your #1 bf piece

[duallie]

and when a mechanic explains how an engine in a car works, many don't understand a thing he is saying.
they just accept what he is saying.
so, by your comparison, mechanics can be just as much about belief.

many people are just incapable of understanding many things.
there are people who can't even change a tire or add oil to a vehicle that they use every single day.

[Richard]

May 23, 2012 14:39:00 GMT -5 duallie said:

but science does prove something's existence.

I guess there isn't much point in going down this route.

I do not hold current scientific knowledge as complete - nor should we. I am just saying that evidence does exist to warrant investigating.

Bill, trust me when I say that the math behind physics "works" but it is itself a belief system. What you say?? It was even discussed in TV-Land, I really enjoyed a line from the Big Bang Theory about string theory:

"Hey, look, my idea has an internal logical consistency."

You cannot "prove" anything about string theory, yet most people support it as "scientific fact" ... just don't mention it to those in the "Loop Quantum Gravity" camp.
There is a perfect example, scientists cannot agree on "facts" yet both have their own merits ... it boils down to belief.


Remember, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Richard.

[billr]

May 24, 2012 14:34:33 GMT -5 duallie said:

and when a mechanic explains how an engine in a car works, many don't understand a thing he is saying.
they just accept what he is saying.
so, by your comparison, mechanics can be just as much about belief.

many people are just incapable of understanding many things.
there are people who can't even change a tire or add oil to a vehicle that they use every single day.

No you missed my point entirely.

[billr]

Richard
I have university level physics (passed the course as well)
Much of what we believed to be true in physics (and science in general) over the last 100 years has been disproved.
Who knows what the next 100 years will show
You and I believe the math that shows that an electron can travel at the speed of light because it has no mass at rest.
However in our day to day experience we have nothing that we can compare it to. Even when we test the time shift in atomic clocks when flown in an airplane compared to a stationary one it is hard for most of us to comprehend.
If you take that same principle and compare time for an astronaut traveling at 0.9999C to the nearest star and back vs time for the earth it gets even harder to comprehend

I guess my long winded answer is for many people their belief in much of science (theories and the like) is based as much on faith as religion.
They have simply replaced their religious leaders with scientist.

[duallie]

sure, but religion is based 100% on belief.
science has many instances of evidence and proof to back things up.
religion has none.
and neither does bf.

[Richard]

Bill: I couldn't agree with you more.
Duallie - Religion is not based on 100% belief, but like science, they both boil down to a belief in a particular system, a greater power in terms of religion, and a general coherent simplicty to that of science.

[duallie]

May 26, 2012 13:04:31 GMT -5 Richard said:

Bill: I couldn't agree with you more.
Duallie - Religion is not based on 100% belief, but like science, they both boil down to a belief in a particular system, a greater power in terms of religion, and a general coherent simplicty to that of science.

you have some proof to back that up?
it's based on a story written forever ago.

nobody parted no sea.
nobody died and came back to life.
there is no heaven and there is no hell.

[hotdog]

nobody parted no sea.
nobody died and came back to life.
there is no heaven and there is no hell.


duallie,

You have some proof to back up this statement?

[duallie]

May 26, 2012 17:40:05 GMT -5 hotdog said:

nobody parted no sea.
nobody died and came back to life.
there is no heaven and there is no hell.


duallie,

You have some proof to back up this statement?

holy crap!
some just don't see the silliness in it all.
and this applies to the majority of the bf perception as well.

you can't prove anything, so you want others to prove it doesn't exist.
that's insane.
there's no need because there's no proof of it in the first place.

all those things i refered to are impossible.
that's why i know they never happened.
now how it works in the real world, is how can you back up that they did?

the same with bf.
people don't need to prove it doesn't exist.
the onus is on those making claims to back it up with proof.
and none have been able to do that......ever.

and what happened to the intended purpose of this thread?
you couldn't even give your best bf piece?
is that because there isn't one?

[duallie]

May 26, 2012 17:40:05 GMT -5 hotdog said:

nobody parted no sea.
nobody died and came back to life.
there is no heaven and there is no hell.


duallie,

You have some proof to back up this statement?[/quote]

and yes, i do.
it's called a bible.
maybe you've heard of it.
it's that book with the stories in it that everybody recites every sunday in church.

and i'm not saying it's a bad thing.
alot of religions ideals are quite good.
it's a good, kindness-related way to raise children.

[Richard]

May 26, 2012 13:53:24 GMT -5 duallie said:

you have some proof to back that up?
it's based on a story written forever ago.

nobody parted no sea.
nobody died and came back to life.
there is no heaven and there is no hell.

I suppose it boils down to what one describes as proof.
Your belief system would apparently dictate you have a tangible piece of evidence to back up the claims of the above. That is the tenants of your belief system. Science does not always require such "proof" (again, string theory being a main point against this).
As proof, I submit the fact that The Bible is the single longest "running" idea that the human race has ever had - it has outlived empires, cultures and even the languages it was initially written in ...
Science cannot say the same thing - in fact science can only say that every 100 years or so, a new monkey wrench is thrown into the works that causes everything to be re-evaluated and in fact, for the most part contradict its earlier findings.

I am not saying this from personal beliefs one way or another, only that I would caution you to place too much faith in "science" without proper weighing of evidence - in any form.

Richard

[Richard]

Duallie,
As many who know me would be the first to state I enjoy a nice debate now and then (with emphasis on now), I am curious as to why you are attracted to this type of site?

It is obvious that what evidence does exist of BF is not of the same type of that of say a standard chemical reaction A + B -> C , however it is much greater than the same "scientific" evidence than say the evidence that links the Great Pyramid of Giza to Kofu.

In this later example, for those of you know may not be versed in it, the "ownership" of the largest pyramid in the Giza plateau is attributed to Kofu due to a half painted name in an upper chamber of the pyramid, a name measuring only 2" wide. Not only is the origin suspect, but as someone once said, given that logic, most of NewYork, LA and London is owned by a fellow called Killroy. For the record the only other thing ever mentioning Kofu was a 3" tall statue found 1,000Km from Giza ...

Whereas in terms of BF there are tens of thousands of prints, with hundreds that have undergone proper scrutiny (See Dr. Jeff Meldrum), and yet still no acceptance.

So which is it? Science CANNOT have it both ways. Science cannot have such poor scientific basis for naming Giza's largest pyramid after Kofu based on a single hand painted name on a wall (the suspect part being the person who found it in the 1930s was after the owner, as the pyramid has no markings in it whatsoever, and reports were the paint was still fresh when see shortly afterwards by another member) and yet ignore empirical evidence in the form of foot castings.

Science cannot and does not have its cake and eat it too.

Where the problem lies is what practitioners of science decide to believe in vs. discount. So yes, it IS a belief system. The same way scientists such as Dr. Jeff Meldrum and the like can indicate that SOMETHING is roaming the woods, yet others (like yourself) claim a lack of evidence - they are no different than people interpreting the bible and creating their own denominations.

It all boils down to personal perception and point of view.

Richard

[duallie]

richard, you obviously aren't seeing what i'm saying.
i'm not saying i don't believe in bf's existence.
but i'm able to be objective and also see it from the other side.
i don't just put on the blinders.
it's wrong NOT to question things.

who are you to suggest i shouldn't be on this site?
i guess you are one of those who just wants everyone to agree and say that every report is great and how exciting everything is.
sorry, but some of us live in the real world.
why are you so against people questioning things?

i just find it interesting that people like to change the subject when asked to provide some proof or evidence.
and you say that there is evidence of bf?
provide it then, don't just state it.
this is the problem.
people love to claim all the time but not provide any example of what they are saying.
i've asked for someone to show tracks after they claimed that there are many "real" prints.
none were ever shown.
we need to stop just accepting every little wood-knock claim and glowing-eyes story.

i believe in bf.
but i'm not about to just join the ranks and think every person is telling the truth.
show me this evidence you are refering too, because i am not aware of any.

[Richard]

May 27, 2012 12:13:31 GMT -5 duallie said:

who are you to suggest i shouldn't be on this site?

That is amusing. Please tell me WHERE I stated you shouldn't be on the site? When I said:

"I am curious as to why you are attracted to this type of site?"

I meant it - what attracted you to the site... nothing more.

My suggestion would be to stop "guessing" about other people's motives, and not making assumptions about anyone else. You have really no idea who any of us are, what our backgrounds may be, and what we do for a living, so I would hesitate to make wild assumptions. There are some really good, kind and intelligent members of this forum, sometimes I find it best to be quiet and listen to what others have to say, and refrain from making assumptions.

If you wish to continue this as an academic discussion/debate then by all means do so, if not, I will not be part of any personal mud slinging, and as I said, I will not continue.

Richard

[Sean V.]

May 27, 2012 12:13:31 GMT -5 duallie said:

who are you to suggest i shouldn't be on this site?

He didn't suggest that at all.

I'm not sure how you managed to read his post and come to that conclusion.