Star wars is true - a theory of a spaceship plan on Earth

Gisteron wrote: No. It's not just "the brain" and its especially not "because, where else?". We know with ever increasing certainty which areas of the brain are responsible for what type of memories, and we know this because we have MRI technology. We also have confirmation because of patients with different areas of their brain damaged leading to according gaps in memory, and because of drug interference that can alter, wipe and fake memories.

The data produced by MRI would look no different if the brain is more like an antena than a storage medium. We're talking about some level of spiuritual interaction here and, of course, science is about observable phenomena, so I condece that according to the observations and the knowledge we have of the physical world, it does appear that all thought originates in the brain. Have you heard of morphic field theory?

No amount of particle physics will throw the Newtonian model we use in, say, ballistics, up in the air, nor relativity we use in, say, astronomy.

Do you believe that theories based on quantum mechanics will integrate with Newtonian physics the same way Newtonian physics blended so well with the Ptolemaic models?

All I'm asking for is that archaeologists allow the idea of ancient high technology into the pool of ridiculous theories without just knee jerk dismissal of it.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Ancient high technology will not get a free pass just like nothing else does. When it becomes either a necessary or a sufficient explanation of anything, that's when this discussion will change.

Would you say that dark matter is a totally plausible explanation for the mathematical anomalies that have arisen in within Newtonian physics models? Changes to mainstream thought usually come from a cracked pot who refuses to give up his wild theory until the mainstream can no longer ignore it. Copernicus, anyone? Of course, it took 500 years before he was vindicated by Newton.

It is becoming more mainstream to at least consider the possibility.

Citation, please...

Here's one: http://www.heeve.com/ancient-history/ancient-alien-theory.html

What if the ball really was set in motion by some advanced extra terrestrial tech?

Good question. Not really much of a question for evolution though, because evolution is a theory of the diversity of life, not of its inception.

Could said E.T. tech still be monitoring/adjusting the experiment?

The human genome project was all set to prove that humans naturally evolved from primates...

No. It was set to map the human genome. That we are primates and that our most recent ancestors were, too, was of course known to the people behind the project, but the project was about mapping our DNA, what ever conclusions that would leave us with.

[/quote] I meant, it was prepared to prove once and for all that humans and apes share a common ancestor (which I believe they did), but...

... but instead, it threw a big monkey wrench into the theory by revealing a bunch of errant dna that is no where in the generic record until you look at fungus and bacteria.

Citation, please.

Here's an old article, but it really does a good job of explaining the fallacies that were corrected after a more in-depth investigation of the "junk DNA." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/the_human_genome_project_ten_y040311.html

This anomaly might be solved if scientists could take a serious look at intelligent design theories without feeling like they are giving credence to religious nuts.

There is no intelligent design theory though. The entire argument of the creationist is a refusal to acknowledge evidence of evolution and the entire intelligent design movement is religious in purpose and origin. The design proposition accounts for no evidence whatsoever and makes no falsifiable predictions either. And with nothing to test, what is there to consider?

I think that that is an unfair generalization to say that the intelligent design movement is a religious thing. I see it as a result of an open minded approach to congruent myths from around the world. While that does have religious implications, it does not mean that the intelligent design theories are based on myth. It is just another way of looking at the data. Most many of these people are just trying to think outside the box.

Thank you, Gisteron, for your careful analysis of my post and for holding me accountable for my assertions. You honor me by taking the time to expound on my post. Namaste.

p.s. I'm still waiting to hear what is the connection to Star Wars here. Is it just the ancient technology thing?

Just a brief response, lest this become another digression with ever longer posts.

I have not heard of morphic field theory. Does it make testable predictions and have those predictions stood the test?
I'm not sure how Newtonian physics blended with geocentrism. As for quantum mechanics, I must admit that I have not taken that class yet. "Ask me next summer" is the best response I can give, but until then a worse one will be to remark that I meant to point out that theories in science are not tested for truth or falsehood but only for usefulness. It is not that relativity overthrew the Newtonian model nor that quantum theory overthrew relativity. All of them are approximations and we use the ones that are the best compromise between the accuracy we require and the effort we can expend calculating our predictions for the given task. You just don't take out the Schrödinger equation to calculate where a cannon shot will hit. You could, it's just not worth it.
I know not enough about astrophysics to comment on the dark matter matter. As for changes in the mainstream, no, most changes actually come from well within it. It is not because of the stubbornness of some crackpots, it is because of the evidence. I've said so much already a few times, but I'll repeat it again, gladly. Copernicus is of course a great example to bring forth for a time when there barely was any such thing as science - I wouldn't date science as we know it much older than Galilei, and even that is stretching it. Suffice it to say that the Catholic church, though having a monopoly on matters of education at the time, was an establishment, no doubt, but it was by no means scientific. It resisted any and every scientific progress for a millennium and is still being dragged kicking and screaming through it rather than coming around on its own much. In actual science, how strongly you assert something, or how boldly you insist on it does nothing to show anyone you are right. But evidence just might.
We share a common ancestor with all the other apes. We actually are apes ourselves. And again, I don't think the primary intent behind the genome project was to demonstrate this. It wouldn't even surprise me to find that we knew of the common ancestry with great certainty long before the project.
Evolutionnews.com seems to be a rather openly creationist website, with links to ID pages all over the place and if I'm not mistaken at least heavily involved if not run by the Discovery Institute. Now, instead of dismissing it for that, I shall dismiss it for not linking to any research papers related to the topic.
As for intelligent design being a strictly religious thing... That it is another name for creationism is the verdict of a court trial on the matter and from a Lutheran judge, no less. That it is motivated strictly by religion is also a conclusion drawn from the trial. You can read the unabridged verdict or any part of it here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Thanks OP for a thoughtful topic of discussion. I don't think most people would have the courage to video tape themselves and present the theory to the community. I applaud your courage for that.

I believe that everyone can agree that there are aspects regarding the pyramids that require further research. Telling others that their beliefs are wrong has no purpose, everyone must discover their own truths. Pushing your beliefs onto others does not validate those beliefs, it only creates more misunderstanding, hurt, and anger in others.

I think rather than making broad theories, we should focus investigations on individual aspects, for example a member of the community makes a statement "There are pyramid shaped sites all over the world" or "Some of the pyramids have a correlation to specific constellations and locations on the planet." We could provide clear non-biased evidence either way to help further the discussion on the topic.

Christopher.Miller wrote: Telling others that their beliefs are wrong has no purpose, ...

Yes, it does.

... everyone must discover their own truths.

Implying that there is such a thing as an obligation of this sort or indeed such a thing as a personal, relative truth, what ever that even means. I beg to differ.

We could provide clear non-biased evidence either way to help further the discussion on the topic.

So... In a rare moment of humility it occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, there is a centuries long backlog of archeological, geological and historical research and for some obscure reason none of it contains the slightest indication of a highly advanced alien civilization with an embarrassingly ineffectual plan. Now, this is not to say that we know all there is to know about every pyramid-like shape on the face of the earth - far from it. But maybe one "side" of this discussion actually has a mountain of evidence so big that it can no longer hope to even provide all of it for the sheer amount there is while the other has hot air at best...
This, in turn, is not to say what someone must or must not believe on the matter but the playing field is not at all level and while I am not personally affected, I'd have to guess that to be suggested to pretend like it is would be quite the insult to an actual historian. At the risk of sounding dismissive, maybe one stands to gain more from taking it up with experts in this field rather than lay people like most of us are...

CableSteele wrote: I can't believe this thread is getting so much attention. It kind of seems like a joke. The idea that the pyramids are some kind of control points or storage media for a planet sized space ship is rather far fetched. Then again, the big bang theory was originally decried as an attempt of "big religion" to subvert the steady state theory that the universe has always been here. It wasn't until the 1960s that the big bang theory gained enough traction that the scientific community at large began to accept that the universe had a beginning. My question is, how many other theories are wrong or at least a little off? Where are memories stored? It must be in the brain because, where else? What about gravity? There are many theories, but the most recent discoveries by the LHC have thrown them all up in the air. Particle physics is weird.

As for what I said about children's toys, little gold figurines that look like airplanes, carved wooden birds that look like airplanes, and the vimanas, they all came from somewhere. All I'm asking for is that archaeologists allow the idea of ancient high technology into the pool of ridiculous theories without just knee jerk dismissal of it. It is becoming more mainstream to at least consider the possibility.

For the record, I'm a huge fan of science. I love the sterile approach of scientific method. The tools of science are trustworthy, but to assume that scientists cannot become dogmatic in their assumptions is the height of hubris. It only takes a couple of generations to turn a theory into "basically fact." Once a theory is set in stone by college professors, people stop looking to prove it wrong. It saddens me that there are so few scientists working to disprove evolution, for example. It has been accepted by academia as truth and therefore doesn't require further testing. My opinion is that the complex theory of evolution is basically correct, but still needs fine tuning. What if the ball really was set in motion by some advanced extra terrestrial tech? The human genome project was all set to prove that humans naturally evolved from primates but instead, it threw a big monkey wrench into the theory by revealing a bunch of errant dna that is no where in the generic record until you look at fungus and bacteria. This anomaly might be solved if scientists could take a serious look at intelligent design theories without feeling like they are giving credence to religious nuts.

There are so many things wrong in this post that Im not even sure where to begin. However Gisteron is doing an excellent job of debunking this insanity so I will make but a few comments here.

A theory NEVER becomes a fact. Its the other way around. In scientific terms Scientists observe a phenomenon and then create a Hypothesis to try and explain it. They go about proving a hypothesis by the collection of evidence through repeatable experiments. Once this collection of evidence (facts surrounding the phenomena) becomes so overwhelmingly in support of the hypothesis, only then does it become a Theory. So a Theory is a collection of facts so comprehensive that it makes the theory true. However that does not mean that the theory cannot be later changed or even falsified by new evidence/facts. Once a theory is created they just don't put it on a shelf and say "That's done". In fact scientists work constantly with these theories and are constantly modifying and expanding on them.

There are raging debates going on now in the Theory of Evolution for example. And I guarantee to you that if any scientist in the field were to dig up something that disproved the theory he would be famous and rich. Not only are there scientists working with these theories every day in efforts to refine them but there are also scientist actively working to DISPROVE these theories and replace them with their own. The theory of evolution is but one example of this. A few prominent examples of scientist working toward disproving this theory include Kent Hovind, Jason Lyle, Hugh Ross, Michael Behe, Russ Humphreys and Steven Meyer. Also here is a link to just one list of other active scientists that would love to disprove it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists

Unfortunately their theories begin with a conclusion in an ancient book and then they try to work backward to prove the conclusion. Its BAD science but Kenneth R. Miller can describe these concepts better than I, so I refer to him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4r2J6Y5AqE


Also Just to through this in, a comprehensive debunking of Ancient Astronauts theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9w-i5oZqaQ

Gisteron wrote:

Christopher.Miller wrote: Telling others that their beliefs are wrong has no purpose, ...

Yes, it does.

What would be the purpose of a Christian and a Muslim discussing their own beliefs if one states the other is completely wrong to validate their own beliefs. It does not foster further discussion or lead to growth. It does foster hurt, anger, and resentment. It is at the root of everything the Jedi strive against.

... everyone must discover their own truths. Implying that there is such a thing as an obligation of this sort or indeed such a thing as a personal, relative truth, what ever that even means. I beg to differ.

You don't think that people should discover their own truths? Your belief is that you should be able to tell the OP " I am curious what it feels like to be completely wrong about everything one says for a total of four minutes' as response to the OP having the courage to make the video and post it. That is an act of cowardice.

So... In a rare moment of humility it occurred to me that maybe, just maybe, there is a centuries long backlog of archeological, geological and historical research and for some obscure reason none of it contains the slightest indication of a highly advanced alien civilization with an embarrassingly ineffectual plan. Now, this is not to say that we know all there is to know about every pyramid-like shape on the face of the earth - far from it. But maybe one "side" of this discussion actually has a mountain of evidence so big that it can no longer hope to even provide all of it for the sheer amount there is while the other has hot air at best...
This, in turn, is not to say what someone must or must not believe on the matter but the playing field is not at all level and while I am not personally affected, I'd have to guess that to be suggested to pretend like it is would be quite the insult to an actual historian. At the risk of sounding dismissive, maybe one stands to gain more from taking it up with experts in this field rather than lay people like most of us are...

This is where your intent becomes very clear. Why are you posting in this thread at all if not to help the community? Several members made a thread because they wished to have a discussion about the topic. Why are you telling us "maybe one stands to gain more from taking it up with experts in this field rather than lay people," what purpose does this serve other than hindering productive discussion?

I believe that you have productively added counter-arguments to the discussion. I believe the points you have raised are valid. You would do well to extend that same courtesy to others. Multiple members have now told you that your posts are offending others.

We need people like Gisteron. We need people like him so we can point our effing fingers and say, "dat's da bad guy."

me, i always tell the truth;
even when i lie

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dW37AGZ0Pj0

So while I'm not a biologist, from what I know I must disagree that there is much a debate in academia whether evolution by selective pressures occurs. Influence of selection on the gene pool has been observed both in nature and in the lab and common ancestry can only be denied by rejecting pretty much everything we know about genetics some of which we knew long before even the first models of evolution were proposed.
Now, there is some discussion to be had as to what kinds of pressures lead to what kinds of changes and how quickly. There has for a long time been some debate about what level natural selection cuts at - populations, individuals, fragments of the genome etc. There is some discussion whether constant genetic drifts or sudden catastrophic changes in pressures cause overall more change. It stands to reason that if we go deeper into specific genera we may find way, way more specific questions about the evolution of very particular features. I'm sure someone in the field will be able to name examples of that. In other words, there is some debate about the theory of evolution, i.e. our models of how its mechanisms work exactly, but even with those debates in place, we know more about how it operates than we know about anything else, really, to the point that it is a fundamental cornerstone of biology and medicine, all of which would cease to make sense anymore if we took it out again.
As for that little list, I'll recommend looking them up. Scientists in relevant fields among them didn't actually do much to question evolution, much more to undermine education.



And now, at last, to what I actually wanted to respond to.

Christopher.Miller wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

Christopher.Miller wrote: Telling others that their beliefs are wrong has no purpose, ...

Yes, it does.

What would be the purpose of a Christian and a Muslim discussing their own beliefs if one states the other is completely wrong to validate their own beliefs.[sic]

Well, you'd have to ask them. It is fair to say that unless the matter of discussion is a true dichotomy, eliminating one of the possibilities does little to demonstrate the other and at any rate to claim that it is wrong sure doesn't help with that. But your conclusion is that just because claiming someone is wrong doesn't settle an argument to do so therefore has no purpose?

It does not foster further discussion or lead to growth. It does foster hurt, anger, and resentment. It is at the root of everything the Jedi strive against.

Well, with all due respect I do not think that you get to define what "the Jedi" strive against, eventhough you are of course free to strive what ever you strive for and invite anyone and everyone to join you. From what I gather, many of the rest of us would.
But: While I agree that what we say can be a catalyst to all kinds of positive or negative feelings in the person who receives the message, to put the responsibility for the reaction on the shoulders of the actor rather than the reactor is in my opinion not fair to either. There is some irony I intended responding to your assertion with an unapologetic contradiction and little elaboration. I shall now deliver on that.
Too many people grow up and keep living in environments either provided to them or sought out by them where they don't get to hear something like "you're wrong" - echo chambers, if you will. In my humble opinion that is the kind of environment that actually doesn't foster growth. Any clash, any conflict fosters some kind of change, some kind of progress, be it a welcome one or not. But of course unlike in my brief "Yes, it does", you'll notice that in most cases when I disagree with someone, or indeed when someone else here does, it is never quite so brief. We take our time to elaborate what exactly we object to and why. Often times we even lay down the common ground, too, so as not to seem overly antagonistic. It is seldom just about angering someone, usually it is about some sort of further discourse, growth on at least one, hopefully both sides. Warm though posts like "this is great, thank you!" feel sometimes, to put it bluntly they aren't the ones that make us learn a lot. In this sense they are perhaps not the most valuable contributions for anyone seeking to improve anything about either the world or themselves or anyone around. There is no rule saying that anyone who comes here needs to seek any such thing, but to get even blunter than before, I would have to question what else one would be at all in public for?

... everyone must discover their own truths.

Implying that there is such a thing as an obligation of this sort or indeed such a thing as a personal, relative truth, what ever that even means. I beg to differ.

You don't think that people should discover their own truths?

I don't know what "their own truths" means and if I did I would still not see how it is obligatory (as implied by the "must") to discover it.

Your belief is that you should be able to tell the OP " I am curious what it feels like to be completely wrong about everything one says for a total of four minutes' as response to the OP having the courage to make the video and post it. That is an act of cowardice.

Yes, I do think that I, and indeed anyone else should be and is able to say anything and everything they please to anyone they please, somewhere. Some things are explicitly prohibited by the website's rules and code of conduct and within the website I abide by them for as long as I have an interest to stay and an expectation that following the rules raises my chances to stay. Whether either of us is courageous or cowardly in anyone's view is inconsequential to our right to speak our minds and the limitations on that right.

So... In a rare moment of humility...
... rather than lay people like most of us are...

This is where your intent becomes very clear. Why are you posting in this thread at all if not to help the community?

Well, I made my first post in this thread as a direct response to the OP's, and if I recall correctly, the OP said he'd like to know our opinion. My later posts are in response to other remarks that I either had a comment on or that were direct responses to my own. I call this conversation, discussion. The sermon section is full of "threads" where the original post stands on its own and everything else are congratulations and thanks and nothing else of substance.

Several members made a thread because they wished to have a discussion about the topic. Why are you telling us "maybe one stands to gain more from taking it up with experts in this field rather than lay people," what purpose does this serve other than hindering productive discussion?

Well, the context of this is that it has been five pages since the thread started and we're still sitting on zero evidence. I agree that dismissing it like I did is not necessarily conductive to keeping up a discussion, but then again it's been up for quite a while and its productivity remains abysmal. Of course we have had some posts from people who said they have some insight into this, J_Roz comes to mind. I suppose it comes down to what we mean by productivity. In my opinion it is more productive to consult those who may have some evidence. In yours it seems to be waiting on those who don't have any.

I believe that you have productively added counter-arguments to the discussion. I believe the points you have raised are valid. You would do well to extend that same courtesy to others.

Thank you. I do think so, too. And I do acknowledge every point I deem helpful or interesting and leave those I find unobjectionable at the very least alone. When I feel like I owe someone thanks I extend it. I already said enough about how much I think compliments benefit the discussion.

Multiple members have now told you that your posts are offending others.

Well, I'm not running for any sort of political office, so unless they also have some sort of argument or comment beside this, I have nothing to add.

Richard Dawkins, the Selfish Gene. Have you read ??