biological reproduction would not be necessary.

No one makes this claim, if you think this even approaches characterising the claim regarding abiogenesis then please, do some research.

Something creates something else.

So who created god then? By your own words you refute your belief system (unless you use special pleading which is not a logically valid argument).

Something I don't understand is why evolutionist go apeshit when Creationists bring a Creator into the mix when all they are doing is exactly what evolutionists are doing which is observing facts and theorising around those facts.

Because there is no evidence for a Creator. When scientists come up with theories of the origin of life or the development of life they have to stick to the 'rules' of chemistry, physics, etc., and to the evidence available in living organsisms or the traces of dead ones. At this stage we can say we have very well-supported theories of evolution explaining the evidence of evolution around us. We have hypotheses regaring the origin of life, but the science is young so it being incomplete is no surprise. Someone can say 'I think the creator did it', and have no evidence or no idea of the 'rules' under which a creator might exist without having being created themselves. Without such evidence or rules theories of designers or theories of god are simply hypotheses, and as belief in gods has been around an awful long time the fact that man is no closer to a theory of god than 10,000 years ago is rather surprising and rather indicative of the idea of god being made up by primative man to explain stuff he didn;t understand around him. We now can explain much of what is around us and don't need to invoke god, magic or the paranormal to explain stuff. What happens now is if you try to use god or a designer to explain things is you end up with more unanswered questions than if you don't. If god was developed as an idea to explain the unexplainable, it would appear god might not be dead (nor ever could it be as it was just an idea), but is now simply redundant as it only creates more questions rather than answering them.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

Abaddon

hooberus

Okay, I've corrected my sloppy grammar and choice of words of yesterday, provide response to the following;

"If one can conceive and accept a scenario where intelligent designers naturalistically arise one should also accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept that complexity or the environment for complexity can arise naturalistically."
"If one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designer has always been there, one should also accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or an environment where complexity can arise can always have been there."

n.b.

As the paradigms used by a person who conceives and accepts a scenario where intelligent designers naturalistically arise or can always have been there is different to those used by a person who conceives and accepts a scenario where complexity or an environment where complexity can arise can always have been there, the statements are non-reversible.

As the evidential materialist paradigm hasn't even any indication of the existence of an intelligent designer, it goes against the paradigm to hypothesise one exists as there are adequate hypotheses of lesser complexity explaining complexity and/or the environment where complexity could arise.

69

Have you ever had an encounter with a UFO?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

when i was about 16 years old, a group of us friends would go hiking a lot on the weekend.

we would rough it to some degree, just a sleeping back and sleeping under the stars.

one night, while hiking into a lake in northern california, we all were sleeping in a clearing just out of legal distance from a small mountain lake we liked to fish in.

Abaddon

Okay... three scenarios;

One; FTL (faster than light) travel is possible; in this scenario;

People see super advanced aliens who can travel the vasty depths of interstellar space faster than light, but are incapable of hiding their presence from people barely out of the trees.

This is unlikely; someone who can travel between stars FTL will only be seen when they want to be seen, or don't have access to their super advanced technology, so if FTL travel IS possible;

People see super advanced aliens as a deliberate part of the aliens study of humans
People see super advanced aliens because they have a mechanical problem

Two; FTL travel is NOT possible; in this scenario;

People see aliens whose technology we might even be able to understand

In this scenario;

They spend their lives studying aliens races including our own for the lve of study
They spend their lives grooming alien races to join the peace-loving Galatic Foundation
They are scout ships, and the invasion fleet is coming

Three; people don't see aliens ships

Obviously people who have seen sh1t they can't explain have a good reason to go for one or two above.

But...

Why invade a planet when they can have the same resources from anywhere?
Why be seen when to an advanced techology avoiding being seen would be simple (we have already got prototypes of systems that are invisable to radar; not 'stealthy', invisable)?
Why is the evidence never any good?
Why are the people who claim they've made contact never credible? Wouldn't an alien species wanting to make contact go for Kofi Anan, Stveen Hawkins and Richard Dawkins? Instead of Bubba the pig farmer from Alabama?
How come in the past thirty years the number of people with video cameras has increased by maybe 1000%, and STILL we don't have decent proof.

I know what I think is the case, but I know that 'believers' have tantrums if their beliefs aren't validated, normally along the lines of how closed minded people who want EVIDENCE are, LOL. Yes, they laughed a Galileo. They also laughed at Coco the clown...

People have seen shit in the skies for thousands of years, and they've always seen things which matched their beliefs. DO the research; stuff in the skies is not new, it just changed from religous interprtted stuff to Sci-Fi interpretted stuff; common features of alien sightings can be traced to that feature being shown in a film or magazine, not before. People lie to themselves and to others. Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable.

Add it all together and what you have is much about nothing.

Having said that I ran SETI on my PC for years...

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

Abaddon

hooberus

Ignore me all you like, you also ignore the fact ReMine has been shown to have made major errors in his book, yet, you still quote from him, just like you still quote from other sites that have been shown to be in error or have a poor standard of science.

You also ignore that if one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designers are spontaneously available, or have always been there, one also has to accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or the environment for complexity can arrise spontaneously or to always have been there.

But carry on ignoring me, it's funny. Last person who did that was seven years old.

67

Born Gay?

by Sam87 in

jw
friends

hi everyone, just wondering what your thoughts are on people that say they are born gay?

ive heard that this isnt actually possible, and that there is no scientific backing to it, im personaly not gay but i was just wondering what some of you think on this matter, and if you have anything to back it up with, thanks,.

.

Abaddon

Forscher

Nice summary and analysis of material provided previously in links. You miss out the pre-natal (non-genetic influence) the uterine environment has. As with most such complex questions, the real deal probably lies not in any one factor.

I don't agree with the definition of animal studies as problematic. They just show that animals form lasting homosexual pairs, and that some such pairings even produce offspring... which is what we see in human homosexuals... which kind of makes the word 'un-natural' raher inaccurate...

I do agree with "folk will believe what they want".

Certain people will believe gayness is a choice as they believe god said it was bad and therefore it CANNOT be something a person had no control of, as if it was god would not punish someone for doing something they have nop control over.
Certain people resent gayness being made-out to be biological as they feel this somehow changes being gay in an unfavourable fashion.
Others couldn't give a ferk why people are gay.

Qcmbr

The bizarre argument about not being able to choose who you are attracted to is a lie.

Is it now? Okay, say I have 100 gazillion people at gunpoint, and will shot them unless you CHOOSE to be attracted to men. Will you be attracted to men? No, of course not, at most you could pretend. Thus I find your contention "not being able to choose who you are attracted to is a lie" is unproven.

When you get married you make a conscious decision to deny all feelings for others and commit yourself to one person only.

That person is of a gender you are attracted to, or are pretending (so good you can fool yourself) you are attracted to as a result of pressure from societal or familial expectations.

And if you "make a conscious decision to deny all feelings for others", you are kidding yourself; all you can do is decide to "commit yourself to one person only" even if you DO become attracted to others in the future.

It is perfectly possible to close off your feelings or desires - it is a permission of the will.

Ha! This is simplistic - you cannot eliminate the thought, only squash it if it occurs and not act on it. If you are otherwise you have achieved what many people have tried (and failed) to do for normally religious reasons - to eliminate sexual desires. How special... or is this a rose-coloured mirror?

I suspect that almost all 'gay' tendencies as all 'straight' tendencies are a result of a choices we make.

Your opinion is irrelevent no mater how important you might think it is. Facts are what lead this discussion.

Before puberty I was not at all interested in girls/boys (along with the majority of children I would suggest) but that didn't make me gay (or straight), when I hit puberty I went through a very confusing and scary experience where I suddenly had sensations I had no preparation for and didn't quite know what they meant.

I would say the cluenessness you felt on hitting puberty had a lot to do with your upbringing. Did your parents talk about sex, make it obvious sex was a natural part of their life, discuss with you what you might expect as you grew?

It is no surprise to me that many come out of that scenario with a confused sexuality especially in a society that thrusts choice upon the ones who are most confused.

Again, a simplistic analysis. You assume their confusion results from being gay. You ignore the fact the confusion could be about being attracted to the same gender and not being able to accept or act on this attraction without negative concequences. You confuse common-or-garden teenage angst with the trauma a gay teen feels if they are raised in a environement where their being gay will cause them problems.

Now to confront the idea that people say they 'knew' they were gay at a very early age - I say bull - I would suggest that having found themselves having made a gay lifestyle choice they then retrospectively find proof in their past.

Coming from someone whose opinions are formed around their religious beliefs before any reference to reality I find your attitude ludicrous. You believe this, and you believe what you do about human origins, purely due to you being in a cult. Get over it.

Hell if I wanted to be gay I could look back on my childhood and find times when I didn't find women attractive but definately chose to hang out with other boys and could then make the leap

Hanging out is rather different from being ATTRACTED TO. Boys hang with boys and girls with girls as they have common interests and past-times. Boys ferk boy if they are attracted to them, likewise girls ferking girls. Boys and girls who are attracted to each other ferk each other. It really is that simple...

All I ever knew was that sex was some arcane mystic experience that adults had and it was all disgusting - 'you mean my parents do that ewwww!'. During puberty I found out (to a lesser extent!) what all the fuss was about but unfortunately I still feel a bit wigged out by the thought of my parents...OK I'm not going there.

Grow up; you wouldn't be here if your parents didn't do 'it', and if you don't like the fact your parents carried on doing 'it' then you are obsessing about the sex when you should be celebrating the love.

I think it is wrong to discriminate against someone for their lifestyle choice but I do have an issue with arguing its natural (sex is natural but penguins getting the wrong hole does not constitute the right to wear a gimp mask, abuse vegetables nor for men and women to justify their same sex decisions - why do you need a penguin as the excuse?

Gay people don't need excuses; if you are so unbiased why do you feel they need an excuse?

Your characterisation of the ample evidence that homosexual behaviour is part of the natural spectrum of many species' sexual behaviour makes it obvious you've not studied the subject - it is so not 'getting the wrong hole'. If you are so un-biased why the false characterisation? Or is the "I'm unbiased" lip service?

I would have more respect if people who chose to be gay just said so

I would have more respect if people who had religiously predicated opinions just said so

If I was having feelings toward a bloke I'd want to find out why since I know my genetics couldn't be responsible, my body couldn't be responsible (its just not built for men) and so I'd be looking at what was going on in my head that was making me feel that way.

Here you state things that simply are unknown; you cannot state that genetically speaking it is impossible to be attracted towards the same sex or not as there isn't enough evidence. But you seem to feel qualified to state what the vast majority of scientists (and most posters who've bothered quoting facts) do not feel qualfieid to state. Modest!

People don't like to feel they are to blame for their gratification of urges.

Qcmbr, if urges do not result in harm to uninvolved parties, why are they wrong?

If you ignore all else, answer this one...

67

Born Gay?

by Sam87 in

jw
friends

hi everyone, just wondering what your thoughts are on people that say they are born gay?

ive heard that this isnt actually possible, and that there is no scientific backing to it, im personaly not gay but i was just wondering what some of you think on this matter, and if you have anything to back it up with, thanks,.

.

Abaddon

ackack

I do?

Cool...

I think...