• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

I love the community!

Free episodes:

Forums New posts
Derik

Derik

Skilled Investigator
I don't mean to get all mushy and stuff, and I know I have only been here a few days, but I have to say, this community is very accepting. I have brought up my Christian beliefs, I have mentioned Christ himself, and I have expressed my opinions about not buying the whole Darwinistic macro evolution thing. I have even expressed doubt that there is any "intelligent" life out in the universe! In other forums I would have started a crap storm, and would have probably attracted many a troll. In this community everyone seems so accepting of everyone else's belief systems, and level of knowledge.

Thanks all for making this an enjoyable experience so far! I love hearing everyone's take on things, and I also like to see how others respond to my take on things!
 
Derik, I'm new here too and I've never seen anything like it. The width is as impressive as the depth. And they can take a joke, I think. God bless 'em.
 
Undoubtedly the best forum, period. And the design puts places like ATS to utter shame. Now, I like a religious argument (I am very anti-) as much as the next man, but I don't intend to actually mock anyone, and I always point out half my own family are very religious and I still love 'em. Like a sick pet!;)
 
I don't have much of substance to add here, but I think it's funny how ads work in forums.

The banners are asking me if I need a Christian realtor.

Derik, I think it's interesting to get a spin on all this stuff from someone outside of the general demographic, here. Out of curiosity, are there any elements of the paranormal that you have the inkling to believe in? I consider a lot of things from religion to be paranormal, but that's mostly due to the fact that I'm nonreligious. I guess what I'm asking is if there are areas of the paranormal you put stock in that aren't directly related to religion?

I know that many traditionalist Christians have taken interest in lake monsters and bigfoot as examples of creatures that would allegedly upset the model of evolution presented by science. I'd count that as not directly related to religion.
 
Derik said:
I don't mean to get all mushy and stuff, and I know I have only been here a few days, but I have to say, this community is very accepting. I have brought up my Christian beliefs, I have mentioned Christ himself, and I have expressed my opinions about not buying the whole Darwinistic macro evolution thing. I have even expressed doubt that there is any "intelligent" life out in the universe! In other forums I would have started a crap storm, and would have probably attracted many a troll. In this community everyone seems so accepting of everyone else's belief systems, and level of knowledge.



Thanks all for making this an enjoyable experience so far! I love hearing everyone's take on things, and I also like to see how others respond to my take on things!
Click to expand...


Greetings/Welcome brother Derik,
I too am very new here and agree that this forum is the best I have ever participated in with respect to unexplained or paranormal phenomena. I don't find your admission "mushy" in the least, quite the contrary actually. I admire people who aren't afraid to test the waters so to speak by expressing their deeper convictions. However in terms of endearment, after reading the other posts in the thread, for me personally, it's honestly not due to the width or depth of the forum's content as much as it is the fact that it just "feels" right instinctively. I can't really explain it, or put a finger directly on it, beyond that. Sometimes you just know when your in the right place at the right time and this forum syncs up with me very nicely.

You know Derik, you raise an interesting and valid point with respect to the "troll attraction" factor here. It could be that because the Paracast show itself is ultimately responsible for the majority of the publicity that this forum receives, possibly a majority of the people that participate here are more so sincere, mature, and deeply interested in matters such as these to begin with. This resulting in the effect that those who do willingly participate in this forum simply do not have the time, nor the mental meandering room in their heads, for the game playing and attention seeking that many of the other more so search engine fed forums do. Again, I don't know for sure, but it all just seems to point to the "real" (ie. sincere, genuine) factor here being hands down the upper most ratio value with respect for participants on unexplained phenomena forums. It's a shame two, that some of these other forums out there are simply ruined from an opposing perspective. That being with way too much moderation. I have never even witnessed the least need for a moderator on this forum. Now truthfully, how RARE is that? I don't know what else to say about the matter, but I sincerely share your excitation and appreciation for it. This will literally be the FIRST/ONLY forum/internet radio program in my life that I will definitely be contributing to on a monetary level. I'm more or less just getting yee ol' financial poop in a group presently to do so.

Frankly, and I believe the consensus ratio is one that is growing all the time, Darwinism is currently raising more questions than it is answers. It's simply a flawed premise that seems to honestly require as much "faith" to commit real subscription to as does pretty much any religion I can personally think of. Maybe even more considering human nature.

Have you seen the following movies? I highly recommend checking these movies out if you haven't already. There is a great deal of insight in terms of exposing the patent bias that empirical science maintains in an effort to preserve a skewed perspective as well as their monetary life lines.


 
Darwinism - I think it explains a lot but certainly not all. Creationism (in the religious meaning) doesn't make much sense at all to me, certainly Abrahamic religions - well, what about the bloody dinosaurs FFS!

As for ancient humans, I think many artifacts collected by Klaus Dona point to at the least, cultures that are older than current science would allow. Nothing supernatural or paranormal etc, just old. For instance, I find the ubiquity of pyramids worldwide hard to explain. Yes, they are just a geometric shape and forgetting arguments about how to build them in the past -or now - they could point to an older worldwide culture. Old maps predating supposed world travel, I just don't know how to explain that?
 
Certainly Newton's Theory of Gravity doesn't explain everything there is to know about gravity, but this doesn't mean that suddenly we're going to use numerology or recipes from some Paracelsus tome to divine somehow the trajectory needed to launch the shuttle into low earth orbit. Neither are we going to consult the bones or scry with some crystal ball as a method for determining burn times in order to do orbital (hoffman) transfers.
 
For years I have maintained and stated publicly that The Paracast is truly an oasis in the desert of paranormal/UFO forums. On my radio program, Dark Matters Radio, I have often stated that fact. There has always been a genuine spirit of co-operation and friendship between DMR and The Paracast and we have hosted each other on our respective programs.

Now, that is not to say that we have not had our share of trolls drop by here on this site. They have attempted to stir the pot on a number of occasions. When that happens ... Gene, Chris, myself and several other moderators quickly jump and weed them out. Up to this point that has seemed to work out very well.

Welcome to our newest members (not to menion all our members) because it is you that make this site viable.

Decker
 
Yeah Don, I totally agree. I just love the relationship between the Paracast and DMR. Both fantastic shows with fantastic hosts who all have something worthwhile to say. I wouldn't be anywhere else but here and from my own point of view, it looks like sensible people are turning onto the shows and the forums more and more which is great.
 
Personally, I am not a religious individual. I do not accept or believe in that which is taught and touted in Sunday School to be fundamental Christian Creationism in the biblical literal sense. When it comes to the origin of species only a complete lunatic would deny environmental mutation, specialization, and basic developmental evolution. However, Darwinism purist's are just as religious in terms of their ridiculous mega assumptions and grandiose leaps of faith. Just WAY too many unanswered questions without the slightest trace of real proofs demand utter fanaticism to blindly accept on empirical recommendation alone. The videos that I recommended are filled with valid scientific reasoning that clearly elucidate a good number of the major scientific contradictions that Darwinism puts fourth. To not question as much requires far more faith than what I personally believe to be the case with respect to life's origins on this planet. ID in the form of genetically engineered (guided design) intervention, no different than what we ourselves have now just begun to scrape the surface of, is a FAR more so likely and plausible explanation IMO. The THEORY that is Darwinism's blanket response to that which it definitely does NOT, in terms of real scientific evidential support, offer up apart from the contemporary "holier than thou" empirical embrace it depends on as valid substantiation. There is no question that over the last 25 years there has been an absolutely undeniable loss of scientifically credentialed support for pure Darwinism from a very real and exceptional scientific body. I'm sorry, but pure Darwinism is falling apart like a nickel watch on a daily basis. I would certainly welcome your professed debate with any of that which is put forth via my recommended viewing. The major points are concise and clearly made. So by all means, I humbly ask you to enlighten those like myself who have been deceived via these diabolical misgivings. Please feel free to point out any ill truths with what would be clear and concise counter arguments.
 
Jeff Davis said:
Personally, I am not a religious individual. I do not accept or believe in that which is taught and touted in Sunday School to be fundamental Christian Creationism in the biblical literal sense. When it comes to the origin of species only a complete lunatic would deny environmental mutation, specialization, and basic developmental evolution. However, Darwinism purist's are just as religious in terms of their ridiculous mega assumptions and grandiose leaps of faith. Just WAY too many unanswered questions without the slightest trace of real proofs demand utter fanaticism to blindly accept on empirical recommendation alone. The videos that I recommended are filled with valid scientific reasoning that clearly elucidate a good number of the major scientific contradictions that Darwinism puts fourth. To not question as much requires far more faith than what I personally believe to be the case with respect to life's origins on this planet. ID in the form of genetically engineered (guided design) intervention, no different than what we ourselves have now just begun to scrape the surface of, is a FAR more so likely and plausible explanation IMO. The THEORY that is Darwinism's blanket response to that which it definitely does NOT, in terms of real scientific evidential support, offer up apart from the contemporary "holier than thou" empirical embrace it depends on as valid substantiation. There is no question that over the last 25 years there has been an absolutely undeniable loss of scientifically credentialed support for pure Darwinism from a very real and exceptional scientific body. I'm sorry, but pure Darwinism is falling apart like a nickel watch on a daily basis. I would certainly welcome your professed debate with any of that which is put forth via my recommended viewing. The major points are concise and clearly made. So by all means, I humbly ask you to enlighten those like myself who have been deceived via these diabolical misgivings. Please feel free to point out any ill truths with what would be clear and concise counter arguments.
Click to expand...

Jeff I don't see where you have provided any "clear and concise" points for which to make a counter-argument. Most of the statements you have made in the selections above seem more like arguments from incredulity more than showing precisely where Darwinism (more precisely, neo-darwinism) or natural selection fails to provide an adequate explanation for the origin of life. To say that a theory creates more questions than it answers implies the theory is false is a non-sequitur. Many theories provoke more questions than they answer--it is not about the quantity of questions, but the fact that a critical question ( in the case of species origins) is answered. Of course there are many things that are yet to be learned, just as in Einstein's Theory of Relativity gives an explanation to certain phenomena, and yet isn't the final answer to the all questions regarding electromagnetic phenomena and gravity. So the argument that Darwinism creates more questions than it answers falls flat when you realize this is precisely what a good scientific theory does. A bad theory attempts to answer everything and exit the stage of where demonstrable science can thrive and then takes off on the wings of a unicorn to the clouds of the un-falsifiable.

Darwinism isn't falling apart--but human imagination apparently is. What you have basically outlined is equivalent to the "it can't be, therefore it isn't" argument from incredulity.

And what of the alien geneticists? Does this theory of alien geneticists also explain how they came about (did they create themselves)? The problem with asserting the source of intelligence with another intelligence doesn't answer the question, it just kicks the can down the alley of superstition and make-believe. The problem with asserting a supernatural being as the answer to the origin of life doesn't explain anything, it just replaces a valid scientific question with an inaccessible cardinal--an unreachable star.
 
Michael Allen said:
Jeff I don't see where you have provided any "clear and concise" points for which to make a counter-argument. Most of the statements you have made in the selections above seem more like arguments from incredulity more than showing precisely where Darwinism (more precisely, neo-darwinism) or natural selection fails to provide an adequate explanation for the origin of life. To say that a theory creates more questions than it answers implies the theory is false is a non-sequitur. Many theories provoke more questions than they answer--it is not about the quantity of questions, but the fact that a critical question ( in the case of species origins) is answered. Of course there are many things that are yet to be learned, just as in Einstein's Theory of Relativity gives an explanation to certain phenomena, and yet isn't the final answer to the all questions regarding electromagnetic phenomena and gravity. So the argument that Darwinism creates more questions than it answers falls flat when you realize this is precisely what a good scientific theory does. A bad theory attempts to answer everything and exit the stage of where demonstrable science can thrive and then takes off on the wings of a unicorn to the clouds of the un-falsifiable.

Darwinism isn't falling apart--but human imagination apparently is. What you have basically outlined is equivalent to the "it can't be, therefore it isn't" argument from incredulity.

And what of the alien geneticists? Does this theory of alien geneticists also explain how they came about (did they create themselves)? The problem with asserting the source of intelligence with another intelligence doesn't answer the question, it just kicks the can down the alley of superstition and make-believe. The problem with asserting a supernatural being as the answer to the origin of life doesn't explain anything, it just replaces a valid scientific question with an inaccessible cardinal--an unreachable star.
Click to expand...

I would certainly welcome your professed debate with any of that which is put forth via my recommended viewing. The major points are concise and clearly made.

Have you watched the videos I recommended Michael?
 
This all kind of avoids the point that modern science doesn't exactly use On the Origin of Species as a text book. The field has grown and evolved itself. "Darwinism" is a word creationists use to shift the idea of evolution into a light that suggests that only some scientists in relevant fields adhere to it as a scientific fact, as it is the idea of one man. It's not a word that mainstream educated biologists, evolutionary biologists, archeologists or paleontologists use to describe evolution, because it's not considered the idea of one man, it's considered a fact (theory doesn't mean, in science, what a lot of people think it means, thanks to colloquial usage).

If we just consider the model of evolution laid out in On the Origin of Species to be "Darwinism," then, yes, it left one with many questions. They were all asked by Darwin, in the book, outright. The scientific community has since answered many of them using evolution as the model and concrete evidence as the proofs.

This is all very old hat. It's not an argument really worth having, given all of the things I just said. Nobody actually gives enough of a shit to understand that, why pretend that telling them where to find information is going to change that?

Let people believe what they want. Unless they're outright attacking someone's name/reputation or attacking science, who cares? I only qualify those two things because I know they stir emotion that is difficult to avoid.
 
Back
Top