Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



Science or Religion?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Science or Religion?

Post  Tzieth on Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:20 pm

Is what we were taught in school science or more religion? I can't count the times some skeptic chimed in with how bigfoot research is some sort of pseudo-science or how this or that scientist said there was no possibility for this or that reason... And the reason always has some huge flaw that science it's self will counter. Many of these "Scientific Facts" have never even been proven and yet we are lead to believe they are irrefutable facts even though a few do not even have evidence backing them.

An example is our own planets. "Jupiter has no solid core, but rather it is entirely made up of gas with gas so dense in it's center that it is in a solid form.", "Venus is full of active and exploding volcanoes and rains hydrochloric acid." "Pluto is the last planet in our solar system and is covered in ice.", "Pluto is not a true Planet but a dwarf Planet." <---We know this stuff how? Voyager and Galileo? Basically camera's floating about the solar system with resolution so crappy that they make the worse Blobsquatch look Hi-Def? We can't see past Jupiter or Venus's cloud cover so we make crap up? How do we even know Pluto is not just a big chunk of ice floating out in space? or a dead comet.. Hell how do we even know Comets are ice?

Then there are "Solid Scientific FACTS" that are backed by Ample evidence. Biology based Science, Chemistry/Physics based science, Geology/Meteorology based science. All have their proven points if you look at them. Until you look at them all at once and see how they contradict and seemingly disprove one another.

"Pangea, also spelled Pangaea,  in early geologic time, a “supercontinent” that incorporated almost all of Earth’s landmasses and covered nearly one-third of Earth’s surface. It was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa. Pangea was fully assembled by the Early Permian Period, some 270 million years ago. It began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Period, eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The existence of the Pangean supercontinent was first proposed in 1912 by the German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Pangea’s name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/441211/Pangea

"The Jurassic Period

Great plant-eating dinosaurs roaming the earth, feeding on lush ferns and palm-like cycads and bennettitaleans … smaller but vicious carnivores stalking the great herbivores … oceans full of fish, squid, and coiled ammonites, plus great ichthyosaurs and long-necked plesiosaurs … vertebrates taking to the air, like the pterosaurs and the first birds. This was the Jurassic Period, 199.6 to 145.5 million years ago* — a 54-million-year chunk of the Mesozoic Era.

Named for the Jura Mountains on the border between France and Switzerland, where rocks of this age were first studied, the Jurassic has become a household word with the success of the movie Jurassic Park. Outside of Hollywood, the Jurassic is still important to us today, both because of its wealth of fossils and because of its economic importance — the oilfields of the North Sea, for instance, are Jurassic in age."
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mesozoic/jurassic/jurassic.php

Okay so if Pangaea was the Jurassic period why would any mountains contain fossils of it (see http://www.universetoday.com/29833/how-mountains-are-formed/ I am not going to copy paste that but I will summarize) Mountains form by a build up of sedimentary rock, Two tectonic plates pushing together, or magma reaching the surface of the crust and building a volcano. In all events, nothing of the Jurassic period should be found in mountains because mountains should not have existed back then. If these mountains were a result of two plates coming together, yes it would till up the crust but there is more to it than just that. Magma is also getting forced up and solid granite is being contorted and stretched and ripped apart. So how would limestone or sedimentary fossils survive that? Not to mention the fact that it takes millions of years for this collision to manifest into huge mountains. Dead plant matter is becoming coal and then the coal is becoming diamonds all in this time-frame. And we are lead to believe that delicate clay and sedimentary deposits are able to survive this?

OR How about one of the theories on how the Dinosaurs ere wiped out? That a huge meteor crashed into the ocean forming the Gulf of Mexico which stirred up a bunch of dust that blocked out the sun and cooled the planet while suffocating the dinosaurs, with the dust, blowing them to bits near the impact, and world wide starvation due to the loss of plant-life. (This is how anthropological and paleontological sciences work as well as Evolutionary study all together. "This looks that way, so that must be it."... That is all fine and dandy except for the fact that according to Geology, that nice and round Gulf of Mexico shape could not have possibly existed during the great Extinction because North and South America did not even look that way and were most likely not even in that location at the time. They don't even Think North and South America even touched a few hundred thousand years ago, so why would that shape maintain it's self for tens of millions of years ago?

Not far from where I live(Washington State), you have "Gingko Petrified Forest" Among the ancient Gingko trees, you have Petrified Cyprus trees and they have various fossils of large mammals that have since went extinct. This is not the Dinosaur era of millions of years ago, but pre-Ice age, Post Dinosaur age of a few 100,000 to 1 million years ago. These mammalian fossils as well as the plant-life fossils are of tropical species. So if the Pacific North West was tropical as recently as a few hundred-thousand years ago, then how could the Gulf of Mexico existed tens of millions of years ago? (One science contradicts another and no one seems to notice this.)

This leads me to Bigfoot. Biologists that dispute it chime in with the "Where are the fossils?" crap. Where geologists will tell you that fossilization is not possible in the area's Sasquatch are reported. That even our plains and prairies were once heavily forested at one time or another. We have all kinds of prehistoric civilization evidence (Clovis tools) but where are all the Clovis Bodies? Where are the remains? Likewise, we are lead to believe that when our ancestors first stepped foot on North America, it was early prehistoric stone age. Neanderthals still existed for sure as well as the Red Deer People of China and Denisova in Russia and possibly H.Heidleberinsis in Germany. (They don't out right say this, you have to dig up the disputed timelines of when they expected these things to have died out.lol)  But regardless, this was a time where the most advanced weapons were spears and that was as advanced as Homo Sapiens-Sapiens got.
So what were the odds that two parts of the world that were thousands of years separated from one another managed to come up with the exact same technology? "The Bow and Arrow." We know that the Norse got here long before Columbus did, but we also know Lief Eriksson was fatally wounded here by an arrow. So Native American's (If you do not buy into the Sasquatch attack theory lol) already had the bow and arrow at the time when it was still the chief long range weapon of Europe. (minus the crossbow) And no one talks about this either.

My point is that how do we scientifically prove or disprove that Sasquatch exists when our own science really isn't even true science? How can they say that all the other Human species died out with a straight face, when they know damned well that forest and jungle environments do not preserve nor allow fossils? How can they use the "No fossil evidence" argument on sasquatch when there isn't even fossil evidence for chimps? Without the Clovis tools, there would be no fossil evidence for the clovis people so how can you calmly say there is no fossil evidence for something that uses sticks and stones for tools?

If you are a true skeptic, then be more skeptical of the crap modern science tries to fill our heads with first and then Saquatch no longer seems all that "Far-Fetched."
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

science or religion

Post  sasdave on Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:08 pm

How ya doing wise one. Don't have much time so I'd like to say I agree with your post. In my many years of trying to understand this field of creation it does appear religion and science hide from the truth. For one I have seen this grand creature and it appears there has been very much proof of their existance. Through my research I found out there are on one of the smaller islands there were found large foot prints found imprinted in what now is a rock hill. They were close to a native whaling bay. It appears that science and religions have been lying to the masses regarding many things. Seeking truth is a very selective subject especially science, believe it or not.

sasdave

Posts : 80
Join date : 2013-03-24
Location : vancouver island canada

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science or Religion?

Post  muircertach on Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:44 pm

Tzieth wrote:
My point is that how do we scientifically prove or disprove that Sasquatch exists when our own science really isn't even true science?
Based on your uneducated rant science is not real? Um ok.


Tzieth wrote:How can they say that all the other Human species died out with a straight face, when they know damned well that forest and jungle environments do not preserve nor allow fossils?
Except for all those forest dwelling dinosaurs and millions of other animals and bugs. Oh and homo floresiensis.

Tzieth wrote: How can they use the "No fossil evidence" argument on sasquatch when there isn't even fossil evidence for chimps?
Um ok. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_teeth.html


Tzieth wrote:Without the Clovis tools, there would be no fossil evidence for the clovis people so how can you calmly say there is no fossil evidence for something that uses sticks and stones for tools?
Ok. http://www.medicaldaily.com/fossils-indicate-two-separate-civilizations-lived-north-america-13000-years-ago-241361


Tzieth wrote:If you are a true skeptic, then be more skeptical of the crap modern science tries to fill our heads with first and then Saquatch no longer seems all that "Far-Fetched."
There is only one far fetched idea here. And it is not from any skeptic.
avatar
muircertach

Posts : 6
Join date : 2013-09-02
Location : Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science or Religion?

Post  Tzieth on Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:58 am

Wow.. Thanks for making my point. Call me uneducated all you wish but it still does not make you any less brainwashed.. And you know that these Dinosaurs lived in forests because???? You saw movies? The fact that they left behind complete skeletons alone proves they came from plains area's and not jungles or forests.

The only attempt at any point you tried to make at all, was about ancient covis peoples and that still did not address the fact that there were no bodies. And perhaps you failed to read this part? "DNA cannot be directly dated with radiocarbon technology, researchers extracted fibers and carbon from the coprolites through distilled water. The fiber and carbon were compared to the radiocarbon-dated coprolites. This was done in part to address concerns that earlier evidence had been contaminated."

Since you seem to openly swallow the crap you were taught via text-book or internet, you might also want to look up the problems and debate about the validity of radio-carbon dating especially when it comes caves. While you are at it, try looking up the problems with old DNA. Despite what you may see on TV shows such as cold case or CSI. DNA does degrade and/ or alter fast. Both bacteria and fungi can completely change DNA (Caves are abundant with both.)

" Problems With Ancient DNA

The efforts of scientists to extract and study ancient DNA are not always successful. In many cases ancient DNA simply does not exist inside the sample or the DNA fragments are too small to be identified. Ancient DNA is also prone to chemical modifications that can alter its genetic code and make it difficult to analyse.

Another problem is the contamination of the samples with DNA from fungi and bacteria that invaded the tissues at, or after, the time of death. The DNA from these micro-organisms is often more abundant than the DNA of the animal or plant being studied. Ancient DNA samples can also become contaminated with the DNA of modern organisms, including humans.

Most successful ancient DNA studies involve specimens less than 100 000 years old. Initial claims that DNA could easily be recovered from material many millions of years old now seem unrealistic. In fact, some of the earliest and most startling claims of ancient DNA being extracted from fossilised plants and amber entombed insects up to 125 million years old have been shown to be false. The DNA extracted was actually a mixture of human, insect and bacterial DNA."
http://museumvictoria.com.au/scidiscovery/dna/problems.asp

Again though, thanks for making my point for me Smile
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Science or Religion?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum