You Can't Trust Science!

Flamed Diving

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Scientific materialism is though.

?

fontanalis

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Scientific materialism is though.

Are you David Quinn?

fontanalis

mysterious wrote: »

I agree life expectancy has risen, but the scientific path is making us more robotic, less creative, more irrational, less attentive, more destructive, less aware, more ignorant and totally dependent on a materialistic way of life.

People pre biblical times lived much longer than we did. In Atlantean times they lived much longer too. Infact science killed Atlantis off. Simply because logic and science mind goes against the laws of nature in almost every way possible.

It's called imbalance. Science is destined to fall. Just as much as been too spiritual. Been too spiritual makes you too egoistical and obsessed with your highs. Been to scientific, makes you too egoistical and obsessed with knowing.

This is time is so crucial to our development, that the ancients such as the Hopi's, Mayas and other post Atlantis civilizations are trying to warn us of what we are not paying attention too. Science is not the answer. Science will reach its peak and it will turn against us. A classic movie that I can relate to just while typing this is the matrix. The matrix is the logical moving human world with machines. They are in the future where machines have outsmarted man, and Mr. Anderson is the powerhouse of the entire matrix and otherwise known as Lucifer. He is all light all knowledge, but is empty at the same time. Machines want to destroy humanity. Humans wants to destroy humanity.

It takes ONE to bring the war to an end, not because he believes in something but he believes we are all, and that peace and balance can be restored to its natural equilibrium. We created science remember. It is not the defenete and it never will be.

We have a right and left brain for a very good reason. We are designed to use both equally. The problem is we don't. In this timeline we have let science get ahead of our natural spiritual state. Which makes us turn into the beast, or machine state. It's all I want i want, and I take I take. I need I need. We are trying to cheat ourselves.

Flamed driving life expectancy may be going up, but that's only in the west and the sad truth is, people in the west are not living fuller lives. We are less happy. We work longer hours, We fight each other more. If that's not enough we go and kill millions in the poorer countries. We are sucking the life out of this world just to satisfy our material greedy lifestyle. Natural medicine and homeopathy can make us live longer and naturally. But since we live a monetary system. Been natural isn't profitable. Science may have done good things, but it has done very very bad things too. Science may have created immunity to diseases but it has created far more diseases than ever before. Science is a perspective not the answer.

I think I've said this already.
When your really look into, we are really forgetting who we are on a spirit level that we really are more than just a physical body. It's the insanity and ignorance we wallow in causes us man to destruct ourselves because we cannot see the truth of what we really are.

How can a chemical diluted to the nth degree make people live longer?

Flamed Diving

fontanalis wrote: »

How can a chemical diluted to the nth degree make people live longer?

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/581-homeopathy-qualifies-for-the-million-dollar-challenge.html

So simple, why not collect the million bucks?

In addition, note that he (mysty) says it isn't profitable, ignoring the BILLIONS earned by the industry.


On a more sombre note:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f975xKbLm4k

fontanalis

Good article also.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4957

Nick Dolan

First, Im sorry my first post got a little personal, i feel very strongly about this .I was mainly trying to combat this notion that conventional science has an equal footing with other alternative explanations and is therefore no different. Nonsence. That the earth is flat can be considered an alternate theory but it has been proved to be demonstratably untrue. Scientists didnt just decide to agree the earth was spherical, they had to face all the evidence that supported it. Anti scientific people tend to focus on grey issues such as health but you never here people talking about alternative theorys of electricity or geometry . The reason I gave all those numbers (I do know what im talking about, I study light everyday in college) is that they are proven, given constants and there are hundreds others.They are all used everyday to boil water, keep satellites in orbit, transmit tv signals and keep wheels turning.Heres a simple experiment - Hold a bowling ball over your foot and open your mind to the fact that gravity does not exist. If your toes remain nice and wiggly then you can come back and tell me science cant be trusted.

TalkieWalkie

Nick Dolan wrote: »

First, Im sorry my first post got a little personal, i feel very strongly about this .I was mainly trying to combat this notion that conventional science has an equal footing with other alternative explanations and is therefore no different. Nonsence. That the earth is flat can be considered an alternate theory but it has been proved to be demonstratably untrue. Scientists didnt just decide to agree the earth was spherical, they had to face all the evidence that supported it. Anti scientific people tend to focus on grey issues such as health but you never here people talking about alternative theorys of electricity or geometry . The reason I gave all those numbers (I do know what im talking about, I study light everyday in college) is that they are proven, given constants and there are hundreds others.They are all used everyday to boil water, keep satellites in orbit, transmit tv signals and keep wheels turning.Heres a simple experiment - Hold a bowling ball over your foot and open your mind to the fact that gravity does not exist. If your toes remain nice and wiggly then you can come back and tell me science cant be trusted.

No one is saying it can't be trusted.

Nick Dolan

Isnt the thread called science cant be trusted? .

fontanalis

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Isnt the thread called science cant be trusted? .

You'll encounter alot of this, best to get used to it now.

Wibbs

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What on earth does this mean? Furthermore, from 130,000BC -1800AD, life expectancy around the world was around 35 years old. Then, following the beginning of scientific enlightenment (medicine, food production, immunisation), the Western World diverged from the rest. Now you, TW, can expect to live for 80+ years, more than double your ancestors.

Yes and no. What skews the stats of the past was the very high infant mortality rate. People living in times of relative calm and prosperity could expect to live well beyond 30. OK famous people from history: Aristotle died at 62, Rameses the great was in his 90's, Plato at 80/81, socrates at 70(and poisoned at that) Hadrian at 62, Later on Titian was in his late 80's when he died, Michelangelo was 89. our own Columbanus was 75 when he died after traipsing across europe for a laugh. Childhood mortality majorly skewed the stats, but if you made it to 30 back then the chances of seeing 70 were not that much lower than now. The middle ages saw a drop in Europe, because of successive plagues rolling in year after year.

Plus if 30/40 was the average age of death, how come 3 score and 10(70) or in some cases 80 as an average not questioned around the time of christ as invalid?

gospel;
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten;
and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years,
yet is their strength labor and sorrow;
for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."

Now this is 2000 yrs ago and was aimed at a general audience, both local peasant farmers and the roman and greek world it was later aimed at. If someone came along today and said the average span of a life was 200 years, people would raise eyebrows. They didnt back then as they clearly knew enough 70+ year olds knocking about. Further afield the chinese and the japanese in particular didnt see anything unusual in living to a "good age". Even today there are groups of long lived peoples largely isolated from the western world who live as long or even longer than us on average(certainly healthier).

Yes we've added 10 years on as an average and we've saved a lot of kids who would have otherwise died and that's brilliant, but make no mistake if you went back in time to ancient greece or rome as a 70 year old you wouldnt be seen as some strange demigod.

TalkieWalkie

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Isnt the thread called science cant be trusted? .

If you bothered to watch the clip, you would know it was a sarcastic joke against Religion.

Flamed Diving

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes and no. What skews the stats of the past was the very high infant mortality rate. People living in times of relative calm and prosperity could expect to live well beyond 30. OK famous people from history: Aristotle died at 62, Rameses the great was in his 90's, Plato at 80/81, socrates at 70(and poisoned at that) Hadrian at 62, Later on Titian was in his late 80's when he died, Michelangelo was 89. our own Columbanus was 75 when he died after traipsing across europe for a laugh. Childhood mortality majorly skewed the stats, but if you made it to 30 back then the chances of seeing 70 were not that much lower than now. The middle ages saw a drop in Europe, because of successive plagues rolling in year after year.

Plus if 30/40 was the average age of death, how come 3 score and 10(70) or in some cases 80 as an average not questioned around the time of christ as invalid?

gospel;
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten;
and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years,
yet is their strength labor and sorrow;
for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."

Now this is 2000 yrs ago and was aimed at a general audience, both local peasant farmers and the roman and greek world it was later aimed at. If someone came along today and said the average span of a life was 200 years, people would raise eyebrows. They didnt back then as they clearly knew enough 70+ year olds knocking about. Further afield the chinese and the japanese in particular didnt see anything unusual in living to a "good age". Even today there are groups of long lived peoples largely isolated from the western world who live as long or even longer than us on average(certainly healthier).

Yes we've added 10 years on as an average and we've saved a lot of kids who would have otherwise died and that's brilliant, but make no mistake if you went back in time to ancient greece or rome as a 70 year old you wouldnt be seen as some strange demigod.

I recommend looking into the work of Robert Fogel and Richard Steckel, who have spent their careers investigating these questions.

Wibbs

From what I recall of Robert fogel(I dunno the other chap Im afraid ), he's primarily an economist but has an interest and study in the longevity and health field? But I must take up your recommendations on both. That said his primary interest lay between the 1600's and today in Europe IIRC? That's an interesting if narrow time as far as human longevity goes. In europe(especially in the north) we had come out of 300 years of massively variable weather, successive plagues and a sudden influx from the countryside to the cities in the industrial revolution. All of which impacted strongly on longevity factors.

During the various plague years alone you would have been very lucky to see 20 in the first place and outstandingly lucky to see 35. Throw in periods of unreliable food supply and you were in real trouble(the rich lived much longer even considering the various plagues).Then the move into the unsanitary cities and very harsh working lives and all bets were off.

This period and location was not a good indicator of "natural" human longevity or even expected longevity(once one passed childhood) of other periods or locations. Consider a roman legionnaire, not exactly a rich mans career path. They had to be at least 18, healthy etc and had to serve for 20/25 yrs before they were eligible for a pension and land. Bringing them over 40. They certainly expected to cash that in, even with the strenuous privations of such service. Yet many texts will tell us that Romans could only expect to see 23-25, which makes no sense at all. Especially when one throws in the historical records of various famous Romans, including gladiators who well hit their 50's and they had a very hard life. Others? Cicero 63, Marius 70, Julius Caesar 55 and he had a slight case of stabulitis, Augustus 75, Constantine 66, Horace 58, Ovid 74/5, PLiny the elder 55, but killed by the volcano that took out pompeii, Pliny the yonger ironically at 52. Its a long list. Have a google. Indeed that would be advisable as my memory defo has its limits.

Do I think overall Longevity in average humans(in the west) has increased? God yea of course I do. Its the biggest leap in longevity across the board since circa 40,000 years ago, when for some unknown reason we all started to live longer, when compared to ourselves and our hominid ancestors like Neandertal* I also agree that their are myths of older people that are taken as gospel by some. But I do have an issue with some of the mainstream science that has us all dying off at an average age of 25 "in the past". Its simply not the case.

A further issue with some aspects of science is it's "faith" in the theory de jour, sometimes blind faith. And that blind faith can close us off to competing theories all too often. My worry is, that in the face of the anti science brigade, like fundy christians and the like, they sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater. Try getting a paper published in nature that goes against, string theory, pre clovis peoples in the americas, out of africa theory, anything even vaguely questioning some aspects of genetic research. EG On the aforementioned Neandertal DNA. You will read strong claims by leaders in the field that say they contributed very very little if not nothing to moderns because of the DNA studies. Slight problem there Ted. Yours and my genome contains around 3 billion base pairs(I may be missing a couple in fairness ). What have they pined down in the Neandertals? 1 Million base pairs. Just 0.03%. That's like wandering into a huge library reading 3 books and reckoning you have read the whole of accumulated human knowledge. You wouldnt take that to the bank, but too often they do. Throw in cultural and political pressures and infleunces and it can get a tad murky. That's not the kind of science I would want to believe in.

Do I trust the mechanism of science? Yes. Do I trust scientists all the time, or even a lot of the time? Nope. Much like the spiritual person trusts God, but has an issue with his or her followers. I trust the mechanism. Blind faith and the attendant hubris in anything, whether of the spirit or of the test tube is IMHO daft. Both are in flux at any one time, both in the subjective and objective. In both science and spirituality.








*though there is at least one Neandertal whose skeleton we have that lived past 40, though well bollexed he was. Interestingly his was among the first described and our hunched over shambling "ape man" notion of his people comes from the fact he was suffering from arthritis and a withered arm. As people were looking for the "missing link" degraded human at the time..... It seems they were in fact magnificent looking buggers who were the kings of their castle for far longer than we have been before or since their demise.

Nick Dolan

I never like hearing the word faith in the same sentence as science ( not the whole other can of bees : religion v science) but the idea that scientific ideas require " a leap of faith" . Scientific ideas should always be grounded in evidence and not require any faith at all. Of course this is the idealised version and the quality of data we have for some ideas is unambigous while for others its fuzzy or sparce. So when people talk about open minds, yes thats a very good principle but the evidence is the all important foundation. Plate techtonics was considered nonsence at first because the guy simply said "gee, the world looks like a jigsaw puzzle" And years later when the evidence was unargueable it became accepted. Regarding Neandertal DNA perhaps why they claim we have none is that huge amounts of our DNA is "junk" and very little is used to build us. So maybe they turned to the relevant sections of Neandertal DNA parallel to our "active" sections and saw huge differences. Aha! now im being unscientific, putting forward a hypothesis without any evidence! tricky business, this science.......

Yitzhak Rabin

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I never like hearing the word faith in the same sentence as science ( not the whole other can of bees : religion v science) but the idea that scientific ideas require " a leap of faith" . Scientific ideas should always be grounded in evidence and not require any faith at all. Of course this is the idealised version and the quality of data we have for some ideas is unambigous while for others its fuzzy or sparce. So when people talk about open minds, yes thats a very good principle but the evidence is the all important foundation. Plate techtonics was considered nonsence at first because the guy simply said "gee, the world looks like a jigsaw puzzle" And years later when the evidence was unargueable it became accepted. Regarding Neandertal DNA perhaps why they claim we have none is that huge amounts of our DNA is "junk" and very little is used to build us. So maybe they turned to the relevant sections of Neandertal DNA parallel to our "active" sections and saw huge differences. Aha! now im being unscientific, putting forward a hypothesis without any evidence! tricky business, this science.......

Actually, just recently announced, it seems likely that humans and Neanderthals did interbreed. (Courtesy of Wibbs in the paleontology forum)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18869-neanderthal-genome-reveals-interbreeding-with-humans.html?page=1

There's a thread over the last few months discussing the possibility here

mysterious

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I never like hearing the word faith in the same sentence as science ( not the whole other can of bees : religion v science) but the idea that scientific ideas require " a leap of faith" . Scientific ideas should always be grounded in evidence and not require any faith at all. Of course this is the idealised version and the quality of data we have for some ideas is unambigous while for others its fuzzy or sparce. So when people talk about open minds, yes thats a very good principle but the evidence is the all important foundation. Plate techtonics was considered nonsence at first because the guy simply said "gee, the world looks like a jigsaw puzzle" And years later when the evidence was unargueable it became accepted. Regarding Neandertal DNA perhaps why they claim we have none is that huge amounts of our DNA is "junk" and very little is used to build us. So maybe they turned to the relevant sections of Neandertal DNA parallel to our "active" sections and saw huge differences. Aha! now im being unscientific, putting forward a hypothesis without any evidence! tricky business, this science.......

The "junk DNA" Is not junk, and nor is it from Neandethal.

It's called E.T DNA. That makes up the rest of what we are. The term junk is a incorrect term. Infact just recently the science community just releasted this info. I sent this info to Galvesean on the Palentology forum last year. Hes a very big follower of the mainstream pseudo crap that we are fed by with education, he even found it reallly fascinating.

It's only called Junk, because the science community doesn't know what it does.

I do.

TalkieWalkie

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I never like hearing the word faith in the same sentence as science ( not the whole other can of bees : religion v science) but the idea that scientific ideas require " a leap of faith" . Scientific ideas should always be grounded in evidence and not require any faith at all. Of course this is the idealised version and the quality of data we have for some ideas is unambigous while for others its fuzzy or sparce. So when people talk about open minds, yes thats a very good principle but the evidence is the all important foundation. Plate techtonics was considered nonsence at first because the guy simply said "gee, the world looks like a jigsaw puzzle" And years later when the evidence was unargueable it became accepted. Regarding Neandertal DNA perhaps why they claim we have none is that huge amounts of our DNA is "junk" and very little is used to build us. So maybe they turned to the relevant sections of Neandertal DNA parallel to our "active" sections and saw huge differences. Aha! now im being unscientific, putting forward a hypothesis without any evidence! tricky business, this science.......

We do have Neanderthal DNA

Neanderthals and modern humans interbred, probably when early humans first began to migrate out of Africa, according to a genetic study released on Thursday.

People of European, Asian and Australasian origin all have Neanderthal DNA, but not Africans, researchers reported in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The study may help resolve the long-running debate over whether Neanderthals and modern humans did more than simply live side by side in Europe and the Middle East.

"Those of us who live outside Africa carry a little Neanderthal DNA in us," said Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, who led the study.

"The proportion of Neanderthal-inherited genetic material is about 1 to 4 percent. It is a small but very real proportion of ancestry in non-Africans today," Dr. David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston, who worked on the study, told reporters in a telephone briefing.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10575837

Yitzhak Rabin

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

We do have Neanderthal DNA

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10575837

To be fair to Mike Dolan, that study is very recent news, and most people haven't heard about it. I didn't even see it in the national papers, and imo its big news!

Yitzhak Rabin

mysterious wrote: »

Infact just recently the science community just releasted this info. I sent this info to Galvesean on the Palentology forum last year. Hes a very big follower of the mainstream pseudo crap that we are fed by with education, he even found it reallly fascinating..

I do.

Would you mind sending that info to me please? I'd be very interested to read it.

mysterious

yekahs wrote: »

Would you mind sending that info to me please? I'd be very interested to read it.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_adn08.htm
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/26/01340.html


Here is another paragraph I found

Collaborative research from a gathering of exo-scientists postulate that there are genes from over 20 extraterrestrials civilizations in Human DNA. These exo-scientists have continued the work of Nobel Prize winner Dr. Frances Crick, and other scholars in this area. Current findings are consistent with reports of Professor Sam Chang, who discreetly released information on his own apparent findings, in association with the Human Genome Project. Scientists are beginning to complain more and more about political attempts to compromise the integrity of their important work for humanity. The discreet releasing of findings, is one apparent way in which scientists try to cope with scientific peer pressures to conform to prevailing political pressures.

Details of findings have been published in part, by Dr. Michael Salla, who is a learned scholar on extraterrestrial research. Exo-scientists and other researchers base their findings, in part, on carefully collecting data, which includes well corroborated documented observations by contactees and "whistleblowers", as well as other documentation. These verified reliable sources have come into contact with representatives of non-Earth Human civilizations living in human populations at-large, and also in official capacities.

"Exo-science" is the study of extraterrestrial phenomenon. "Exo-science" is further associated with "exopolitics" which embraces the need for humanity to have open contacts with Extraterrestrials on a representative democratic basis, that respects Earth's sovereignty.

In today's "global economy" an "official science" which denies the analytical study of spiritual phenomena, as a legitimate context for understanding human reality, has been created over time. The "science" which is legitimated by institutions that are closely linked to this "global economy", tends to seek to analyse only certain aspects of 'materiality'. Priorised subjects by this "official science" are limited to areas which complement the agenda of constituencies of individuals who seek to manipulate the "recognized" body of human knowledge for power and control. That scientific priorisation context, has notably sought to exclude extraterrestrial relationships to humanity, in order to keep humanity ignorant of its apparent potential "locked" heritage within its own DNA.

I posted the other link last year I will have a look at that and find it. I will post it soon.
Use Google you will find hundreds of results on this. The news was well broadcasted


Your catching up with us on the truth front.:D We are not so crazy with our claims after all. But then again I never need science to tell me whats real or out there.

RoboClam

You trust "exo-scientists" but not an average scientist without a fancy prefix before their name. You have a certain disdain towards science, but when it fits into your belief system, you'll happily listen to what an "exo-scientist" has to say.

EDIT: You also understand that the entire concept of DNA is written in science books and taught in school right? Without science, you would not know that "junk DNA" even exists.

bonkey

RoboClam wrote: »

EDIT: You also understand that the entire concept of DNA is written in science books and taught in school right? Without science, you would not know that "junk DNA" even exists.

Just as you understand that not trusting something doesn't mean you reject every word from that source as being false, right?

Mahatma coat

article wrote:

...But not Africa.....

on the topic o ideologies and Science, this is big news for followers of one 'Group'

Yitzhak Rabin

Mahatma coat wrote: »

on the topic o ideologies and Science, this is big news for followers of one 'Group'

Do ya reckon, the racist will jump on this to say, thats the reason that "whites are more advanced" than black people? Hope not, I'd hate for them to think there was any scientific basis for their racism.

There's also evidence, that humans in asia could have interbred with Homo erectus, one of our earlier cousins who left africa before us. The reason being that asian people have a particular cranium structure that you don't see in other humans, which you do see in asian h. erectus'. Also the first people to arrive in the australian continent, were more 'modern' than the later waves of people(modern aboriginal) who came from asia, who were more 'archaic' looking, suggesting they could have interbred with h. erectus on their way via land. Its very difficult to prove anything though, because erectus DNA is near impossible to find, unlike neanderthal.

Our origins is one of the most interesting topics, new evidence is continuously coming in that changes everything we thought we know. Just think in the last few years, with this neanderthal genome sequencing, the discovery of h. florensis, the discovery of ardipithicus.

Anyone who says that the record of human evolution is nearly complete, imo, is either lying, or just unaware of everything we still don't know.

mysterious

RoboClam wrote: »

You trust "exo-scientists" but not an average scientist without a fancy prefix before their name. You have a certain disdain towards science, but when it fits into your belief system, you'll happily listen to what an "exo-scientist" has to say.

EDIT: You also understand that the entire concept of DNA is written in science books and taught in school right? Without science, you would not know that "junk DNA" even exists.

No:D

I trust myself. I knew what was "real and true" before any science told me it was real and true.

Yekahs, wanted me to pass on a link of what mainstream science are only beginning to realise that is "true and real"

You see how science always plays catch up:D

mysterious

yekahs wrote: »

Do ya reckon, the racist will jump on this to say, thats the reason that "whites are more advanced" than black people? Hope not, I'd hate for them to think there was any scientific basis for their racism.

There's also evidence, that humans in asia could have interbred with Homo erectus, one of our earlier cousins who left africa before us. The reason being that asian people have a particular cranium structure that you don't see in other humans, which you do see in asian h. erectus'. Also the first people to arrive in the australian continent, were more 'modern' than the later waves of people(modern aboriginal) who came from asia, who were more 'archaic' looking, suggesting they could have interbred with h. erectus on their way via land. Its very difficult to prove anything though, because erectus DNA is near impossible to find, unlike neanderthal.

Our origins is one of the most interesting topics, new evidence is continuously coming in that changes everything we thought we know. Just think in the last few years, with this neanderthal genome sequencing, the discovery of h. florensis, the discovery of ardipithicus.

Anyone who says that the record of human evolution is nearly complete, imo, is either lying, or just unaware of everything we still don't know.

Science never really gets the answer. It's always changing. And science is so flawed because the masses just accept everything science has to say as fact, without looking at other missing links or sources. Like E.T connections.

Which we do have and always had.

Mahatma coat

Do ya reckon, the racist will jump on this to say, thats the reason that "whites are more advanced" than black people? Hope not, I'd hate for them to think there was any scientific basis for their racism.

see this is teh problem with science, its still biased by peoples interpretation of the data, becuse you 'dont want' something to be true you will voicifirously decry it to anyone within earshot, much as the Supremacists will use this to argue that they were right all along.

PirateShampoo

mysterious wrote: »

No:D

I trust myself. I knew what was "real and true" before any science told me it was real and true.

Yekahs, wanted me to pass on a link of what mainstream science are only beginning to realise that is "true and real"

You see how science always plays catch up:D

So what your saying is that you knew about DNA before you where even born?

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

see this is teh problem with science, its still biased by peoples interpretation of the data, becuse you 'dont want' something to be true you will voicifirously decry it to anyone within earshot, much as the Supremacists will use this to argue that they were right all along.

Wrong. It isn't based on personal opinion. It is based only on mountains of evidence. It was once everyones personal opinion that the earth was flat, and that objects fell towards earth at different speeds. This was all common sense, to the ignorant. But the evidence demonstrated this common sense to be wrong. This has been explained to you countless times before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

Just get over it.

Nick Dolan

Mainstream science cant be trusted the crux of the issue. Blindly follow everthing im told? Good science is about the data and when a scientist makes a claim she puts the evidence out there and anyone whos diasgrees can go through it with a fine tooth comb. And as for alien DNA, with respect, your crazy