Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Do scientists bend the rules to make their
Topic Started: Apr 24 2012, 12:02 PM (211 Views)
sherry
Member Avatar
sherry
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
theory fit?

It seems they often do as I have looked over this on the net.

Take a look at this link which is what scientists have said about Evolution. Some are old but some not that old......

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/...ia/01-evol1.htm


Here's the start

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1

Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.

Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.

Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
 
sherry
Member Avatar
sherry
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Just what I think when I look at an evolutionary site or a sceptic one :lol:


Here ten of the worlds most famous scientific theories that were wrong.



http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-...to-be-wrong.php
 
Rusty Bullet
Member Avatar
A member of The Smilies Box Is A Bloody Nuisance Camp
[ *  *  * ]
Scientists always bend the rules whether by mistake or on purpose. The big difference is, they will get found out in the end.
 
sherry
Member Avatar
sherry
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Anyone who deceives usually gets found out in the end.
 
Duck
Member Avatar
Super Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
That's why the peer evaluation process is essential and why NO-ONE should be going to print (Looking at you pseudo-science and paranormal investigators) before your work has been evaluated as a journal and replicated by independent bodies. We know about bad science because of the scientific method not inspite of it. If only the paranormal claimants were quite so diligent, transparent or willing to accept when they are wrong.

There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.

Carl Sagan
 
sherry
Member Avatar
sherry
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
So it's acceptable for science to make mistakes because it's a geniune one?

Maybe one day they'll be accepting the mistakes they've made regarding life in other dimensions?


People using spiritual science or paranormal science are getting their own results but they don't always claim to understand it.

Other areas of science don't understand it at all, probably because they aren't willing to spend the time on it it needs or they can't contemplate it or agree to the early steady experiments needed.




 
Duck
Member Avatar
Super Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
We've already explained many times why that is all nonsense Sherry.
 
Rusty Bullet
Member Avatar
A member of The Smilies Box Is A Bloody Nuisance Camp
[ *  *  * ]
sherry
Apr 24 2012, 04:39 PM
So it's acceptable for science to make mistakes because it's a geniune one?

Who said anything about acceptable? What is not acceptable are people who announce amazing results but refuse scrutiny under the most questionable reasons. What is also not acceptable are intelligent human beings sucking up false logic and pseudo science as an answer to anything.

sherry
Apr 24 2012, 04:39 PM
Maybe one day they'll be accepting the mistakes they've made regarding life in other dimensions?

Can you give any example where a scientific mistake has been made regards to life in other dimensions? Meanwhile; I'll assert that paranormal investigators have singularly failed to find any tangible proof of any parallel dimension, or paranormal ability in humans.
 
sherry
Member Avatar
sherry
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
You don't know that you're right Duck - that's the problem.

Science is open to change I keep being told - so let's wait for that change!

Besides that we are not dealing with science in general but with spiritual science that has understanding of it.


Rusty - how can you assert anything when you have no personal knowledge of the subject - or do you?

Some brands of science say there isn't life in other dimensions, is what I was meaning Rusty - that's why I'm saying they might have made a mistake.
 
Rusty Bullet
Member Avatar
A member of The Smilies Box Is A Bloody Nuisance Camp
[ *  *  * ]
sherry
Apr 24 2012, 05:39 PM
Rusty - how can you assert anything when you have no personal knowledge of the subject - or do you?

I await your paper on the scientific discovery of paranormal reality. Not that has ANYTHING to do with the point I made.

sherry
Apr 24 2012, 05:39 PM
Some brands of science say there isn't life in other dimensions, is what I was meaning Rusty - that's why I'm saying they might have made a mistake.

Example?

As far as I know there has been no scientific theory publish that categorically refutes the existence of other dimensions.
 
Les
Member Avatar
I use a computer, therefore I am.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Just out of general interest. :)
Cosmic flares shot from exploding black holes could provide long-sought proof of extra spatial dimensions, new calculations suggest.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1327...dimensions.html
 
sherry
Member Avatar
sherry
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Rusty
Meanwhile; I'll assert that paranormal investigators have singularly failed to find any tangible proof of any parallel dimension, or paranormal ability in humans
.

This is what I replied to and why I said 'how can you assert anything when you have no personal knowledge of the subject - or do you?



Rusty
As far as I know there has been no scientific theory publish that categorically refutes the existence of other dimensions.


By what has been infered in here many times I think I can be forgiven for thinking they had. But I mean life in other dimensions - not just dimensions
 
Rusty Bullet
Member Avatar
A member of The Smilies Box Is A Bloody Nuisance Camp
[ *  *  * ]
sherry
Apr 24 2012, 06:56 PM
Rusty
Meanwhile; I'll assert that paranormal investigators have singularly failed to find any tangible proof of any parallel dimension, or paranormal ability in humans
.

This is what I replied to and why I said 'how can you assert anything when you have no personal knowledge of the subject - or do you?

I have a working knowledge, but what I do know, is that there is no proof. I'm talking about scientific proof, not hearsay proof.

sherry
Apr 24 2012, 06:56 PM
Rusty
As far as I know there has been no scientific theory publish that categorically refutes the existence of other dimensions.


By what has been infered in here many times I think I can be forgiven for thinking they had. But I mean life in other dimensions - not just dimensions

I know, but my point still stands.
 
sherry
Member Avatar
sherry
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I can agree on your first comment. Though it makes me wonder if science does know but has been stopped from saying it's definite by the powers that be. Just think of the problems it'd cause the governments control. Everything would change. I think the world would be a better place after the initial shock. But not for the greedy ones.


A lot of information is kept from us and always has been.
 
Rusty Bullet
Member Avatar
A member of The Smilies Box Is A Bloody Nuisance Camp
[ *  *  * ]
sherry
Apr 24 2012, 07:13 PM
I can agree on your first comment. Though it makes me wonder if science does know but has been stopped from saying it's definite by the powers that be. Just think of the problems it'd cause the governments control.  Everything would change. I think the world would be a better place after the initial shock. But not for the greedy ones.

Judging by what has happened with the invention of the WWW, I have no confidence authority can keep a secret any more, do you?

sherry
Apr 24 2012, 07:13 PM
A lot of information is kept from us and always has been.

That might be true of the past, but less so now.
 
Fells
Member Avatar
I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Besides that we are not dealing with science in general but with spiritual science that has understanding of it.

The bolded bit does not exist This is the second time you have used this particular appeal to pseudoscience, Sherry - any particular reason?

 
sherry
Member Avatar
sherry
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I believe there's spiritual science. Time will tell :)
 
Rusty Bullet
Member Avatar
A member of The Smilies Box Is A Bloody Nuisance Camp
[ *  *  * ]
I understand that spiritual science is simply the opposite of empirical science, hence, never the twain shall meet. They are different animals.
 
sherry
Member Avatar
sherry
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That's what I think Rusty. At least as things stand now.
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Science · Next Topic »
Add Reply