Originally Posted by wufwugy

called gigantopethicus, and unfortunately we dont have many skeletal remains so as to what exactly gigan was is up in the air

Originally Posted by wufwugy

bigfoot also has been shown to not exist almost to the same degree as lochness. it would really be the most unlikely probability ever if bigfoot existed today. however, at least one bigfoot-esque creature has existed before, but it lived like 300k years ago. called gigantopethicus, and unfortunately we dont have many skeletal remains so as to what exactly gigan was is up in the air

Originally Posted by b-rabbit

hes been shown to not exist as much as hes been shown to exist...
not saying he does or doesn't exist, just saying right now its one group of scientists and speculators word against another...
personally i've watched enough MonsterQuest episodes to see that for every educated disbeliever there is an equally well educated advocate for bigfoot's existence. blam

aliens taught/helped the egyptians build the pyramids...(fact)
and also abducted that dude from "Fire in the Sky"
=proofff

lochness monster is ehhh, i think the real sea monsters are the ones living in the deep ocean...right


and call me impressionable, but i've heard so many ghost stories, and experienced enough weird shit myself, to totally dismiss the possibility of ghosts and hauntings...plus shows like ghost hunters and ghost adventures are fun to watch.

Originally Posted by b-rabbit

aliens taught/helped the egyptians build the pyramids...(fact)
and also abducted that dude from "Fire in the Sky"
=proofff

Originally Posted by b-rabbit

hey wufwugy do some research on sarcasm...it may help you with my response to the aliens theory...
i mean honestly i spelled the word proof with three f's

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

I love this thread! Because I found this funny as well, as I was thinking the same thing when I scrolled down and noticed wufwugy respond to b-rabbit's sarcasm in great detail. Three F's man! Come on!

Wufwugy, I think you need to consider something else regarding what science is able to observe:

Science is only as good as it's tools. Before Hubble, we had no idea how vast space was. Before the microscope, we had no idea how small things could be. Maybe one day engineers will build a machine that can detect supernatural forces. Possible relationship with ghosts: It's possible that we live within one of eleven dimensions - a theory that helps explain the weak force of gravity. This sort of proof could be provided post CERN experiments.

I love science too buddy, but the last thing I'm going to do with science is say that something is the way it is and that's the end of the story, case closed, next topic. The beauty of science is that it is corrected over and over in the search for more and more information.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

and the notion about detecting the supernatural one day is misleading. by definition, the supernatural is undetectable, and if we did one day detect some unknown sense or force it would be a product of the natural world.

Originally Posted by b-rabbit

...the law of conservation of energy tells us that energy can not be created nor destroyed but only change in form.

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

This thread was created with the assumption that none of the four options have any hardcore proof. It asked a question asking what we thought were the most likely of the four options. This means that everyone here should be given a little slack when they give their answers.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

it comes natural for me to assume everybody else is similar.

Originally Posted by boost

and this lends it self as proof of ghosts how? For this to support the existence of ghosts we would first have to believe in individuals having some sort of "spirit" or "soul." Yet these concepts were conceived, like many religious concepts, only to explain what could not be explained. Or you could even argue that the idea of a soul was created only as a control mechanism; if you have a soul which lives and is judged after you die, you need to act within a rule set to avoid a negative judgment. But that's getting a bit off track. The point is that you are right, energy cannot be destroyed nor created, and neither happens when we are born or when we die. The energy which is stored and/or used as fat, bone, muscle, and other tissue decomposes and is consumed by other living things.

The idea that we need a soul to live is way more far fetched then the theory that our consciousness is simply an extremely complex series of chemical reactions.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

i think youre misunderstanding how the scientific method and progress of knowledge works.

the claim that science (empiricism) is our only method of gathering knowledge is true since empiricism is the only way to actually know something, and it applies to every aspect of the universe that humans is able to recognize.

making predictions is an aspect of the scientific method, but scientific knowledge still happens without predictions.

Originally Posted by givememyleg

can science explain emotion? or is there something that can only be felt and not described?

Originally Posted by b-rabbit

i understand the scientific method very well actually. (i have a bachelor of science degree in biology from the university of virginia.) i was simply pointing out that the scientific method is mostly limited to the study of measurable entities in the physical world. in this way, the relevancy of science in the "spiritual realm" concerning ghosts and the like is hardly reliable.

Originally Posted by givememyleg

can science explain emotion? or is there something that can only be felt and not described?

Originally Posted by boost

everything is simply a very complex series of chemical reactions.

:head asplode:

Originally Posted by boost

Science is all encompassing and therefore through the scientific process everything can be explained. The scientific process does take time and therefore some things remain unexplained. However anything that science cannot explain because 'science is not applicable' simply does not exist, else science could in fact be applied and offer an explanation.

Originally Posted by b-rabbit

this

Originally Posted by boost

it remains unproven theory, but in theory our consciousness could simply be a very complex series of chemical reactions, and that would include our emotions. This theory is fun, daunting, and horribly depressing all at the same time because if it were true it would mean everything is simply a very complex series of chemical reactions.

:head asplode:

Originally Posted by givememyleg

maybe, but your body sure is good at tricking you then. i'm not completely convinced that my consciousness is made up of entirely chemical reactions in my brain.

Originally Posted by gabe

that probably affects how believable we view them because we are more likely to believe something that we know we can prove eventually, maybe. does that make sense