Yes. Not always. Just often. However, before the discovery, ulcers were never due to H. Pylori. Right?
Could the reason be you? I'm asking because of sentence like this, "It's like religion to me. No evidence, but the sky magic is real, because."
Prior to the discovery of H. Pylori, ulcers were unexplained and misunderstood until a real scientist, one not blinded by orthodoxy, forced the truth on his peers and the world. We don’t know what we don’t know, and we can’t apply what we don’t know to prove or disprove anything.
It’s really very simple, but people keep trying to prove or disprove based on physics that we know does not fully explain our universe.
One more example for those who still don’t get it. If you don’t know how to add, don’t insist on telling people that 2+2 doesn’t equal 3. It may not, but you don’t know that it does not, so shut up.
“It’s really very simple, but people keep trying to prove or disprove based on physics that we know does not fully explain our universe. ”
Of course, discovering ulcers were caused by bacteria required medical science, which itself rests completely on physics, which is the same science underpinning biology telling us alien civilizations are rare.
So you simply pick and choose the science that fits your world view and then lecture about having an ‘open mind’
😕
Of course, discovering ulcers were caused by bacteria required medical science, which itself rests completely on physics, which is the same science underpinning biology telling us alien civilizations are rare.
So you simply pick and choose the science that fits your world view and then lecture about having an ‘open mind’
😕
If you don't think scientists can claim the probability of alien civilizations is exceedingly rare because they do not have a universally acceptable explanation for gravity, you could always jump off a 10 story building to prove them wrong.
The only 'blind orthodoxy' in this debate is the fact that some seem to lack a fundamental appreciation of evolution, planetary science and probability. On these matters, we have a very good explanation and understanding, and its enough for us to make a good prediction.
🙂
Here's a pretty good video to listen to
Another reason to - regardless of the validity - stick to your life here
William Cooper interviews Randolph Winters on Billy Meier UFO Case - YouTube
Another reason to - regardless of the validity - stick to your life here
William Cooper interviews Randolph Winters on Billy Meier UFO Case - YouTube
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
This video is nearly an hour long and I’m simply not going to bother listening to any videos posted on this forum that are an hour long. What would be helpful is some kind of elevator pitch to summarize what all the chitchat is about in this video
Could the reason be you? I'm asking because of sentence like this, "It's like religion to me. No evidence, but the sky magic is real, because."
Oh slick one.
It's simple. Evidence = I believe. No evidence = I don't believe. I don't gee wizz pie in the sky about what-ifs. There's plenty of fascinating things to ponder that lie within the realm of demonstrable reality.
Now strawman that.
Final "Echoes"performance with Richard Wright (Pink Floyd) - YouTube
"And no one showed us to the land
And no one knows the where's or why's
But something stirs and something tries
And starts to climb toward the light
And no one calls us to move on
And no one forces down our eyes
No one speaks and no one tries
No one flies around the sun"
-Pink Floyd
So no, it most definitely isn't me.
Try this one... Just a few minutes long.
Bill Cooper predicts 9/11 in June 2001 & Introduction MAVs - YouTube
Bill Cooper predicts 9/11 in June 2001 & Introduction MAVs - YouTube
I'm seeing in this thread what always seems to happen in UFO threads. Instead of sticking to documented simultaneous UFO visual observations and recorded sensor evidence people go off into the weeds of New Age philosophy. Billy Meier is claiming memory of multiple lives that he has remembered. He's also claiming that he has had an association with aliens from Pliades through all those lives. If ever there was a non-reputable character reference that does NOT back up REAL evidence for UFOs then he is one.
I see people always make this simple mistake. It's really laughable. It would be like three people all witnessing a bank robbery from different angles. The prosecutions' three witness accounts are all internally consistent after accounting for those spacially different locations of the witnesses. They all point to the same defendant committing the crime. It's almost irrefutable testimony.
Then the defense brings in another witness who corroborates one or two of the witnesses assertions. Then he goes off on a tangent and says something about a huge white rabbit that pulled out a gun and started shooting randomly in the air. The rabbit then disappeared in a puff of smoke. This fourth witness concludes this indecipherable account by saying "so I agree totally with the three witness" and starts picking his nose on the stand.
Then the defense sums up its conclusion that if "Billy" agree with the three witnesses then you can't trust any of them. It might be surprising but this is a standard technique to taint corroborating unimpeachable multiple witnesses to an event. Surprisingly it actually works with individuals (and jurors) with low critical thinking ability. They get lost following the story account of Billy and by the time they've figured out that there is something wrong with him they have also transferred that "wrongness" to the credible witnesses to the robbery.
Part of the reason it so often works is that people have trouble keeping track of credible and noncredible witnesses. It's just simpler for the people who are judging that ALL the witnesses are non-credible witnesses. That's what I see happening here. I'd say there's a few people here who think they are intelligent but maybe aren't so much. They've been tainted by the Billy's of the world so that they are no longer open to the testimony of credible witnesses.
Not so fast, Mr. D.
Go back and reread what's posted. If you've seen someone who equated lights in the sky with alien visitation ("lights in the sky = alien visitation"), please quote.Not so fast, Mr. D.
Another strawman. Please quote where I said that.
My position is that lights in the sky mean nothing, until something demonstrable is put forth.
Key word is demonstrable.
I'll quote your words and ask a question again.
Who claimed on this forum that there is sky magic and it's an evidence of ETs?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.