Water on Mars

[Hoddle is a god]

The big bang theory … What it does do is competently explain the structure of the cosmos after a singularity.

No, it does not.

Your statement is laughable, and betrays just how little you know about this subject.

The Big Bang Theory absolutely does NOT explain the structure of the Cosmos. The word "competent" doesn't even come into the equation.

Every flaw in the theory has been patched up with yet another mathematical construct to keep the zombie corpse animated.

So, when it was revealed that there is too little mass in the Universe to enable gravity to keep it all hanging together, they came up with the idea of Dark Matter to compensate. You can't see it, but it must be there to keep everything together by means of gravity alone, yeah?

Then, when it became obvious that the Universe appeared to be expanding faster than could be explained by their models, they came up with the notion of Dark Energy - that unseen, unobserved and unobservable magical force that is pushing everything apart.

Every tenet of modern cosmology has been ripped to pieces, and yet they keep peddling the same old lies.

There have been some very detailed peer-reviewed studies conducted that cannot be explained using the Standard Model. Yet, this evidence is suppressed.

The propaganda is so insidious and so powerful that people like you continue to spout the lies, not knowing that what you are saying has been refuted time and time again.

Again, either you will look further into this, or you will not.

 

[PINKIE]

You are not a sceptic.

Study how philosophy defines the Sceptic movement.

You are about as far from being a sceptic as you can get.

"Scepticism" is a much-misused term, primarily used by those who set out with the intention of debunking ideas that do not accord with what they believe. That is not scepticism.

A true sceptic is open to everything and holds to nothing. A true sceptic would read Lerner's book and would, in line with its basis premise, seriously question the claims made by those who preach the modern cosmological paradigm, and question why a raft of evidence that disputes its tenets is dismissed and hidden.

I am far more a sceptic than you.

That is the irony in your boastful scoffing, Pix.

Wrong. I'm open to the theories, I don't however accept them as truth as you have admitted you do based on 'faith'
You're not a Skeptic, as you've admitted that in order to believe something, 'no evidence is required'

 

[PINKIE]

No, it does not.

Your statement is laughable, and betrays just how little you know about this subject.

The Big Bang Theory absolutely does NOT explain the structure of the Cosmos. The word "competent" doesn't even come into the equation.

Every flaw in the theory has been patched up with yet another mathematical construct to keep the zombie corpse animated.

So, when it was revealed that there is too little mass in the Universe to enable gravity to keep it all hanging together, they came up with the idea of Dark Matter to compensate. You can't see it, but it must be there to keep everything together by means of gravity alone, yeah?

Then, when it became obvious that the Universe appeared to be expanding faster than could be explained by their models, they came up with the notion of Dark Energy - that unseen, unobserved and unobservable magical force that is pushing everything apart.

Every tenet of modern cosmology has been ripped to pieces, and yet they keep peddling the same old lies.

There have been some very detailed peer-reviewed studies conducted that cannot be explained using the Standard Model. Yet, this evidence is suppressed.

The propaganda is so insidious and so powerful that people like you continue to spout the lies, not knowing that what you are saying has been refuted time and time again.

Again, either you will look further into this, or you will not.

As opposed to the ideas that you are trying to purport that Stars glow because they are essentially light bulbs ?
Your claims that modern cosmology as been 'ripped apart' by this pseudo science is what's laughable here.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

1. Actually Agnostics believe that the existence of God cannot either be proven or disproven. They do not rely on any scientific theory to reach any conclusion on that. You're confusing that with Athiesm which takes a direct stance that God doesn't exist.

I am confusing nothing.

An atheist belief is an absurd one. One can definitely know that there is no Creator or design to the Universe, any more than anyone can know that there is.

An agnostic belief is equally absurd. They want proof for something that is unprovable. They like to think that they have a scientific approach to life, but they do nothing more than demonstrate that they have completely missed the point of faith.

The existence of God cannot be either proven or disproven.

The non-existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.

The position adopted by both the atheist and the agnostic is one based on arrogance.

 

[PINKIE]

I am confusing nothing.

An atheist belief is an absurd one. One can definitely know that there is no Creator or design to the Universe, any more than anyone can know that there is.

An agnostic belief is equally absurd. They want proof for something that is unprovable. They like to think that they have a scientific approach to life, but they do nothing more than demonstrate that they have completely missed the point of faith.

The existence of God cannot be either proven or disproven.

The non-existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.

The position adopted by both the atheist and the agnostic is one based on arrogance.

You are wrong. Agnostics do not require proof, as they understand that proof does not exist. They take the stance that you cannot either prove or disprove the existence of God. You are confusing the idea that no proof of God means he/she does not exist with Atheism.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Wrong. I'm open to the theories, I don't however accept them as truth as you have admitted you do based on 'faith'
You're not a Skeptic, as you've admitted that in order to believe something, 'no evidence is required'

You are not a sceptic. You start from a position that the Standard Model is the correct one, and you accept that position without even knowing just how badly damaged it has been rendered by studies carried out over the past two or three decades.

I do not claim to be a sceptic, but I do claim to be more of a sceptic than you. I have been questioning the Standard Model even before I discovered the work of Don Scott and Wal Thornhill. I am attracted to their ideas - which are based on ideas of others - because they offer a far more scientific explanation for phenomena that is actually observed in the Universe, that is replicable in the laboratory, and whose findings have been used to predict events that NASA scientists have failed to explain using the Standard Model.

I start from the position that the meaning of the Universe is too far from our understanding to ever grasp it. I believe it, and we, were designed that way. Therefore, faith is the only real thing of any merit, and that we must use our intuition and judgement to believe in what we choose to believe in. Ultimately, I exercise my freedom to believe in what I do, and I choose not to be led by the lies of mainstream so-called science.

 

[PINKIE]

Like I said, we will never know. Science and religion are trying to start something from a definite "no start" point.

What Science does is explain observable phenomena. Religion fills in the gaps (and attempts to give an ethical code to living one's life)
The role of science isn't to offer explanations for things that we cannot understand or explain. And it should be applauded for that, because it attempts to be rigorous in its explanations, so that they offer the best working theories on our understanding.

The problem is that there is pseudo science that incorporates its own questionable theories that have very little rigour and attempts to pass it off as credible science.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

You are wrong. Agnostics do not require proof, as they understand that proof does not exist. They take the stance that you cannot either prove or disprove the existence of God. You are confusing the idea that no proof of God means he/she does not exist with Atheism.

Semantics, Pix.

The point is that it is as absurd to believe that there is a Creator as it is to believe that there isn't a Creator.

Therefore, either position is no more and no less valid than the other.

It is why you choose to believe in one or the other that is the valid topic for debate, not that you may hold one particular view or the other.

An agnostic is someone who chooses not to believe in a Creator because the existence of such can neither be proven or disproven, but they are missing the whole point of what faith is about.

That's the whole point! No one knows and no one will ever know. Therefore, choose to believe in God for the simple reason that it is no more absurd to do so than to not believe in God.

 

[PINKIE]

You are not a sceptic. You start from a position that the Standard Model is the correct one, and you accept that position without even knowing just how badly damaged it has been rendered by studies carried out over the past two or three decades.

I do not claim to be a sceptic, but I do claim to be more of a sceptic than you. I have been questioning the Standard Model even before I discovered the work of Don Scott and Wal Thornhill. I am attracted to their ideas - which are based on ideas of others - because they offer a far more scientific explanation for phenomena that is actually observed in the Universe, that is replicable in the laboratory, and whose findings have been used to predict events that NASA scientists have failed to explain using the Standard Model.

I start from the position that the meaning of the Universe is too far from our understanding to ever grasp it. I believe it, and we, were designed that way. Therefore, faith is the only real thing of any merit, and that we must use our intuition and judgement to believe in what we choose to believe in. Ultimately, I exercise my freedom to believe in what I do, and I choose not to be led by the lies of mainstream so-called science.

No, you are wrong again. I do not take the position that the standard model is the correct one, I take the stance that the standard model is the best working hypothesis for explaining the phenomena that we can measure and observe. It hasn't been 'badly damaged' by any Pseudo science, that you are advocating, as those theories do not stand up to the rigours of scientific discipline.

You have admitted that you rely on faith to give your world meaning, therefore I would say that you seek out alternatives, however unreliable to attempt to discredit the rigours of science and instead apply your own ideas that support your own ideas. In my opinion, you leave yourself open to accepting delusional and fanciful thinking as the norm.

 

[PINKIE]

choose to believe in God for the simple reason that it is no more absurd to do so than to not believe in God.

That's a ridiculous conclusion to come to. It's like saying that you cannot disprove that the world was created by a six headed dragon that breathes blue fire, so you might as well entertain the idea that it was.

 

[Diego]

Semantics, Pix.

The point is that it is as absurd to believe that there is a Creator as it is to believe that there isn't a Creator.

Therefore, either position is no more and no less valid than the other.

It is why you choose to believe in one or the other that is the valid topic for debate, not that you may hold one particular view or the other.

An agnostic is someone who chooses not to believe in a Creator because the existence of such can neither be proven or disproven, but they are missing the whole point of what faith is about.

That's the whole point! No one knows and no one will ever know. Therefore, choose to believe in God for the simple reason that it is no more absurd to do so than to not believe in God.

Do you believe in God or mans written word about his supposed son?
I have no faith as such but am willing to admit that on my deathbed will probably ask for Gods forgiveness. Sudden change of heart, hedging my bets or life long indoctrination from all sides, who knows.
I have no more faith in the big bang than God but have (like most of us) been through a school system that indoctrinates you from the age of 5 to accept God (religious education and morning assembly) so it's in there somewhere in us all.
Maybe RE should be re-named cultural beliefs and ceremonies, that way kids/people would have a fairer view of the world.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

As opposed to the ideas that you are trying to purport that Stars glow because they are essentially light bulbs ?

Why do you keep banging about giant lightbulbs?

Please, go and read what Don Scott actually writes.

For a start, you will find that his approach is far more scientific than cosmologists who believe in voodoo magic.

Your claims that modern cosmology as been 'ripped apart' by this pseudo science is what's laughable here.

That isn't what I have said, that is what you want to believe I said.

Firstly, the studies - and there is a countless number of them - are peer-reviewed studies carried out by those working within the paradigm.

Do you know what "peer reviewed" means, Pix?

Secondly, you clearly do not understand the irony in your "pseudo science" jibe, since it is becoming increasingly clear that the astrophysicists that you laud so much have driven their "science" into a cul-de-sac. There is a genuine crisis in astrophysics.

On the other hand, the astronomers are increasingly turning to the world of plasma physics and electrical engineering for genuine scientific explanations to actual observable phenomena.

Rather than argue the toss with me - and it is clear that nothing I write is going to do anything other than bruise your ego and force you into another tirade in an attempt to convince me that I ought to believe in the garbage that I have already dismissed and which has, in fact, dismissed itself - go and research this stuff.

Even if you do not get drawn into the theories being formulated by these alternative thinkers, I am confident that you will be far more critical of the lies that are being preached in our schools.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Do you believe in God or mans written word about his supposed son?

All major religions appear to have been handed down to us from the Sumarians. There are some great YouTube documentaries on this subject.

No, I do not believe in organised religion, or the books on which those religions found their faith. I would not dispute, however, that each of these books holds some distilled nuggets of truth in them.

Ultimately, I believe that Man has existed for millions of years, and that we have gone through many cycles of existence in this Solar System, each one ended by a cataclysmic event that has obliterated our collective conscious and, effectively, restarted the clock on our learning and technology. I think we have been separated by vast aeons from our spiritual beginnings, and that we are groping our way back to an enlightenment, a lost knowledge.

 

[PINKIE]

Why do you keep banging about giant lightbulbs?

Please, go and read what Don Scott actually writes.

For a start, you will find that his approach is far more scientific than cosmologists who believe in voodoo magic.





That isn't what I have said, that is what you want to believe I said.

Firstly, the studies - and there is a countless number of them - are peer-reviewed studies carried out by those working within the paradigm.

Do you know what "peer reviewed" means, Pix?

Secondly, you clearly do not understand the irony in your "pseudo science" jibe, since it is becoming increasingly clear that the astrophysicists that you laud so much have driven their "science" into a cul-de-sac. There is a genuine crisis in astrophysics.

On the other hand, the astronomers are increasingly turning to the world of plasma physics and electrical engineering for genuine scientific explanations to actual observable phenomena.

Rather than argue the toss with me - and it is clear that nothing I write is going to do anything other than bruise your ego and force you into another tirade in an attempt to convince me that I ought to believe in the garbage that I have already dismissed and which has, in fact, dismissed itself - go and research this stuff.

Even if you do not get drawn into the theories being formulated by these alternative thinkers, I am confident that you will be far more critical of the lies that are being preached in our schools.

I think you're the one with the bruised ego here mate. You haven't dismissed anything, you've offered some questionable science that does not stand up to the rigours of scientific discipline and which has been shown not to match any of the observations of astrophysical phenomena.

But you dismiss that by saying that astrophysics is 'voodoo magic' and then admit that you base your ideas on faith. My personal view is that you have been suckered in by well articulated nonsense, because you are seeking a view that fits better with your ideas based in faith.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

That's a ridiculous conclusion to come to. It's like saying that you cannot disprove that the world was created by a six headed dragon that breathes blue fire, so you might as well entertain the idea that it was.

If you want to make that your god and base a belief around it, that is your right to do so.

Probably, no one else will follow you in that belief.

My position is not as specific as that.

Either there is a Creator (or a Prime Source for Everything) or there isn't. If you choose to believe the latter, you have the difficulty of explaining how everything came about and is the way it is. Science cannot help you.

I choose to believe that there is a Prime Source For Everything, and that the Universe emerged out of that Prime Source, or came into being because of it.

I cannot prove that, of course.

What I say is, that my belief is no more absurd and no less valid that a belief that there is no Prime Source and that the Universe came about by accident, out of nothing.

 

[PINKIE]

If you want to make that your god and base a belief around it, that is your right to do so.

Probably, no one else will follow you in that belief.

My position is not as specific as that.

Either there is a Creator (or a Prime Source for Everything) or there isn't. If you choose to believe the latter, you have the difficulty of explaining how everything came about and is the way it is. Science cannot help you.

I choose to believe that there is a Prime Source For Everything, and that the Universe emerged out of that Prime Source, or came into being because of it.

I cannot prove that, of course.

What I say is, that my belief is no more absurd and no less valid that a belief that there is no Prime Source and that the Universe came about by accident, out of nothing.

So you are a creationist then.

That's okay, just so long as we know where you're coming from on all of this.

 

[Diego]

All major religions appear to have been handed down to us from the Sumarians. There are some great YouTube documentaries on this subject.

No, I do not believe in organised religion, or the books on which those religions found their faith. I would not dispute, however, that each of these books holds some distilled nuggets of truth in them.

Ultimately, I believe that Man has existed for millions of years, and that we have gone through many cycles of existence in this Solar System, each one ended by a cataclysmic event that has obliterated our collective conscious and, effectively, restarted the clock on our learning and technology. I think we have been separated by vast aeons from our spiritual beginnings, and that we are groping our way back to an enlightenment, a lost knowledge.

You do know that the Sumarians believed/indicated that man was created (produced from lesser stock) by aliens?

You are right though in your assertion, the Bible is pretty much a copy of Sumarian beliefs/history (?) but is 4000 years earlier so where does that leave the bible and current beliefs ?

 

[Hoddle is a god]

I...you've offered some questionable science that does not stand up to the rigours of scientific discipline ....

You cannot know how laughable that boast is, Pix!

Modern cosmology could not be less "scientific" if it tried.

It is more of a cult than true science.

Go and do your research. I cannot do it for you.

 

[Diego]

If you want to make that your god and base a belief around it, that is your right to do so.

Probably, no one else will follow you in that belief.

My position is not as specific as that.

Either there is a Creator (or a Prime Source for Everything) or there isn't. If you choose to believe the latter, you have the difficulty of explaining how everything came about and is the way it is. Science cannot help you.

I choose to believe that there is a Prime Source For Everything, and that the Universe emerged out of that Prime Source, or came into being because of it.

I cannot prove that, of course.

What I say is, that my belief is no more absurd and no less valid that a belief that there is no Prime Source and that the Universe came about by accident, out of nothing.

So basically you have made a choice of two total unknowns and picked the one that gives you most solace?

 

[PINKIE]

You cannot know how laughable that boast is, Pix!

Modern cosmology could not be less "scientific" if it tried.

It is more of a cult than true science.

Go and do your research. I cannot do it for you.

Coming from somebody who has admitted that they base their ideas on faith, I'll take that with a huge pinch of salt mate

Anyway, where is this credible evidence for advanced civilisations on Mars that you've promised us ?