THE PACK Message Boards

Renorei wrote:Meh...you can't prove conclusively that either God or werewolves exist...but from my point of view at least, too many unusual coincidences have happened in my own life to suggest to me that there is a God, but nothing at all like that has happened when it comes to werewolves. To me at least, a God makes far more sense than werewolves do.

With me, its the complete opposite. I really experienced a lot of scary stuff when it comes to werewolves (yes, I am doing some research myself, not only from behind a computer), and thats the main-reason for me to believe that werewolves do excist. I cannot tell in wich form, if they have a tail, if they have plantigrade or digitigrade feet... But I just have a feeling about this. And the things I saw with my own eyes don't lie.

As for 'God', I never was into this stuff, although I was raised in a catholic family. I don't think there is a man in the clouds watching over me. Maybe its because I haven't had those 'coincidences' like you said to make me a 'believer in God', but untill I have, I'll keep as negative about 'God' as I've always been.

I would like to think so.. but unfortunately it's just not scientific to simply assume something fictional exists.

buttt.. I am pretty certain some fancy genetic/ nanotech bioenhancements on a human could potentially make something of similar sort.

Machine-Whisperer wrote: buttt.. I am pretty certain some fancy genetic/ nanotech bioenhancements on a human could potentially make something of similar sort.

I feel this way too...even if werewolves don't exist now (and I really don't think they do) I think we are grossly underestimating human intelligence to assume that it will never be possible for us to create one. Whether or not we actually will is another matter...there are lots of cool things we could do now, but don't, because scientists have different priorities than most people.

and thatsto try to make a diet pill that actully works

I think werewolves existed at one time. If they still exist is a matter of belief and hope. I voted yes.

Well, I voted yes.
I should have voted undecided.

I would like to think they are real, but I'm not so sure.


The question is, if you had the chance to become one would you?

That depends on what the werewolves are actually like...if werewolves are anything like what I imagine them to be, then heck yeah!

But, if these werewolves are the sort that turn into hideous, uncontrollable monsters on full moons only and kill people that they might normally care about....then no.

Yeah, Thats what I was thinking when I typed that response out.
I would love to be a werewolf, but if they were evil monsters then no I wouldn't want to be one.

Renorei wrote:But, if these werewolves are the sort that turn into hideous, uncontrollable monsters on full moons only and kill people that they might normally care about....then no.

Somehow I doubt they'd be all that secret then, unless they were incredibly, incredibly rare.

Lupin wrote:

Renorei wrote:But, if these werewolves are the sort that turn into hideous, uncontrollable monsters on full moons only and kill people that they might normally care about....then no.

Somehow I doubt they'd be all that secret then, unless they were incredibly, incredibly rare.

True. Also, if werewolves were like this and had somehow remained secret, it would have to be the kind of lycanthropy where it was brought on as a curse, not by bite. If it was by bite, authorities could follow the trail of deaths from one werewolf to another. If it was something that could spontaneously occur anywhere, it's almost logical how it *might could remain secret.

Morkulv wrote:Have you ever considered that your vision of werewolves may be the reason that it seems so less plausible to you? Believing in werewolves is more then just believing in a movie-type of werewolf, or in Goldenwolfen-wolves, because if that is the case, I think I can see the reason why you are pessimistic about this. Maybe you need to think outside your personal view-box. Just a friendly thought, don't mean anything with it.

Well...if I broadened my spectrum to anything that anyone chooses to call a werewolf, then that would include dilusional wolf-therians...which really don't count.

...Shapeshifters...A Second Sapien Race...Sasquach-esque Undescovered Werewolfy animals... (All three not significantly possible, IMHO)

What possibility do you think I am not allowing?

What do you think a "REAL" werewolf would be then?

...Just Curious...

---------------------------------------------------------------
( BTW: Defining what a "REAL" werewolf is, within the topic of "Are Werewolves Real" is most definately On-Topic. I think that is a Good Question. )
---------------------------------------------------------------

So...(Question to Everyone...so we are all on the same page here.)

If a Hollywood Werewolf is Not a "Real" werewolf...what IS a "REAL" werewolf?

Thier is no such thing as a real werewolf, only in what we picture it to be and thats all it is for now. Thier has been some sighting of werewolves everywhere, but untill thiers concrete proof we cant say whats a real werewolf, so far they would have a bit of a lupin face according to sightings.

what we think up here is basiclly all theory, all the topics we agree on are a theory that needs to be prove or not so we will never really know untel we got real proof as stated above, but untel then we are allowed to think up how we think this idea in the theorys we state

Do you think maybe one day they won't be considered theorys anymore??

oh, I'm sorry.

You are right. I really didn't put much thought into it.

Please remember that a scientific theory is not a hypothesis, conjecture or guess. It is an explanation of some particular phenomenom, or set of phenomena.

Apokryltaros wrote:Please remember that a scientific theory is not a hypothesis, conjecture or guess. It is an explanation of some particular phenomenom, or set of phenomena.

Hunh?...yes it is.

Though we will often treat these "Extremely Likely Guesses" as solid FACT...there is a good reason why even the most widely accepted of them are still called "Theories".

...because we regularly find some of our "Facts" to be partially innacurate, and in need of ammendment every decade or so.

As a man of a scientific mind, I remain wary of ALL statements of "FACT"...ever questioning...never 100% certain...

IMHO, It is not good to believe in the words of scientists and textbook research with unquestioning religious faith. We will Never know Everything, and we will Always be at least partially Wrong and Confused about how the universe works.

The Written laws of science are close enough to the truth to trust and rely upon them...but they've allways been, and allways shall be no more than Highly Educated Guesses.

Vuldari wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote:Please remember that a scientific theory is not a hypothesis, conjecture or guess. It is an explanation of some particular phenomenom, or set of phenomena.

Hunh?...yes it is.

Though we will often treat these "Extremely Likely Guesses" as solid FACT...there is a good reason why even the most widely accepted of them are still called "Theories".

No, we call them "Theories" because they agree with empirical evidence. Like I said in the last post before I deleted it: "Gravitational attraction is a threory. Germs causing disease is a theory. The conjecture that matter is made up of things called 'atoms' that form molecules and things like bricks, watches and wolves is a theory. "

We call conjectors without any evidence 'Hypotheses'.

...because we regularly find some of our "Facts" to be partially innacurate, and in need of ammendment every decade or so.

Things earn the title theory not because they're can be wrong, because they're usually right.

Theory the-o-ry n.

-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Lupin wrote:No, we call them "Theories" because they agree with empirical evidence. Like I said in the last post before I deleted it: "Gravitational attraction is a threory. Germs causing disease is a theory. The conjecture that matter is made up of things called 'atoms' that form molecules and things like bricks, watches and wolves is a theory. "

Matter moves towards other matter when allowed to move freely. We do not know why this happens. The idea that they are "attracted" to each other by an invisible force we call GRAVITY is a "Guess". We have no evidence of this mystical energy force. We have only the observation that matter is moved nearer to other matter by forces we can not see. They might not be "pulling" on each other at all. They may be being "pushed" together by a completely different force...and "Gravity" as we know it may just be a misinterpreted figment of our imaginations.

The model of what an "Atom" is, and how it is composed has changed many times since the term was first coined...and just when we think we've got thier construction figured out, we discover little things called "Quarks" (or at least we think they are there, as even our most advanced microscopes cant actually SEE them, or orbiting electrons for that matter), which confuse us all over again.

The Germ thing is different. That is a discription of a series of events... "Cause and Effect"...not a "Theory".

Cause and Effect is like a Story.

The invaders enter the system...damage these cells when they come in contact with them...take away these chemicals...deposit these others...the body does this when it's presence stimilates these auto-immune cells...etc. etc. ...


I am not claiming that there is no such thing as "FACT". What is, is, and what isn't...isn't. There IS solid, unchanging, indisputible fact out there to be known. ...but there will allways be natural barriers disallowing us from ever being able to know the "whole" story...so there will always be a point where there will be questions of "Why" that we are simply unable to answer.


There are plenty of theories where the facts known seem to match up with the guess of why it is the way it is, making the "Theory" appear to be prooven...untill NEW facts come to be known which disprove or contest them.



Did you know that it has been observed that at the farthest reaches of the known universe, the planets and stars are not behaving as gravitational theory says they should?

Where as everything around here seems to be pulling towards the "Core" of the known universe, or decelerating it's tragectory away from us as "GRAVITY" seems to be slowly pulling it all back to the center...

...at the farthest reaches, where the stars, asteroids and planets are the furthest apart, and away from the known matter cluster, they are not only NOT slowing down thier expansion away from us, but they seem to be Accelerating. ...as if something is pushing them away.

Is it because of "Dark Matter"? ...is it because they are closer to the "next universe over" that we just can't see which is pulling them that way instead of this way?... or is there a completly different reason, because gravity does not work the way we THINK it does, or who knows what?





...sorry for getting so "Long Winded" again. I actually LOVE debating about stuff like this.

This is the kind of thing My Father, Brother, Sister and I sometimes talk about while waiting for our food to be served at restaurants, or while taking walks through the woods. We are Bizarre like that.


...by the way...the "Answer" is 42.

Lupin wrote:

Vuldari wrote:...by the way...the "Answer" is 42.

"forty-two"

XLII


Heh, sorry. Couldn't help posting a different way of saying the same number.

I didn't read either of the two most recent posts, because they're a bit long. But, as someone with a small background in science, I feel the need to interject in the discussion of theories and hypotheses.


Lupin's right. By the time something becomes a theory, it's pretty much 'fact'. In science, theory is as high as it goes. NO MATTER how much evidence you have to support your hypothesis, it will NEVER get beyond theory. There's no magical point when everyone agrees that an idea is good enough to move from the realm of theory into fact...because among the scientific community, the overwhelming majority of theories are generally accepted as facts.

This is one of the reasons it annoys me to no end when laymen use the phrase "I have a theory about such and such". Newsflash! No, you don't. Unless you've had between 6-8 years of college, and have backed up your ideas with tons of empirical evidence, you have a hypothesis, my friend.

Vuldari wrote:

Morkulv wrote:Have you ever considered that your vision of werewolves may be the reason that it seems so less plausible to you? Believing in werewolves is more then just believing in a movie-type of werewolf, or in Goldenwolfen-wolves, because if that is the case, I think I can see the reason why you are pessimistic about this. Maybe you need to think outside your personal view-box. Just a friendly thought, don't mean anything with it.

Well...if I broadened my spectrum to anything that anyone chooses to call a werewolf, then that would include dilusional wolf-therians...which really don't count.

...Shapeshifters...A Second Sapien Race...Sasquach-esque Undescovered Werewolfy animals... (All three not significantly possible, IMHO)

What possibility do you think I am not allowing?

What do you think a "REAL" werewolf would be then?

...Just Curious...

---------------------------------------------------------------
( BTW: Defining what a "REAL" werewolf is, within the topic of "Are Werewolves Real" is most definately On-Topic. I think that is a Good Question. )
---------------------------------------------------------------

So...(Question to Everyone...so we are all on the same page here.)

If a Hollywood Werewolf is Not a "Real" werewolf...what IS a "REAL" werewolf?

I don't think you really get my point... What I meant was, that not every type of werewolf is allowing it to be "true", scientifically speaking. I mean, for all we know a werewolf is a human with fur, and a animal-instinct. In that case, werewolves are a lot more plausible then when you picture werewolves as the Goldenwolfen ones, for instances, wich are a lot more complicated.