In the Beginning...

[Leoreth]

I think it depends on those making the assumptions about the thread. Berzerker seems to be looking for science to back up his points. I am just using what humans have claimed to "observe" to explain what the text is describing. It seems that whenever we bring something up, we have been judged through a biased world view on if we are actually making scientific proclamations. I think those have already been made within the last 5,0000 years. We are just pointing them out in this thread.

That's what I said, the science.

 

[timtofly]

That's what I said, the science.

I think that the word Arakhor used was "unscientific". I doubt alien spaceships even fit under "the science" category. The Egyptians may fit under "the science" category. Eratosthenes probably fits in the "science" category.

 

[Leoreth]

This entire thread has nothing to do with science. Only the science.

 

[Agent327]

Can I have a drawing about how Saturn's Rings point towards pluto? I can't even envision the concept. And how accurate is this 'pointing'?

You could try it with a saucer.

 

[timtofly]

This entire thread has nothing to do with science. Only the science.

So then it does depend on your biased viewpoint?

 

[Leoreth]

No, it depends on what the word science means.

 

[timtofly]

No, it depends on what the word science means.

From most of the feedback here, it seems that people do not have a strict sense of what science is. To some it does not even matter if observation or experimentation is involved or not. "the science" does not even have a standard definition. It is a biased view that current humans refuse to accept what human's in the past did. The current scientific method has only been around for a few hundred years. Are you saying that any scientific practice before that is just plain wrong? This thread has not been about scientific breakthroughs (except that Berzerker has some faith that may happen). It has been looking at the claims made by those in the past. If the point is made that there is no science but just about "questionable" science then that is a judgment call on what science even is.

The term originates from Latin "to know". What do we know? Sure the majority may get to make that decision, even if what is "known" is wrong. This thread has brought up a lot of information, that some here may or may not have known. I realize that most just reject such information without scientific scrutiny of their own. They just assume the "scholars" know what they are talking about. About the only scientific endeavor a forum like this could even carry out would be a "poll" thread to gather data what people thought on a particular subject. So to purposely state it is not science is ether being obviously redundant or trying to make a point that there is error being perpetrated by certain posters in the thread. Which by all definitions is a "judgment" call.

 

[Leoreth]

Your post is exactly why this thread is about the science and not science. I don't think we are in disagreement.

 

[Agent327]

So then it does depend on your biased viewpoint?

Someone who points out a fact, has a biased viewpoint? Interesting viewpoint, that.

From most of the feedback here, it seems that people do not have a strict sense of what science is. To some it does not even matter if observation or experimentation is involved or not. "the science" does not even have a standard definition. It is a biased view that current humans refuse to accept what human's in the past did.

What?

The current scientific method has only been around for a few hundred years. Are you saying that any scientific practice before that is just plain wrong?

Typical conclusion out of the blue?

This thread has not been about scientific breakthroughs (except that Berzerker has some faith that may happen). It has been looking at the claims made by those in the past. If the point is made that there is no science but just about "questionable" science then that is a judgment call on what science even is.

What?

The term originates from Latin "to know". What do we know? Sure the majority may get to make that decision, even if what is "known" is wrong. This thread has brought up a lot of information, that some here may or may not have known. I realize that most just reject such information without scientific scrutiny of their own. They just assume the "scholars" know what they are talking about.

That may be because scholars usually do. It's their job, you know. (But if you don't 'trust' the scholars, you're free to scrutinize their work. You're not free to defamate "the scholars" without any foundation though. You see, that would suggest a biased viewpoint.)

About the only scientific endeavor a forum like this could even carry out would be a "poll" thread to gather data what people thought on a particular subject. So to purposely state it is not science is ether being obviously redundant or trying to make a point that there is error being perpetrated by certain posters in the thread. Which by all definitions is a "judgment" call.

I don't know if you have been following this thread much, but it's most definitely not about science. In fact, if the thread would have nothing more than the title, none of its current participants would have missed out on anything. (Well, except for some mild entertainment perhaps.)

 

[Perfection]

So Berzerker, how much are your views impacted by Sitchen?

To be blunt he's well known as a crackpot. Why do you take him seriously?

 

[timtofly]

Someone who points out a fact, has a biased viewpoint? Interesting viewpoint, that.

That may be because scholars usually do. It's their job, you know. (But if you don't 'trust' the scholars, you're free to scrutinize their work. You're not free to defamate "the scholars" without any foundation though. You see, that would suggest a biased viewpoint.)

I don't know if you have been following this thread much, but it's most definitely not about science. In fact, if the thread would have nothing more than the title, none of its current participants would have missed out on anything. (Well, except for some mild entertainment perhaps.)

All human's have a biased viewpoint. That has nothing to do with the integrity of facts. Unless every post you have placed in this thread is devoid of facts. You have hardly even given your own biased opinion. I am pretty sure the scholars are fine. You are the one claiming this thread has no facts at all, if you are going to go down the path that states there is nothing here about science. I already pointed out that I have learned new facts in this thread. That point is either a fact or my biased viewpoint, or both. That would put your statement as just your biased viewpoint, or an unlucky guess at attempting to state a fact. And that after pointing out how empty this thread has been. I think there is a statement, in fact, some facts can be wrong.

I suppose that you do not defame "scholars"? Do you just point out they are not scholars, so you defame the person and not the institution? I just pointed out that some facts are wrong. The whole point about science is technically to figure out things that are unknown. It deals with only things that can be known. Without coming out and directly saying that, that is what you are pointing out, "it's most definitely not about science." Science is hardly about making judgment calls on what has happened in the past. Therefore it's use to that end is just personal biased viewpoints. If you are going to hold to this line of reasoning, then every theory of origins, or ancient account of them can only be relegated to a personal biased viewpoint. You have thrown out every fact except the one's that back up what you claim has happened in the past.

 

[Acken]

Is that just a complucated way of saying "you weren't there" ? Or I misunderstand ?

 

[timtofly]

Is that just a complucated way of saying "you weren't there" ? Or I misunderstand ?

I guess that depends on if you read the whole thread. Then turn around after reading it, and claim, I experienced all of human history.

 

[Acken]

What ? I thought I asked an easy question.

 

[Arakhor]

Tim is often cursed with sesquipedalian loquaciousness.

 

[Agent327]

All human's have a biased viewpoint. That has nothing to do with the integrity of facts. Unless every post you have placed in this thread is devoid of facts. You have hardly even given your own biased opinion. I am pretty sure the scholars are fine. You are the one claiming this thread has no facts at all

Really? And where did I do that? I made a point about science, and this thread not being about science..

I already pointed out that I have learned new facts in this thread.

Well good for you.

And that after pointing out how empty this thread has been. I think there is a statement, in fact, some facts can be wrong.

In which case they're not facts. But let's take a look at yet another straw man:

I suppose that you do not defame "scholars"? Do you just point out they are not scholars, so you defame the person and not the institution?

Seeing as you just made this up, I am puzzled for a response here.

I just pointed out that some facts are wrong.

And I'm sure we all noticed this bizarre statement.

The whole point about science is technically to figure out things that are unknown. It deals with only things that can be known. Without coming out and directly saying that, that is what you are pointing out, "it's most definitely not about science." Science is hardly about making judgment calls on what has happened in the past. Therefore it's use to that end is just personal biased viewpoints. If you are going to hold to this line of reasoning, then every theory of origins, or ancient account of them can only be relegated to a personal biased viewpoint. You have thrown out every fact except the one's that back up what you claim has happened in the past.

Another bizarre claim. But then, I have trouble following the kind of illogical lines of reasoning you entertain, so I must be excused.

 

[timtofly]

Really? And where did I do that? I made a point about science, and this thread not being about science..

I don't know if you have been following this thread much, but it's most definitely not about science. In fact, if the thread would have nothing more than the title, none of its current participants would have missed out on anything. (Well, except for some mild entertainment perhaps.)

I interpreted this statement to infer that there were no facts (as you seem to use the term fact) in the entire thread. I.e. "there is no truth here folks".

In which case they're not facts. But let's take a look at yet another straw man:

Just two straw men hugging each other.


The point about what the term fact really is has become an issue. It used to be a fact was true or false. Now it seems facts just "disappear" unless they are true, but that is misleading, because now we do not have to use the word truth any more. Now when someone says that something is a fact, it has to be true. Not really, because there are still some facts that people hold to that they know to be true, and they are not. Or they cannot be proven, so you just rendered a lot of human experiences as impossible or at the least improbable, and there is no way to reconcile whether it is true or not, even if it is.

The term "fact" has replaced the term "truth", and now "truth" is the subjective reality instead of the objective reality. Another bizarre fact?: Are there now more humans who accept the material world as all there is, than those who hold to the possibility there are other dimensions to reality?

 

[Berzerker]

So Berzerker, how much are your views impacted by Sitchen?

To be blunt he's well known as a crackpot. Why do you take him seriously?

I read his analysis of Genesis and the Enuma Elish in "The 12th Planet"... When the people calling him a crackpot show why I'll consider their evidence. But Sitchin didn't author the world's mythologies, the evidence is there with or without him.

 

[Berzerker]

Can I have a drawing about how Saturn's Rings point towards pluto? I can't even envision the concept. And how accurate is this 'pointing'?

Draw a line with the sun at left and Earth close by to the right (the ecliptic). Extend that line outward and mark Saturn slightly above and below the ecliptic. Draw another line from the sun inclined by 17.2 degrees out to Pluto. Now draw a line between Saturn and Pluto. That angle is ~26 degrees, Saturn's equatorial plane (its ring system) points to Pluto. It's possible we might soon detect and recognize a trail of rock leading from Saturn to Pluto.

I do hope you're not expecting a biscuit for that startling conclusion. Any story that has ever existed which begins before the world is created "identifies an extra terrestrial origin" for whoever is in it.

shhh... you're gonna startle her

 

[Berzerker]

Kindly explain how a circle points anywhere - tilted or not.

a circle becomes a line edge on

A good thing then that nobody is denying that possibility.

She has a name and it aint nobody

And yet, strangely, no planet ever formed there. Now why would that be?

Maybe one did... Other than the Earth being here what evidence do we have it actually formed here? Our water came from out there. And if the world formed in the presence of its water then it formed out there too.

That would rather suggest the moon originated at the asteroid belt. I'm not quite sure how you manage to confuse the moon and Earth.

How did I confuse them? Yes, the moon originated at the asteroid belt too.