Really? Where do you get that?

I was wondering that too.

 

Science doesn't contradict the presence of God, it celebrates it. The more we learn from science, the more we see what a perfect creation God has made for us. I see science and religion as two parts of one whole -- religion begining where science ends. At the far reaches of scientific knowledge -- the point of the unknowable -- we find the hand of God.

 

To me, God is the who, the universe is the what and where, science is the how and the when doesn't really matter.

True Blue, you asked for a few real scientists who supported 2012 ideas, here are just a few from only about fifteen or so minutes of searching. Again so sorry I couldn't just rattle off a bunch of scientists off the top of my head, although I had read many reports by those who supported these ideas.......

 

Already been mentioned was

 

Terrence Mckenna - Timewave Theory and studied the I Ching. Really fascinating work he did, should really study him, interesting individual.

 

 

 

Few Scientific 2012 supporters, some of these people physicists, all in scientific community, most are doctors in some type of scientific category.

 

 

Dr. Christine Page ... "When people talk about, “We're coming to the end of the world.” I say, “Yes, we are coming to the end of 'a' world, but not 'the' world.” For us to go through this, this isn't just about us. For once in our life, this isn't everything that’s not about us. This is also about the earth itself or herself. She is going through changes and we're going to see those; as they are earthquakes, or volcanoes, or drought, or drowning. Basically, she's also got to shed herself off all the old patterns just as each of us are going through the same. Then the sun is going through --you know, the sun hasn't been as close to the galaxy for 26,000 years-- extraordinary changes that we haven't got record of, one could say, in our smallness ..."

 

Margeret Mcelroy - "She says that people are finding there aren't enough hours in the day because of something called the "Photon Energy" which peaks in 2012. "No, it's not the end of the world, but it's going to feel like it to many."

 

John Jay Harper - physicist, talks about energy alignments.

 

 

 

Kira Raa

Carol Mann

Daniel Penchbeck

Volker

Jose Arguellas

Cynthia Lawson

David Wilcock

Michael Tsarion

Lawrence E Joseph

Gordon Michael Scallion

I was wondering that too.

 

Science doesn't contradict the presence of God, it celebrates it. The more we learn from science, the more we see what a perfect creation God has made for us. I see science and religion as two parts of one whole -- religion begining where science ends. At the far reaches of scientific knowledge -- the point of the unknowable -- we find the hand of God.

 

To me, God is the who, the universe is the what and where, science is the how and the when doesn't really matter.

 

 

But to many, that is not a justifiable answer. There are millions of people out there who will not settle for anything less than scientific fact. They want to know how something works, and want to understand why it works like that. For example the water cycle, we all know now that water is evaporated from a ground based water system (pond, lake, river, ocean, etc.). It is then carried about through clouds until it finally disperses precipitation again back to earth. I mean we all know about the water cycle, as well as many many other earth cycles. However, before science proved these things it was common belief by many that God or gods was the cause for the rain. Some still believe that God is the ultimate cause of this. However, discovering things such as the water cycle give people a reason to credit nature instead of crediting God. It's like the more science figures out, the less it takes away from God in a lot of peoples views. That is sad.

True Blue, you asked for a few real scientists who supported 2012 ideas, here are just a few from only about fifteen or so minutes of searching. Again so sorry I couldn't just rattle off a bunch of scientists off the top of my head, although I had read many reports by those who supported these ideas.......

 

Already been mentioned was

 

Terrence Mckenna - Timewave Theory and studied the I Ching. Really fascinating work he did, should really study him, interesting individual.

 

 

 

Few Scientific 2012 supporters, some of these people physicists, all in scientific community, most are doctors in some type of scientific category.

 

 

Dr. Christine Page ... "When people talk about, “We're coming to the end of the world.” I say, “Yes, we are coming to the end of 'a' world, but not 'the' world.” For us to go through this, this isn't just about us. For once in our life, this isn't everything that’s not about us. This is also about the earth itself or herself. She is going through changes and we're going to see those; as they are earthquakes, or volcanoes, or drought, or drowning. Basically, she's also got to shed herself off all the old patterns just as each of us are going through the same. Then the sun is going through --you know, the sun hasn't been as close to the galaxy for 26,000 years-- extraordinary changes that we haven't got record of, one could say, in our smallness ..."

 

Margeret Mcelroy - "She says that people are finding there aren't enough hours in the day because of something called the "Photon Energy" which peaks in 2012. "No, it's not the end of the world, but it's going to feel like it to many."

 

John Jay Harper - physicist, talks about energy alignments.

 

 

 

Kira Raa

Carol Mann

Daniel Penchbeck

Volker

Jose Arguellas

Cynthia Lawson

David Wilcock

Michael Tsarion

Lawrence E Joseph

Gordon Michael Scallion

 

I will certainly research each of them, including which of them believe that the world will end (or begin to end) in 2012, what evidence they have and what specifically each of their scientific qualifications are.

Show me the evidence.

 

According to a 1996 survey, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and belief in "personal immortality" are most popular among mathematicians and least popular among biologists. In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god[11]. This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% - disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.[12]

 

A recent survey conducted by Elaine Ecklund of Rice University found that approximately 38% of scientists do not believe in God. This survey was conducted in 2004 and is on-going. [13]

edit Scientific study of religion

Terrence Mckenna - ...studied the I Ching.

Did he do this research using his subscription to Tarot.com?

 

Dr. Christine Page - ...the sun hasn't been as close to the galaxy for 26,000 years."

That's like saying, "Kansas hasn't been this close to North America in 26,000 years."

 

Margeret Mcelroy - "Photon Energy" which peaks in 2012.

Do we need to fear the coming of the Death Star?

 

John Jay Harper - physicist, talks about energy alignments.

I think Timothy Leary used to talk about those too.

I will certainly research each of them, including which of them believe that the world will end (or begin to end) in 2012, what evidence they have and what specifically each of their scientific qualifications are.

 

You have a lot of time on your hands then. I just do not understand why you have taken this so personal? I mean all I did was give my opinion to a thread topic, and ever since have had to defend myself to the death almost just for stating an opinion. I don't want to argue this anymore, I have already stated how I feel and why I feel this way.

 

I think Timothy Leary used to talk about those too.

 

And regardless of popular belief, Timothy Leary was a very, very, highly intelligent individual.

But to many, that is not a justifiable answer. There are millions of people out there who will not settle for anything less than scientific fact. They want to know how something works, and want to understand why it works like that.

What's wrong with asking those questions? There will always be a limit to what can be known. It's like a bug in a jar trying to read the label on the outside of the glass.

 

...discovering things such as the water cycle give people a reason to credit nature instead of crediting God. It's like the more science figures out, the less it takes away from God in a lot of peoples views. That is sad.

Where people place credit (or blame, for that matter) is a matter of personal choice. That doesn't make them right. People will believe exactly what they want to believe; and no amount of scientific discovery, or lack thereof, is going to disuade them from those beliefs.

You have a lot of time on your hands then. I just do not understand why you have taken this so personal? I mean all I did was give my opinion to a thread topic, and ever since have had to defend myself to the death almost just for stating an opinion. I don't want to argue this anymore, I have already stated how I feel and why I feel this way.

 

Your first sentence bothers me. Shouldn't YOU take the time to find out these answers if you are going to use their support to back up your opinion? What do you really know of their beliefs and credentials?

 

I'm not the one taking it personally. As a science teacher, I feel that it is my duty to combat pseudoscience. If you are the one promoting it, then yes, I'm going to be arguing against your opinion. It actually is the opposite of taking it personally.

 

You don't have to argue anymore, but understand that it won't keep me from debunking the claims that you have made here, using information that I already know and any additional sources that I run across.

You have a lot of time on your hands then. I just do not understand why you have taken this so personal? I mean all I did was give my opinion to a thread topic, and ever since have had to defend myself to the death almost just for stating an opinion. I don't want to argue this anymore, I have already stated how I feel and why I feel this way.

It's called debate.

And regardless of popular belief, Timothy Leary was a very, very, highly intelligent individual.

Ah..I see. :thumb:

Your first sentence bothers me. Shouldn't YOU take the time to find out these answers if you are going to use their support to back up your opinion? What do you really know of their beliefs and credentials?

 

I'm not the one taking it personally. As a science teacher, I feel that it is my duty to combat pseudoscience. If you are the one promoting it, then yes, I'm going to be arguing against your opinion. It actually is the opposite of taking it personally.

 

You don't have to argue anymore, but understand that it won't keep me from debunking the claims that you have made here, using information that I already know and any additional sources that I run across.

 

Okay, so basically everything I have said is wrong and you just debunked everything because since your a science teacher you know everything. Strange that a couple of the things you asked me to document and prove (one the percentage of scientists who are non believers, more importantly percentage of elite scientists) ended up coinciding with what I was stating to be true and not what you argued. Again, I don't care if I am right, I am done arguing. I just have an opinion on the subject, but it just feels like to me that since you disagree with the subject it makes everything you say right and everything I say wrong. Well, like I said, I don't care if I am right, and I try not to claim everything I said was right and everybody else is wrong, I simply just have an opinion and I understand I may be the only one that has that opinion.

According to a 1996 survey, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" and belief in "personal immortality" are most popular among mathematicians and least popular among biologists. In total, about 60% of scientists in the United States expressed disbelief or doubt in such a god[11]. This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933. Among leading scientists defined as members of the National Academy of Sciences, 72.2% expressed disbelief and 93% - disbelief or doubt in the existence of a personal god in 1998.[12]

 

A recent survey conducted by Elaine Ecklund of Rice University found that approximately 38% of scientists do not believe in God. This survey was conducted in 2004 and is on-going. [13]

edit Scientific study of religion

 

Can you include your link to this source?

Okay, so basically everything I have said is wrong and you just debunked everything because since your a science teacher you know everything. Strange that a couple of the things you asked me to document and prove (one the percentage of scientists who are non believers, more importantly percentage of elite scientists) ended up coinciding with what I was stating to be true and not what you argued. Again, I don't care if I am right, I am done arguing. I just have an opinion on the subject, but it just feels like to me that since you disagree with the subject it makes everything you say right and everything I say wrong. Well, like I said, I don't care if I am right, and I try not to claim everything I said was right and everybody else is wrong, I simply just have an opinion and I understand I may be the only one that has that opinion.

That doesn't preclude others from having (and stating) contrary "opinions."