XPost: alt.alien.research, alt.paranormal.crop-circles, alt.philosophy   
   XPost: alt.usenet.kooks, sci.skeptic   
   From: TheNewJerusalem@The   
      
   >Ever noticed that you never hear an affirmative   
   >definition of Intelligent Design Theory (ID)?   
      
   Assumption....   
      
   "In the beginning." There was a Big Bang. The ignition of the Design.   
      
   Black holes regulate the Design, keeping it perpetual for an eternal   
   Omnipotence.   
      
   "In the beginning."  The heaven and the earth. Were not, the Heaven   
   and the Earth.   
      
   Circular time exists in all solar systems. Linear time exists beyond   
   all solar systems.   
      
   Time is eternal before, during , and after the Design. But not the   
   'things' designed within the Design.   
      
   The theory of Intelligent Design dictates, a Designer.   
      
   We call it the Intelligent Design by an Omnipotent Designer   
   Philosophy (OD)   
      
   The OD exists beyond the design   
      
   The OD had a reason and a motive for making the natural ID.   
   >   
   >I think this is the reason why.  For any positive   
   >statement of a theory, you first state the assumptions   
   >required for that theory.  For much of mainstream   
   >science, these assumptions are often taken for   
   >granted, such as:   
   >   
   >1) We can perceive the universe through our limited   
   >senses, using direct and indirect methods of   
   >measurement and observation.   
      
   And from where did the intelligence come to do such things?   
      
   Only from people who were born with the intelligence and desire   
   to learn, and do such things.   
   >   
   >2) These observations and measurements are things that   
   >are reproducible, or repeatably observable.   
      
   Einstein's theory is still a theory. And it is assumed it can never be proven   
   wrong. There is a particle experiment that proved Einstein's theory of   
   relativity wrong. It is repeatable, and observable.   
      
   <><><><><><>   
   A SHIFTING THEORY OF GRAVITY   
   By Daniel G. Emilio, © Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001   
      
   "In an even more recent experiment, particle physicists have shown   
   that light pulses can be accelerated up to 300 times their normal   
   velocity of 186,000 miles per second. The experiment involved   
   sending a pulse of light toward a chamber filled with Cesium gas. But   
   before the light pulse had fully entered the chamber it had actually gone   
   right through it and traveled a further 60 feet across the laboratory. That   
   is, it exited the chamber  before it fully entered it. It appears to have   
   jumped forward in time."   
      
   "The research is already causing controversy among physicists. What   
   bothers them is that if light could travel forward in time it could carry   
   information. It would shatter Einstein's theory of relativity since relativity   
   depends on the speed of light as being unbreachable."   
      
   <><><><><><>   
   >   
   >3) Things that we cannot observe or measure, we cannot   
   >know about.   
      
   Objective versus subjective.   
      
   We can observe and measure the particle experiment, and crop markings.   
      
   But the assumption of a global 'hoax' for the markings keeps mainstream   
   science away. As a matter of fact, mainstream science and the powers and   
   principalities want nothing to do with them. They encourage the hypothetical   
   of a 'total human solution.' One sees it on the NetWorks. TDC et....al. In   
   their   
   patsies, shown on a global scale. Every year. National, and international,   
   blokes of hoax, crop clown programming.   
      
   Even though an energy is involved to soften the stems, is very evident. The   
   markings go on as assumed hoaxes. Done by a theory. 'Hypothetical Unseen   
   Blokes.' Assumed, by the deluded, to be fact. And the 'be all to end all.'   
   With the   
   help of the likes of the pip pip Team Satan. It will remain that way. Maybe   
   not.   
      
   If just one marking was shown to be impossible to be constructed by humans,   
   in its complexity. And just one of the multiple thousands of eyewitnesses,   
   stills,   
   film, videos of alien craft can't be debunked.   
      
   Well. "One", is all 'one', would need. One of both, at the very least, is what   
   one has.   
   >   
   >4) We MAY make assumptions about these unknowable   
   >things, which allows us to continue our exploration of   
   >our universe, even if we cannot know certain things.   
      
   Like evolution. It's an assertive theory. And we go on not knowing  a clear,   
   defined, ancestor.  "We can get by without banging our heads on that. And   
   if it is ever challenged with an assumption of hybridization. Well....that   
   means   
   a Designer of the ID. And we can't have that. It's not scientific."   
      
   The only way to explore the universe is to bend space time. Point to point   
   ><....   
   very fast......in half the distance. One could do that by amplifying the   
   gravity 'A'   
   wave in linear time. In circular time one could 'bend the light' by amplifying   
   to a specific frequency.   
   >   
   >4a) BUT, since we're trying to truly understand the   
   >universe around us, we must require that these   
   >assumptions be minimial, and the assumptions we make   
   >MUST be "reasonable".   
      
   If one assumes an ID. Then one must assume consciousness of an OD.   
      
   To assume we will traverse the universe and conquer it by farting our way   
   around, within it. By using our 'rocket science' and telescopes, is deluding   
   ourselves.   
   >   
   >(4a is just an alternate statement of the well-known   
   >philisophical saw, "Occam's Razor")   
      
   Occam's Razor is mediaeval think. It's old and rusty. It negates any new   
   thought against mainstream accepted assumptions, being wrong.   
   >   
   >---   
   >   
   >The power of assumption is used in mathematics and   
   >science to great effect.  We "assume" certain things   
   >that we cannot prove or disprove, and then build a   
   >scaffolding around these assumptions of verifiable   
   >observations and measurements.  Some day, these   
   >assumptions may be falsifiable, which would allow us   
   >to set in concrete the foundations of some of our   
   >scientific advances.  We must, with our logical minds,   
   >somehow come to a consensus of what assumptions are   
   >reasonable, and what assumptions are not.  The general   
   >rule we, as humans use, is "the simpler the better."   
      
   That's a problem. If not 'the' problem. Simpletons that can't see   
   the simplicity of an OD.   
   >   
   >The problem with ID is that we, as curious humans, are   
   >prone to asking questions about our assumptions.  In   
   >fact, this questioning of assumptions is a neccesary   
   >part of "sanity checking" the assumptions we've made   
   >about any given theory.   
      
   Most of the theories are assertive and leave no room for any   
   reason. Even if the reasoning is more logical and rational than   
   the assertive assumption.   
      
   We assume we are evolved. Or even mutated. Because they   
   are the only two choices of modern science for the origin of our   
   species. Evolution is still the choice of origin for the species, for   
   most of the people. Rather be apes than mutants I guess. Just   
   live with that, and you'll be okay.   
   >   
   >If a scientific theory cannot allow a rigorous   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)