UFO's

[Outlander Systems]

How is any of this back-and-forth relevant to the Pascagoula Incident?

[WillBrink]

Excluding the problems with empiricism for a moment and the consequent problems with finding evidence for something that happened billions of years ago. "Belief" and "faith" are the stuff of religion. And since only the particular processes of abiogenesis not abiogenesis itself can be falsified...it doesn't sound like science but a belief system.

I don't follow? What's a belief system? It's "believed" due to what's in front of us and the available evidence that life evolved as it did (source supplied as to summary of latest) and how it got started in unknown. That's it. Some hypothesis as to how that may have occurred have been put forth, varying over time as better understanding evolves. That's it.

What hypothesis on the origins are being ignored you feel we should pay more attention to?

"It's super complex and I can't fathom how it could happen without a higher power intervening" works for you, fine with me. Per prior comments, I'm agnostic on that one, just as willing the believe, if not more so, that some extraterrestrial beings seeded the planet with life than I am any higher powers/God(s). Your mileage may differ.

No one claims to have the answers to the origins from a scientific POV, hence it's a moot discussion ultimately. We all agree, we don't know right?

Not sure where the lying part comes in? I dont think I accused anyone of lying.

In reference to others comments that scientists are lying about the topic, and derp derp says as much in the vid posted.

[Adrenaline_6]

Again, you're out of your lane and so is he. He's an organic chemist, not a bio chemist, evolutionary biologist, etc. and article I supplied explains that as well as various points he's wrong. Nothing he said was in his lane, nadda. He's obviously a very smart man, and excellent at baffling with BS. His entire talk comes down to "it's so crazy complicated it could not have happened randomly cuz I can't figure it out" and that's it. 58 minutes of my life I can't get back. He added not a single point that alters anything at all. He throws out all manner of terminology to sound woke, most of which is completely irrelevant to the topic. Sounds like an organic chemist rambling on about his understandings of the topic, and that's exactly what you're getting in that vid. Babbling nonsense. No notes? WTF?

Only statement he makes that's accurate is "no one know how that happened" Guess what, no one is claiming they know.

Cognitive dissonance is a real mother f-er.

So you are implying that you are in the lane then? It doesn't matter what kind of chemist he is. He understands what it takes for the process to be done. He explains it in detail how complicated it is. He never says it's so crazy complicated, it could not have happened randomly cuz I can't figure it out". He shows how crazy complicated it is in a pure environment, much less an unpure, undirected, chaotic one, and then reiterates over and over that NO one can figure it out and is nowhere close on doing so. He explains components of living cells and how complex that is. He shows examples of complete garbage published in the Science journal of so called experts that are actually lying and show why they are lying. His intent was never to alter anything, only to expose the incomplete mess of a theory it is.

The no notes comment is equivalent to my mind erase comment ind is valid if you get the point he is trying to make. When scientists experiment and it fails, they get to go back at it with notes and try again in a different manner using those notes to improve success. Stupid random chemicals swirling around randomly don't have that luxury, increasing the likelihood of it never happening. Geez, a mathematician or a Vegas odds maker would lose his mind trying to figure the odds on this nonsense.

What is babbling nonsense is the irresponsible theorists that leave all the important things mentioned in the video out of their research that goes unchecked and says "we're good to go on this". That is babbling nonsense and totally irresponsible as far as science goes.

[WillBrink]

So you are implying that you are in the lane then? It doesn't matter what kind of chemist he is.

Yes, yes it does. The vid is complete rubbish and adds exactly zero to the topic. The rest is you repeating yourself. I'm done here

Have a good one.

[Adrenaline_6]

Yes, yes it does. The vid is complete rubbish and adds exactly zero to the topic. The rest is you repeating yourself. I'm done here

Have a good one.

When someone says something is rubbish, I expect a detailed explanation of why it is. Maybe at least where he is steering us wrong. "Cuz he's not an expert in the field" to me is a cop out. Sorry. Make no mistake, I have no angst towards you Will, I actually think your a good guy and we share the like for knives. I just thing this theory is more of a religion and belief than a scientific theory due to how incomplete it actually is. You have a good one yourself. Peace.

[LoboTBL]

It is indisputable that life can and indeed does exist in the harsh vacuum of space. There are bacteria and microbes present on the exterior surface of the ISS. Now, where these organisms came from is not known and is being currently studied and debated. The fact that a form of life can exist in space is not proof that life has or can originate somewhere other than Earth; but it does suggest the possibility of it occurring.
It is also known that microbes can and do mutate (evolve) in space. Given that life can exist in space, I find it incredibly improbable that the only place in the universe it has occurred is right here on Earth.

[TomMcC]

I don't follow? What's a belief system? It's "believed" due to what's in front of us and the available evidence that life evolved as it did (source supplied as to summary of latest) and how it got started in unknown. That's it. Some hypothesis as to how that may have occurred have been put forth, varying over time as better understanding evolves. That's it.

What hypothesis on the origins are being ignored you feel we should pay more attention to?

"It's super complex and I can't fathom how it could happen without a higher power intervening" works for you, fine with me. Per prior comments, I'm agnostic on that one, just as willing the believe, if not more so, that some extraterrestrial beings seeded the planet with life than I am any higher powers/God(s). Your mileage may differ.

No one claims to have the answers to the origins from a scientific POV, hence it's a moot discussion ultimately. We all agree, we don't know right?



In reference to others comments that scientists are lying about the topic, and derp derp says as much in the vid posted.

What I'm getting at is that "scientists" don't interpret bare facts (if they are facts) in a vacuum. They like every other human being start with assumptions (presuppositions). The atheistic scientist starts with the assumption that nature is all that is (materialism/naturalism). I absolutely guarantee you that a considerable amounts of scientists have this assumption. Right from the get go they exclude God, based on proof? Of course not, they assume it. Didn't you yourself say that God can't be disproved? So they start with an irrational assumption, there is no God. Why is it irrational, because you would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to know that there is no God. So there is an immediate built in bias. They are human and in my view fallen in every part of their being, so their story telling is just that stories. There are only two possibilities as to how life came about, un-thinking matter and energy did it through an unknowable process or God did it. It's forever unknowable because by their own standards the original conditions billions of years ago is unknowable, they can guess, but that's as good as it gets...they will never be able to observe it or test it. So they are left with stories. They will never willing falsify abiogenisis simply because the alternative is God. Earlier scientists, Issac Newton a Christian, had zero problems with the compatibly of science with theology, and guys like him were real geniuses. Since Darwin, atheism has taken hold in scientific field, so that creation scientists with PhD's are scorned by the folks at Scientific America, why? because we can't have infidel theists importing their alternative assumptions and interpretations into real, atheistic science.

As concerns probabilities even some secular scientists admit that the chances of abiogenisis being true are stupendously astronomically low...they just believe it by faith. I called it a belief system like religion because assuming naturalism is just that a belief or faith.

[LoboTBL]

From a purely objective standpoint the existence of God can be neither disproven or proven.

The atheistic scientists you refer to pretty much have to go with the assumption that there is no god. To do otherwise would be making an assumption that cannot be verified.

[elephant]

I will say that I think it's possible that the Roswell crash was a prototype of the Horten brothers' stealth fighter.

1. Right after World War II
2. German tech and scientists imported to US
3. Shape of Horten brothers stealth fighter is close to descriptions of both Roswell UFO and Kenneth Arnold UFO's.
4. Still top secret because the technology is still classified (still relevant to modern stealth aircraft).

why wouldn't they just fly the original that was brought over here in Operation Paperclip. Its still in some hangar outside Washington DC. I saw a National Geographic special called Hitler's Stealth Fighter, and Northrop Grumman built a scale model and put it up to there stealth radar post and it actually had a lot of stealth properties. Chain Home would not have seen it coming.

Walter and Reimar stated in an interview in the late 80's - early 90's that they thought the whole Roswell incident was a prototype based on german designs.

Others aviation experts claim the Roswell crash was a modified Vought V-173 (Flying Pancake) fitted with internal General Electric K-31's- similar to the Bell P-59.

[elephant]

From a purely objective standpoint the existence of God can be neither disproven or proven.

I can prove the existence of God!