Jump to content


Photo

Questions For Any Creationist/young Earther.

creationism young earth

  • Please log in to reply
358 replies to this topic

#341 bov930527

bov930527

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Computer science, software engineering. Trying to write and publish a sci-fi novel.
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Skane, Sweden

Posted 18 July 2014 - 01:39 PM

Sorry that I don't have time to join this, time constraints prevent me from keeping up with threads when they get involved.

 

It's just that this one got to me.

 

You can say this, but if you have witnessed some sort of unexplainable event, and perhaps even document it to show that it really happened, that's one thing.

You may even be able to repeat the phenomena.

 

(Yes, like dropping a pen which I can demonstrate a force because I can do it repeatedly, predict that it will fall at the exact same speed, and explain to you how you can do the exact same demonstration with the exact same results).....can you demonstrate your demon powers like this? If not then this is an extremely poor comparison.

 

 

But if you claim that the cause is beyond our laws of physics and therefore no way to make experiments with,

Then you have no justification to claim with any certainty that you know what the cause was.

 

How can you assert with any certainty that you know the cause when I could assert a completely different cause, since I can't demonstrate it with experimentation either.

 

Yes, it's real easy to explain something when your explanation is a supernatural being, with infinite powers and cannot be demonstrated with experimentation because its beyond our ability to do so.

 

Here's the thing, if you have a Ph.D in any field of psychology, can you predict with certainty what a specific person will do? No, you can't. Does this mean that psychology is not a field of science? Depends. Some say it's pseudo-science, specifically due to the fact that it has very little predictive value, and it's quite hard to draw any definitive causes to a person's behavior. But people still exist, don't they? Same thing with demons. They exist, and if you befriend them, i.e. become a witch/warlock, then yes, you will most likely be able to make them break the laws of physics however you'd like to. Beware though, God has prohibited us to contact these beings and all kinds of magic and dark arts are forbidden. That's why I personally can't demonstrate you anything, and don't even want to.

 

People like Derren Brown on the other hand know demons, they ask demons to do their tricks, and guess what: it works every time! People from different brands of mysticism across the globe can very easily demonstrate things that would appear to be supernatural. How to discern between supernatural and natural causes? Well, that's why one needs to research demons and how they work. They too have a psychology of their own. And so, knowing both physics and psychology of demons, one can now discern supernatural causes from natural. Most people know either or. Atheists know only physics, so they assume all causes are natural, and people who believe in supernatural, but have slept through their high school chemistry class, will assume everything to be supernatural. There is a fine line to be found, because demons don't want to be found.

 

There is a plan for this time in history, and that plan is to make everyone think that demons don't exist, and that Satan doesn't exist. So even if any scientist would actually "capture", or whatever, a demon, and be able to perform experiments on "it", his/her peers will simply push him/her out of respected scientific field, and make everyone think that the scientist who discovered demons is insane/crazy. Hence, why you don't learn demonology in school today. (But it was actually pretty canon within theology back in the day.)

 

Regards



#342 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 18 July 2014 - 02:28 PM

 

Here's the thing, if you have a Ph.D in any field of psychology, can you predict with certainty what a specific person will do? No, you can't. Does this mean that psychology is not a field of science?

 

They know, and can demonstrate, with repeatable reliability where the electrical impulses are generated in the human brain, in relation to the thoughts and emotions of the subject.

They can demonstrate physical and chemical imbalances which can be predictably alleviated with medicine, and or proceedures.

 

And yes, many aspects of human behavior are predictable with a great deal of certainty.

AND, this predictability can be tested, and demonstrated.

 

 

 

 That's why I personally can't demonstrate you anything, and don't even want to.

 

That's fine, no worries, but then you must understand that makes any other non demonstrable explanation equally valid.



#343 thistle

thistle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 July 2014 - 02:54 PM

 

 

HAHA! Now that's funny right there. I don't care who you are.

I'm thistle, pleased to meet you gotcha.gif



#344 bov930527

bov930527

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Computer science, software engineering. Trying to write and publish a sci-fi novel.
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Skane, Sweden

Posted 18 July 2014 - 03:02 PM

They know, and can demonstrate, with repeatable reliability where the electrical impulses are generated in the human brain, in relation to the thoughts and emotions of the subject.

They can demonstrate physical and chemical imbalances which can be predictably alleviated with medicine, and or proceedures.

 

And yes, many aspects of human behavior are predictable with a great deal of certainty.

AND, this predictability can be tested, and demonstrated.

 

 

 

That's fine, no worries, but then you must understand that makes any other non demonstrable explanation equally valid.

 

1. "They know, and can demonstrate, with repeatable reliability where the electrical impulses are generated in the human brain, in relation to the thoughts and emotions of the subject."

 

Now we're talking neurology, not psychology. (Well, there is a biological field within psychology too, but then there are also cognitive psychology, comparative psychology, social psychology, etc, etc.).

 

2. "They can demonstrate physical and chemical imbalances which can be predictably alleviated with medicine, and or proceedures."

 

Now we're talking pharmaceutics, which is a combined field of molecular biology, chemistry, and neurology. Still, not psychology.

 

3. "And yes, many aspects of human behavior are predictable with a great deal of certainty."

 

No, they're not. If this was the case then it would quite simple to lead cause-effect chain back to its origins, in order to find out why people do certain things in certain situations. As it stands now, it's close to impossible. Why do you thin there is no scientific method to determine what mental disease you might have? They only thing psychologists do is ask you for 5 min, maybe get a form to fill in, and then they tell what kind of mental disease you've had your entire life. This procedure has shown to be very often inaccurate, and there is nothing scientific about it. And the reason is because human behavior is one of the most hard-to-calculate things there are. Human brain is an incredibly complex organ and we have barely scratched the surface. If you would put a person in a living room, not even the worlds most renown psychologist can foretell if they are going to turn their head right, before they turn it first. If they look around, before they take a step. Even with the best equipment you can possibly get, MRA scanners and all that, you can't predict a person's action further than 2-3 seconds.

 

4. "AND, this predictability can be tested, and demonstrated."

 

Again, what are you talking about. This is some good science-fiction, but reality? No, at least not today.

 

5. "That's fine, no worries, but then you must understand that makes any other non demonstrable explanation equally valid."

 

But demons are demonstrable, just not by me. They demonstrate themselves, you have to simply be quick to realize that it's actually demons, and not be too skeptic and dismiss potential demon activity as something that can be explained by natural phenomenon.

 

P.S. There have been many anonymous psychologists, and phychiatrists, who have throughout the years given their testimonies that what they witnessed with certain patients are most certainly supernatural events. And gues what? They all, too, say that they are afraid of producing papers on the matter because they don't want to loose their jobs/degrees. I will not provide any sources as again, the claims are anonymous. The reason I believe them is because under circumstances during which these claims were brought forth, and since they are all separated (I just managed to remember them from different articles and websites) I have no reason to doubt their validity, nor why they would make stuff up (and why this stuff would then reaffirm previous "made up" stuff, time and time again).

 

Regards


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#345 thistle

thistle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 July 2014 - 03:35 PM



 

And what if your doctor told you that drinking Arsenic is good for you? And as you walk out of the office, a man who says he's a car mechanic comes to you and says "did he also tell you to drink arsenic? Is he out of his mind?". Who would you side with, the doctor or the car mechanic? Here's the thing I'm getting at, which you are trying to avoid as much as possible: you have no method upon determining expertise other than your common sense. You have painted a picture in your head, that you for some reason rely on expertise, while in reality, the only person you actually are relying on, is yourself.

 

What happens when it's not a mind-numbingly obvious example like arsenic? You will be offered a variety of options, or even one single option, all of which are the methods and treatments that have been found to be the most effective. How would you know different? Your common sense would only come into play if your doctor was a complete madman. The idea you don't accept without thinking the benefits of science and the consensus of the experts is silly, you do it every day.

 

 

 

FYI I've spent enough time in school to know that most of science, math, physics, history, is just indoctrination and propaganda. So no, I don't trust experts in other fields just because they're "experts". Most would agree that doing so is actually a logical fallacy --> appeal to authority. The only time I would trust a doctor is if my life depended on it, because then I would have nothing to loose anyway. Otherwise, I steer clear of them.

 

Good grief. Explains a lot. The difference isn't religion here, it's culture. Paranoia about authority, it seems.

 

 

It's funny you say "I investigate what the current consensus is". The first time I read it I actually thought it said "I investigate what the current evidence is", which is a lot more logical thing to do, don't you think?

 

No, that's the point. How would YOU investigate the incredibly complex evidence for every single technological medical and scientific item around you every single day? You couldnt. But by your logic you should, otherwise CHAOS!! Nonsense. You are only interested in the specific areas you think challenge your religion, the rest of the scientific consensus? Ach, you couldn't care less.

 

 

Thank you! At least you are honest now, because it is true that you have no idea. What have bugged me all this time, is that you have claimed that there is no evidence for the supernatural, without actually stating that you have researched the matter yourself. If you just say that you "don't know" about the paranormal stuff, rather than there not being evidence, I think we can close this debate and I will leave it up to you to research it for yourself. If you do, you are free to come back and tell me why I'm wrong, but as it stands now I don't think we will get further than this confession.

 

I also don't know the ins and outs of virtually any scientific field of study. None of us can, even scientists are not experts in every field. So the idea I might be expert in the occult when I dont believe it even exists, seems odd.

 

 

No, I'm saying that 34 nobel prize winning ideas were rejected by the peer review and the scientific consensus found them wrong, only to, decades later, have to admit that they were right in the first place. Here's an entire article on problems within modern scientific inquiry: http://www.gwern.net...alezalvarez.pdf

 

 If you only want to read the stuff about peer review, jump to the end of page nine, where it says "When peer review reinforces orthodoxy rather than quality". Read on from there, and starting on the next page there are detailed (one paragraph) descriptions for each and every paper of those 34 that was right, but was rejectec by your precious "scientific consensus". This is only those 34 who fought the battle for their ideas and won. Think of all who get rejected by "consensus" and simply give up? Or those who got rejected, prooved themselves right, but didn't get a nobel prize? And so, we wont even ever hear of them. Previously you also stated that this is the best system we've got? Really? What about before 1950's, when peer review was barely established? Didn't science made any progress back then? What makes peer review such an important part of science? Clearly, I have evidence that not only can science do fine without it, but it also hinders science. Where is your evidence that it helps science?

 

 

Okay, I'm with you know. So science, and the scientific method isn't perfect and has gone down blind alleys and been slow to adopt the theories which turned out correct. This is not a surprise, is it? The real question is what is your alternative? Reading a paper, thinking hey, that matches my personal belief, it's almost certainly true. I don't think so. I go back to Dr (ex) Andrew Wakefield who caused chaos - still does - with his claims about vaccines. He was believable, people felt it sounded right, but he was wrong and dangerously so. How can we tell when it sounds plausible, other than by further testing and experimentation by those with the expertise? There will never be 100% accuracy. In anything.

 

 

What kind of experiments? Again, 1) demons are beings who can think and are not bound by the laws of physics

 

As far as i know, they dont exist. They might, but I dont believe so.

 

 

So, if I would drop a pen in front of your eyes, let it fall on the floor, and say "this is proof of gravity" would you say "I don't know, I'm not an expert". C'monwink.png

 

Oh I'd see the result. I wouldnt know - being a layman - what the cause was. The reason I believe it's gravity? Science. (not a youtube video) and scientific consensus, of course.

 


This... is... Unbelievable, you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence in a way that I don't think anyone could do unless they were on some kind of drugs. I mean, no offense and all, but you say "No", as in a responce to my statement "You do care", and then you say "I think science is worth defending". Wait, what? blink.png  If you think that science is worth defending, then you care, otherwise you would not think so. And if you think that evolution is science, then you care about defending evolution, since it's a part of science (according to you), and thus also a subject of you thinking of it as "worth defending". The thought "worth defending" itself is caring, if you didn't care you would not think this. How is this more than common sense?'

 

I think science is worth defending, but evolution - or any specific field - isn't something that I am obsessed with or emotional about. The point is I couldnt care less which theory proves correct, I have no attachment to any of them. I do think the process is important, as it leads to discovery and knowledge.

 

 

Yes, you seem to have a special place for evolution in your heart, where you accept it as science regardless of the amount fo evidence (or lack thereof wink.png )

 

I think the same about evolution as every other area of science. But there arent people attacking other areas in the way evolution is attacked for ideological reasons. Its not me that has an emotional reaction to evolution.

 

 

Attack on evolution is attack on science? "Indoctrination is strong with this one."

 

No, evolution could fall as a theory tomorrow, wouldnt concern me. Because it would be being replaced by something that better explained the evidence. Thats science. The attacks on evolution are unique to evolution, and based entirely on ideology and religion. Therefore they are an attack on science, regardless of the evidence.

 

 

 Sure, documentaries are not evidence, but my point is they are not the same as transformers movies either. And yes, you are right, they can give a topic to investigate if one is interested. But not investigating and then saying "the documentary doesn't provide the correct information" is a bit arrogant, don't you think?

 

I'll give you that, transformers movies are a special kind of rubbish biggrin.png  but my point was they are both entertainment, neither are scientific evidence or designed to be so.

 

 

Ironic, isn't it? We live in a world where there is more truth taught in the movies than there is taught in public schools. Also, I assume "it's", as you are reffering to, probably, the only article you read, if even that. The evidence of this is in most movies, most tv shows, and almost every new pop-song coming out. Remember what all science rests upon? Research.

 

 

Evidence of what exactly? Are you suggesting all the different writers, producers and directors who make movies are all in league, promoting the devil? They would need to be, surely?

 

 

No, but your answer says a great deal about you. If you have no idea what sort of "evidence" would change your mind, then I think it's quite intellectually dishonest to then go on and say that there is no evidence for the supernatural.

 

Its the other way round. If I dont believe it exists - and I dont - then Im not sure what would need to happen to convince me. Im not saying it couldnt happen. Im an agnostic atheist, I dont believe, but Im not discounting that the supernatural might exist.

 

 

Nah, it's fine. It's not about honesty, more like your mind understands that if you "get" my question, you will be forced to a reply that makes you retreat. But if you pretend to have missinterpreted the question, then your worldview is safe. I think this happens unconcsiously when people are starting to feel that they are getting cornered. I've had this same experience with many other atheists (and even theists).

 

But I also think you perhaps assume there is an unconscious "worldview" in these answers, when in fact it's actually not that. It's absence of what you would call worldview, I think. I sometimes think the religious aspect of the creationist view means that a similar deference to an ideology that doesn;t require evidence but just faith is projected onto the atheist, and the scientist. (not sure that sentence made sense)

 

Hope all the arrogancy on my part doesn't scare you off. I don't want to come off as rude, just playing with words. (You know, creating a good "debate" atmosphere.) But if you think I'm starting to cross a line, I'll stop.

 

No it's all good. Some other people here are ... um ... quite rude and sound distinctly angry biggrin.png



#346 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 19 July 2014 - 07:18 AM

 

Hope all the arrogancy on my part doesn't scare you off. I don't want to come off as rude, just playing with words. (You know, creating a good "debate" atmosphere.) But if you think I'm starting to cross a line, I'll stop.

 

No it's all good. Some other people here are ... um ... quite rude and sound distinctly angry biggrin.png

Will be busy all week, but ya, thanks for keeping it lively but civil!

Something to leave you with...

Ben Franklin did not discover electricity, it was already known,

He demonstrated that lightning and electricity are one in the same.

The ramifications of this was that God's disapproval of a church could no longer be invoked as the cause of lightening strikes.

Well, I guess it still could, but Franklin showed how God's wrath could be tamed with a lightening rod. :)



#347 bov930527

bov930527

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Computer science, software engineering. Trying to write and publish a sci-fi novel.
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Skane, Sweden

Posted 19 July 2014 - 11:01 AM

 



 

And what if your doctor told you that drinking Arsenic is good for you? And as you walk out of the office, a man who says he's a car mechanic comes to you and says "did he also tell you to drink arsenic? Is he out of his mind?". Who would you side with, the doctor or the car mechanic? Here's the thing I'm getting at, which you are trying to avoid as much as possible: you have no method upon determining expertise other than your common sense. You have painted a picture in your head, that you for some reason rely on expertise, while in reality, the only person you actually are relying on, is yourself.

 

What happens when it's not a mind-numbingly obvious example like arsenic? You will be offered a variety of options, or even one single option, all of which are the methods and treatments that have been found to be the most effective. How would you know different? Your common sense would only come into play if your doctor was a complete madman. The idea you don't accept without thinking the benefits of science and the consensus of the experts is silly, you do it every day.

 

 

 

FYI I've spent enough time in school to know that most of science, math, physics, history, is just indoctrination and propaganda. So no, I don't trust experts in other fields just because they're "experts". Most would agree that doing so is actually a logical fallacy --> appeal to authority. The only time I would trust a doctor is if my life depended on it, because then I would have nothing to loose anyway. Otherwise, I steer clear of them.

 

Good grief. Explains a lot. The difference isn't religion here, it's culture. Paranoia about authority, it seems.

 

 

It's funny you say "I investigate what the current consensus is". The first time I read it I actually thought it said "I investigate what the current evidence is", which is a lot more logical thing to do, don't you think?

 

No, that's the point. How would YOU investigate the incredibly complex evidence for every single technological medical and scientific item around you every single day? You couldnt. But by your logic you should, otherwise CHAOS!! Nonsense. You are only interested in the specific areas you think challenge your religion, the rest of the scientific consensus? Ach, you couldn't care less.

 

 

Thank you! At least you are honest now, because it is true that you have no idea. What have bugged me all this time, is that you have claimed that there is no evidence for the supernatural, without actually stating that you have researched the matter yourself. If you just say that you "don't know" about the paranormal stuff, rather than there not being evidence, I think we can close this debate and I will leave it up to you to research it for yourself. If you do, you are free to come back and tell me why I'm wrong, but as it stands now I don't think we will get further than this confession.

 

I also don't know the ins and outs of virtually any scientific field of study. None of us can, even scientists are not experts in every field. So the idea I might be expert in the occult when I dont believe it even exists, seems odd.

 

 

No, I'm saying that 34 nobel prize winning ideas were rejected by the peer review and the scientific consensus found them wrong, only to, decades later, have to admit that they were right in the first place. Here's an entire article on problems within modern scientific inquiry: http://www.gwern.net...alezalvarez.pdf

 

 If you only want to read the stuff about peer review, jump to the end of page nine, where it says "When peer review reinforces orthodoxy rather than quality". Read on from there, and starting on the next page there are detailed (one paragraph) descriptions for each and every paper of those 34 that was right, but was rejectec by your precious "scientific consensus". This is only those 34 who fought the battle for their ideas and won. Think of all who get rejected by "consensus" and simply give up? Or those who got rejected, prooved themselves right, but didn't get a nobel prize? And so, we wont even ever hear of them. Previously you also stated that this is the best system we've got? Really? What about before 1950's, when peer review was barely established? Didn't science made any progress back then? What makes peer review such an important part of science? Clearly, I have evidence that not only can science do fine without it, but it also hinders science. Where is your evidence that it helps science?

 

 

Okay, I'm with you know. So science, and the scientific method isn't perfect and has gone down blind alleys and been slow to adopt the theories which turned out correct. This is not a surprise, is it? The real question is what is your alternative? Reading a paper, thinking hey, that matches my personal belief, it's almost certainly true. I don't think so. I go back to Dr (ex) Andrew Wakefield who caused chaos - still does - with his claims about vaccines. He was believable, people felt it sounded right, but he was wrong and dangerously so. How can we tell when it sounds plausible, other than by further testing and experimentation by those with the expertise? There will never be 100% accuracy. In anything.

 

 

What kind of experiments? Again, 1) demons are beings who can think and are not bound by the laws of physics

 

As far as i know, they dont exist. They might, but I dont believe so.

 

 

So, if I would drop a pen in front of your eyes, let it fall on the floor, and say "this is proof of gravity" would you say "I don't know, I'm not an expert". C'monwink.png

 

Oh I'd see the result. I wouldnt know - being a layman - what the cause was. The reason I believe it's gravity? Science. (not a youtube video) and scientific consensus, of course.

 


This... is... Unbelievable, you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence in a way that I don't think anyone could do unless they were on some kind of drugs. I mean, no offense and all, but you say "No", as in a responce to my statement "You do care", and then you say "I think science is worth defending". Wait, what? blink.png  If you think that science is worth defending, then you care, otherwise you would not think so. And if you think that evolution is science, then you care about defending evolution, since it's a part of science (according to you), and thus also a subject of you thinking of it as "worth defending". The thought "worth defending" itself is caring, if you didn't care you would not think this. How is this more than common sense?'

 

I think science is worth defending, but evolution - or any specific field - isn't something that I am obsessed with or emotional about. The point is I couldnt care less which theory proves correct, I have no attachment to any of them. I do think the process is important, as it leads to discovery and knowledge.

 

 

Yes, you seem to have a special place for evolution in your heart, where you accept it as science regardless of the amount fo evidence (or lack thereof wink.png )

 

I think the same about evolution as every other area of science. But there arent people attacking other areas in the way evolution is attacked for ideological reasons. Its not me that has an emotional reaction to evolution.

 

 

Attack on evolution is attack on science? "Indoctrination is strong with this one."

 

No, evolution could fall as a theory tomorrow, wouldnt concern me. Because it would be being replaced by something that better explained the evidence. Thats science. The attacks on evolution are unique to evolution, and based entirely on ideology and religion. Therefore they are an attack on science, regardless of the evidence.

 

 

 Sure, documentaries are not evidence, but my point is they are not the same as transformers movies either. And yes, you are right, they can give a topic to investigate if one is interested. But not investigating and then saying "the documentary doesn't provide the correct information" is a bit arrogant, don't you think?

 

I'll give you that, transformers movies are a special kind of rubbish biggrin.png  but my point was they are both entertainment, neither are scientific evidence or designed to be so.

 

 

Ironic, isn't it? We live in a world where there is more truth taught in the movies than there is taught in public schools. Also, I assume "it's", as you are reffering to, probably, the only article you read, if even that. The evidence of this is in most movies, most tv shows, and almost every new pop-song coming out. Remember what all science rests upon? Research.

 

 

Evidence of what exactly? Are you suggesting all the different writers, producers and directors who make movies are all in league, promoting the devil? They would need to be, surely?

 

 

No, but your answer says a great deal about you. If you have no idea what sort of "evidence" would change your mind, then I think it's quite intellectually dishonest to then go on and say that there is no evidence for the supernatural.

 

Its the other way round. If I dont believe it exists - and I dont - then Im not sure what would need to happen to convince me. Im not saying it couldnt happen. Im an agnostic atheist, I dont believe, but Im not discounting that the supernatural might exist.

 

 

Nah, it's fine. It's not about honesty, more like your mind understands that if you "get" my question, you will be forced to a reply that makes you retreat. But if you pretend to have missinterpreted the question, then your worldview is safe. I think this happens unconcsiously when people are starting to feel that they are getting cornered. I've had this same experience with many other atheists (and even theists).

 

But I also think you perhaps assume there is an unconscious "worldview" in these answers, when in fact it's actually not that. It's absence of what you would call worldview, I think. I sometimes think the religious aspect of the creationist view means that a similar deference to an ideology that doesn;t require evidence but just faith is projected onto the atheist, and the scientist. (not sure that sentence made sense)

 

Hope all the arrogancy on my part doesn't scare you off. I don't want to come off as rude, just playing with words. (You know, creating a good "debate" atmosphere.) But if you think I'm starting to cross a line, I'll stop.

 

No it's all good. Some other people here are ... um ... quite rude and sound distinctly angry biggrin.png

 

 

 

1. "Good grief. Explains a lot. The difference isn't religion here, it's culture. Paranoia about authority, it seems."

 

Nah, not really. Doctors in Sweden are highly incompetent. This isn't paranoia, it's really common sense here, most laymen agree on this. At least general doctors and surgeons. If you want some real knowledge, you go to a specialist, which costs about 1000$ per hour, so... (No, I'm not joking, specialists doctors really do cost about one thousand dollars per hour in Sweden, so you better have some insurance, or be under age of 18.) I happened to live in a society that doesn't value education (Sweden got some terrible results in the last PISA examination). There are barely any real experts here at all,(i.e. the ones who know what they're talking about, not just those who have a paper on which it says "Philosophie Doctor") which is why we don't produce anything, except maybe video games. We just buy cheap stuff from China, Indonesia and Thailand, and then sell it here for 100x the price and call that domestic growth. Whenever there is a big scientific project going on, there are always scientists coming in from Germany, France and GB. That's because most sweds know that trusting "the experts" here in Sweden can have fatal consequences. So, I know this is besides the point, but I just don't want you to think that I'm totally paranoid, just because I happened to live in a different culture, which has taught me a different view of "scientific consensus".

 

2. "No, that's the point. How would YOU investigate the incredibly complex evidence for every single technological medical and scientific item around you every single day? You couldnt. But by your logic you should, otherwise CHAOS!! Nonsense. You are only interested in the specific areas you think challenge your religion, the rest of the scientific consensus? Ach, you couldn't care less."

 

Well, actually... I studied molecular biology, after this I came to realize that evolution is impossible (I didn't believe in the ToE before either, but this was the last nail in the coffin). I took a course in physics, after which I stopped believing in gravity. Then I took a course in general relativity and theory behind Leibnitz length contraction. After which I stopped believing in Einsteins theories altogether, because the evidence says against them. After all this I've drawn the conclusion that the more I learn about contemporary science, the more it seems to be stuck back in 1910's. Almost everything is just ad hoc theories to save 100 years old (incorrect) views. Thus, I now bet that it's safer to have a starting point of not trusting the contemporary scientific consensus at all, and only trust it when I have been presented the evidence that convince me, rather than the other way around.

 

3. "I also don't know the ins and outs of virtually any scientific field of study. None of us can, even scientists are not experts in every field. So the idea I might be expert in the occult when I dont believe it even exists, seems odd."

 

Sure. However the argument was that you claimed there not to be evidence for the supernatural, while stating that you haven't researched the matter yourself. So, I simply appreciate that you now say that you don't know, rather than there not being evidence.

 

4. "Okay, I'm with you know. So science, and the scientific method isn't perfect and has gone down blind alleys and been slow to adopt the theories which turned out correct. This is not a surprise, is it? The real question is what is your alternative? Reading a paper, thinking hey, that matches my personal belief, it's almost certainly true. I don't think so. I go back to Dr (ex) Andrew Wakefield who caused chaos - still does - with his claims about vaccines. He was believable, people felt it sounded right, but he was wrong and dangerously so. How can we tell when it sounds plausible, other than by further testing and experimentation by those with the expertise? There will never be 100% accuracy. In anything."

 

I wasn't talking about science, nor the scientific method. I was talking about peer review, and how scientific consensus hinders real science and real discoveries. That was my point.

 

I think science works best when it's capitalistic, just like it was before 1950's. The ideas that gave the most innovation and were the most useful, those are the ones that lived throughout all this hundreds of years. Now, after 1950's, we get a bunch of "science" like quantum mechanics and theorital physics, which no one really cares about, and at the same time, real discoveries that have real innovation value are being hindered from exploration due to scientific consensus. Science today is not the same as it was 100 years ago. Back then it was about exploration, finding the unknown. Today it's just "agreeing with everyone so that I can get my Ph.D. as soon as possible". Such a shame.

 

5. "How can we tell when it sounds plausible, other than by further testing and experimentation by those with the expertise?"

 

I know I've already replied to your entire paragraph, but I just wanted to give a quick comment to this particular sentence. Tell me now, why were the 34 nobel prize winners rejected by peer review and the scientific consensus? Clearly, they had the testing and experimentation done on their part, had the real evidence, and were still rejected. How come?

 

You already know my answer: because peer review doesn't work. But I'd like to see your answer.

 

6. "As far as i know, they dont exist. They might, but I dont believe so."

 

"Might", that's a good start. I wont be pushing for more today.

 

7. "Oh I'd see the result. I wouldnt know - being a layman - what the cause was. The reason I believe it's gravity? Science. (not a youtube video) and scientific consensus, of course."

 

Fair enough.

 

8. "I think science is worth defending, but evolution - or any specific field - isn't something that I am obsessed with or emotional about. The point is I couldnt care less which theory proves correct, I have no attachment to any of them. I do think the process is important, as it leads to discovery and knowledge."

 

But here's the thing, as I'm sure you have noticed: on this site, many people don't think that evolution follows the necessary scientific steps that makes it a scientific theory. To me, evolution is theology, not biology. I too think the process of science is important, but I don't think evolution follows it. I hope you understand the difference, but I haven't read of anyone on this forum attacking scientific method per se, instead we agree that scientific method is good, but that the theory of evolution doesn't follow it.

 

9. "I think the same about evolution as every other area of science."

 

And here is where the disagreement lies. I simply don't see ToE as scientific.

 

10. "But there arent people attacking other areas in the way evolution is attacked for ideological reasons."

 

Well, evolution attacked religion first, so...

 

11. "No, evolution could fall as a theory tomorrow, wouldnt concern me. Because it would be being replaced by something that better explained the evidence. Thats science."

 

Well, no. First, evolution will never fall by mere scientific inquiry. It was designed to be the theory that wouldn't fall, and wouldn't be questioned.

 

12. "The attacks on evolution are unique to evolution, and based entirely on ideology and religion. Therefore they are an attack on science, regardless of the evidence."

 

But evolution is one of many theories that claims to be scientific, without evidence! I'm fine with quantum mechanics, because it falls under theoretical physics, so it acknowledges itself not to have any clear-cut evidence. But ToE says it has evidence, and then rejects the fact that evidence fall flat when under close scientific scrutiny of different branches of science. It's also interesting that you say "regardless of the evidence". It sounds as if it doesn't matter if there are any evidence for evolution, it's still an attack on science. And that's sounds funny to me laugh.png

 

13. "I'll give you that, transformers movies are a special kind of rubbish biggrin.png  but my point was they are both entertainment, neither are scientific evidence or designed to be so."

 

Agreed.

 

14. "Evidence of what exactly? Are you suggesting all the different writers, producers and directors who make movies are all in league, promoting the devil?"

 

Yapp. The entertainment industry is controlled by a satanic elite. I didn't really wanted to go off topic, but since you asked...

 

Here's a confession by Bob Dylon that he sold his soul to the devil: https://www.youtube....h?v=IqvvOD4bdRs

 

Katy Perry admitting she sold her soul to the devil: https://www.youtube....h?v=10rx15v28yk

 

(Notice that the other girl doing the interview has the upside-down cross, which is a satanic symbol.)

 

Kenye West admitting he sold his soul to the devil (after the 2:00 mark): https://www.youtube....h?v=bbmiOBN3U7Y

 

Here's Eminem stating he hears the voice of the devil in his head (after about 1:35 man): https://www.youtube....h?v=5UnNRFt2iqw

 

(Also, notice how the entire song is about demonic possession.)

 

Here's another good compilation that should make you think twice about the entertainment industry: https://www.youtube....h?v=EIhdTY3x830

 

Here's Denzel Washington stating he invites spirits (?) to possess his body in order ot seem like a good actor (starts at about 0:55 mark): https://www.youtube....h?v=D5oOY2C9wdI

 

It's also ironic how the woman at 0:16 mark says "it was so electrifying that it came through the television". This is a known ability of demons: they can enter your home and you rlife if you watch movies of people been possessed (I don't know the physics of it all, but the fact that they can remains). Don't you think it's weird that Hollywood continues to produce these movies year after year, despite most of them having no cinematographic value at all?

 

At about 1:30 mark in the video there is a reading of a text written by Oprah Winfrey on how she explains acting in a very similar way to how Denzel Washington explained it.

 

Here's Jay Z wearing "do what thou wilt" shirt: 

 

Jay-Z-Do-What-Thou-Wilt2.jpg

 

"Do what thou wilt" was a motto of a famous self-proclaimed satanist and child molester Aleister Crowley (http://en.wikipedia....leister_Crowley), who has claimed that he communicated with Satan, wrote a bunch of books on the occult and magik (with "k"), aswell as started a whole bunch of satanic cults & organizations.

 

Crowley referred to himself as "Aeon of Horus". Horus is another name of Satan (hence "the eye of Horus" symbolism that vigilantcitizen site exposes, among other sites).

 

Now, my question is, why do all these people say that they sold their soul, or that they work with spirits? You can debunk the videos one by one, but why do they all say that? Why don't someone say "I had s@x with a producer", or something like that? Nope, they all say "I sold my soul to the devil/Satan".

 

Why do you think there is "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM" or "New order fo the ages", more accurately "new secular order" written on the 1$ bill? Why do you think there is a pyramid and same eye of horus on the 1$ bill? And why is, "coincidentally", dollar the current currency of the world (aka petrodollar)? Why do all Hollywood stars claim they sold their souls? Why does this eye of Horus appears in Derren Brown show to signify before and after the commercial break: https://www.youtube....h?v=MT3izBQfh5M, and why is the show called "Derren Brown - Messiah" as if to blaspheme/make fun of Christianity? Why do the most influential people from all over the world meet every year in something called the "Bilderberg group"? http://vigilantcitiz...cial-attendees/ . This meeting is highly guarded, and no juornalists or press is allowed. Why? What are they doing at these meetings?

 

The truth is... Satan runs this world.

 

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." - Matthew 4:8-10 (KJV)

 

 

"33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." - John 18:33-36 (KJV)

 

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." - John 16:7-11 (KJV)

 

Don't you think it's interesting that when Jesus replied to Satan in Mark 4, He didn't say "liar, this world belongs to thy God", or something like that? Instead, He simply says that one should worship God. Also, who is the "prince of this world", spoken of in John 16:11?

See, this, among other things, is what makes Christianity different from all other religions. Many religions have "good guys & bad guys". But the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only religious scripture in the entire world that says it sraight into your face: evil runs this world, not good. Why? Because power over the world was given over to mankind. And corrupted people gave this power away to Satan. And there it has been, preserved, ever since. Every major event in history is not just some random revolution or economical restructuring. Everything is carefully planned several hundred years in advence.

Since I'm already in the full conspiracy theory assertion mode, I might aswell touch on the issue of the theory of evolution.

Evolution was tutored to Charles Darwin by Satan himself. Just like Jesus taught His disciples, so did Satan follow (in spiritual presence, not physical) Darwin for years and taught the basic principles of the theory of evolution. Theory of evolution was actually proponed already by Goethe, 70-80 years before Darwin: http://en.wikipedia....Scientific_work. Strangely, when Goethe got old he also wrote a book about a man who sold his soul to the devil to gain knowledge about the world. Coincidence? No, Goethe simply wanted to write an autobiography, but knew that no one would believe him, so he called it "fiction", but those who understand, know that it was his attempt at telling his life story.

Satan understood that theory of evolution would be help for both atheism and satanism to gain its foot, aswell as destroy the words of Genesis in anyone who comes to believe in this theory. Also, don't you think it's a major historical coincidence that every western country installed public schools between 1830-1870? And that in the period between 1870 and 1920 almost all countries had public schools made compulsory? Coincidence? Off course not, it's all planned for the indoctrination of the masses. Think also of the club X and the fact that most institutions were established around the fact that theory of evolution was true, period. There was no questioning this. And the thing is, there never will be...

I don't write on this site because I think some scientist might read this and start to fight the theory of evolution. There has already been a lot of scientists who've done this, but none has come out victorious. Theory of evolution will be taught in school no matter evidence for or against it, till some major events on historical scale (like antichrist coming to Earth or the Judgement day) will happen. And so, my only hope is to tell the truth to the individuals who trapped themselves in Satan's delusion. I can't force you to come out of it, only you can free yourself from the lies all around you and start seeing the truth. But what I can do, is try and plant a seed, a seed of doubt in your mind, that you will hopefully let grow, and over the time come to be saved by the glory and grace of Jesus Christ.

 

15. "Its the other way round. If I dont believe it exists - and I dont - then Im not sure what would need to happen to convince me. Im not saying it couldnt happen. Im an agnostic atheist, I dont believe, but Im not discounting that the supernatural might exist."

 

Okay then. This is a quite different tone from the "there is no evidence for the supernatural". So I will not push you for more. I simply hope that the seed is planted, now we just wait biggrin.png

 

16. "But I also think you perhaps assume there is an unconscious "worldview" in these answers, when in fact it's actually not that. It's absence of what you would call worldview, I think. "

 

Everyone has a worldview they rely upon. This worldview is very hard to challenge. And I'm not just talking about atheists, I'm talking about everyone. I may also be close-minded at times, and I can admit that there are certain core "beliefs" that I would have a very hard time changing (for example if you would say that the next time I drop a pen, it will "fall" upwards.) But I try and control this and answer any questions as honestly as possible, regardless of my worldview. However, I found that in other people, both atheists and theists, such is not the case. A lot of people start, whether consciously or unconsciously, missinterpreting the questions that, if given an honest answer, will force them ro reevaluate their worldview. An example of this is the fact that everytime I mention flaws in peer review, you seem to "missinterpret" it as if I was talking about the scientific method. This is clearly evidence of you putting too much trust in scientific consensus, and rather than reevaluating how much trust is too much, you simply dodge the question and just jump on an entirely unrelated topic.

 

But again, I think this happens with most people. I probably do it too sometimes. It's just easier to notice this when others are doing it, than when I myself am doing it. I guess such is the human nature.

 

17. "I sometimes think the religious aspect of the creationist view means that a similar deference to an ideology that doesn;t require evidence but just faith is projected onto the atheist, and the scientist. (not sure that sentence made sense)"

 

Nope, it didn't smile.png . Take into consideration that English is not my native tongue, so if you think that you don't fully comprehend what you've written, chances are I won't at all. Just a heads up smile.png

 

18. "No it's all good. Some other people here are ... um ... quite rude and sound distinctly angry biggrin.png"

 

Yes, even though I regard Christians as my brothers and sisters, sometimes I do get upset with them for not controlling their emotions.

 

Regards



#348 thistle

thistle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 19 July 2014 - 11:39 AM

 

 

1. "Good grief. Explains a lot. The difference isn't religion here, it's culture. Paranoia about authority, it seems."

 

Nah, not really. Doctors in Sweden are highly incompetent. This isn't paranoia, it's really common sense here, most laymen agree on this. At least general doctors and surgeons. If you want some real knowledge, you go to a specialist, which costs about 1000$ per hour, so... (No, I'm not joking, specialists doctors really do cost about one thousand dollars per hour in Sweden, so you better have some insurance, or be under age of 18.) I happened to live in a society that doesn't value education (Sweden got some terrible results in the last PISA examination). There are barely any real experts here at all,(i.e. the ones who know what they're talking about, not just those who have a paper on which it says "Philosophie Doctor") which is why we don't produce anything, except maybe video games. We just buy cheap stuff from China, Indonesia and Thailand, and then sell it here for 100x the price and call that domestic growth. Whenever there is a big scientific project going on, there are always scientists coming in from Germany, France and GB. That's because most sweds know that trusting "the experts" here in Sweden can have fatal consequences. So, I know this is besides the point, but I just don't want you to think that I'm totally paranoid, just because I happened to live in a different culture, which has taught me a different view of "scientific consensus".

 

2. "No, that's the point. How would YOU investigate the incredibly complex evidence for every single technological medical and scientific item around you every single day? You couldnt. But by your logic you should, otherwise CHAOS!! Nonsense. You are only interested in the specific areas you think challenge your religion, the rest of the scientific consensus? Ach, you couldn't care less."

 

Well, actually... I studied molecular biology, after this I came to realize that evolution is impossible (I didn't believe in the ToE before either, but this was the last nail in the coffin). I took a course in physics, after which I stopped believing in gravity. Then I took a course in general relativity and theory behind Leibnitz length contraction. After which I stopped believing in Einsteins theories altogether, because the evidence says against them. After all this I've drawn the conclusion that the more I learn about contemporary science, the more it seems to be stuck back in 1910's. Almost everything is just ad hoc theories to save 100 years old (incorrect) views. Thus, I now bet that it's safer to have a starting point of not trusting the contemporary scientific consensus at all, and only trust it when I have been presented the evidence that convince me, rather than the other way around.

 

3. "I also don't know the ins and outs of virtually any scientific field of study. None of us can, even scientists are not experts in every field. So the idea I might be expert in the occult when I dont believe it even exists, seems odd."

 

Sure. However the argument was that you claimed there not to be evidence for the supernatural, while stating that you haven't researched the matter yourself. So, I simply appreciate that you now say that you don't know, rather than there not being evidence.

 

4. "Okay, I'm with you know. So science, and the scientific method isn't perfect and has gone down blind alleys and been slow to adopt the theories which turned out correct. This is not a surprise, is it? The real question is what is your alternative? Reading a paper, thinking hey, that matches my personal belief, it's almost certainly true. I don't think so. I go back to Dr (ex) Andrew Wakefield who caused chaos - still does - with his claims about vaccines. He was believable, people felt it sounded right, but he was wrong and dangerously so. How can we tell when it sounds plausible, other than by further testing and experimentation by those with the expertise? There will never be 100% accuracy. In anything."

 

I wasn't talking about science, nor the scientific method. I was talking about peer review, and how scientific consensus hinders real science and real discoveries. That was my point.

 

I think science works best when it's capitalistic, just like it was before 1950's. The ideas that gave the most innovation and were the most useful, those are the ones that lived throughout all this hundreds of years. Now, after 1950's, we get a bunch of "science" like quantum mechanics and theorital physics, which no one really cares about, and at the same time, real discoveries that have real innovation value are being hindered from exploration due to scientific consensus. Science today is not the same as it was 100 years ago. Back then it was about exploration, finding the unknown. Today it's just "agreeing with everyone so that I can get my Ph.D. as soon as possible". Such a shame.

 

5. "How can we tell when it sounds plausible, other than by further testing and experimentation by those with the expertise?"

 

I know I've already replied to your entire paragraph, but I just wanted to give a quick comment to this particular sentence. Tell me now, why were the 34 nobel prize winners rejected by peer review and the scientific consensus? Clearly, they had the testing and experimentation done on their part, had the real evidence, and were still rejected. How come?

 

You already know my answer: because peer review doesn't work. But I'd like to see your answer.

 

6. "As far as i know, they dont exist. They might, but I dont believe so."

 

"Might", that's a good start. I wont be pushing for more today.

 

7. "Oh I'd see the result. I wouldnt know - being a layman - what the cause was. The reason I believe it's gravity? Science. (not a youtube video) and scientific consensus, of course."

 

Fair enough.

 

8. "I think science is worth defending, but evolution - or any specific field - isn't something that I am obsessed with or emotional about. The point is I couldnt care less which theory proves correct, I have no attachment to any of them. I do think the process is important, as it leads to discovery and knowledge."

 

But here's the thing, as I'm sure you have noticed: on this site, many people don't think that evolution follows the necessary scientific steps that makes it a scientific theory. To me, evolution is theology, not biology. I too think the process of science is important, but I don't think evolution follows it. I hope you understand the difference, but I haven't read of anyone on this forum attacking scientific method per se, instead we agree that scientific method is good, but that the theory of evolution doesn't follow it.

 

9. "I think the same about evolution as every other area of science."

 

And here is where the disagreement lies. I simply don't see ToE as scientific.

 

10. "But there arent people attacking other areas in the way evolution is attacked for ideological reasons."

 

Well, evolution attacked religion first, so...

 

11. "No, evolution could fall as a theory tomorrow, wouldnt concern me. Because it would be being replaced by something that better explained the evidence. Thats science."

 

Well, no. First, evolution will never fall by mere scientific inquiry. It was designed to be the theory that wouldn't fall, and wouldn't be questioned.

 

12. "The attacks on evolution are unique to evolution, and based entirely on ideology and religion. Therefore they are an attack on science, regardless of the evidence."

 

But evolution is one of many theories that claims to be scientific, without evidence! I'm fine with quantum mechanics, because it falls under theoretical physics, so it acknowledges itself not to have any clear-cut evidence. But ToE says it has evidence, and then rejects the fact that evidence fall flat when under close scientific scrutiny of different branches of science. It's also interesting that you say "regardless of the evidence". It sounds as if it doesn't matter if there are any evidence for evolution, it's still an attack on science. And that's sounds funny to me laugh.png

 

13. "I'll give you that, transformers movies are a special kind of rubbish biggrin.png  but my point was they are both entertainment, neither are scientific evidence or designed to be so."

 

Agreed.

 

14. "Evidence of what exactly? Are you suggesting all the different writers, producers and directors who make movies are all in league, promoting the devil?"

 

Yapp. The entertainment industry is controlled by a satanic elite. I didn't really wanted to go off topic, but since you asked...

 

Here's a confession by Bob Dylon that he sold his soul to the devil: https://www.youtube....h?v=IqvvOD4bdRs

 

Katy Perry admitting she sold her soul to the devil: https://www.youtube....h?v=10rx15v28yk

 

(Notice that the other girl doing the interview has the upside-down cross, which is a satanic symbol.)

 

Kenye West admitting he sold his soul to the devil (after the 2:00 mark): https://www.youtube....h?v=bbmiOBN3U7Y

 

Here's Eminem stating he hears the voice of the devil in his head (after about 1:35 man): https://www.youtube....h?v=5UnNRFt2iqw

 

(Also, notice how the entire song is about demonic possession.)

 

Here's another good compilation that should make you think twice about the entertainment industry: https://www.youtube....h?v=EIhdTY3x830

 

Here's Denzel Washington stating he invites spirits (?) to possess his body in order ot seem like a good actor (starts at about 0:55 mark): https://www.youtube....h?v=D5oOY2C9wdI

 

It's also ironic how the woman at 0:16 mark says "it was so electrifying that it came through the television". This is a known ability of demons: they can enter your home and you rlife if you watch movies of people been possessed (I don't know the physics of it all, but the fact that they can remains). Don't you think it's weird that Hollywood continues to produce these movies year after year, despite most of them having no cinematographic value at all?

 

At about 1:30 mark in the video there is a reading of a text written by Oprah Winfrey on how she explains acting in a very similar way to how Denzel Washington explained it.

 

Here's Jay Z wearing "do what thou wilt" shirt: 

 

Jay-Z-Do-What-Thou-Wilt2.jpg

 

"Do what thou wilt" was a motto of a famous self-proclaimed satanist and child molester Aleister Crowley (http://en.wikipedia....leister_Crowley), who has claimed that he communicated with Satan, wrote a bunch of books on the occult and magik (with "k"), aswell as started a whole bunch of satanic cults & organizations.

 

Crowley referred to himself as "Aeon of Horus". Horus is another name of Satan (hence "the eye of Horus" symbolism that vigilantcitizen site exposes, among other sites).

 

Now, my question is, why do all these people say that they sold their soul, or that they work with spirits? You can debunk the videos one by one, but why do they all say that? Why don't someone say "I had s@x with a producer", or something like that? Nope, they all say "I sold my soul to the devil/Satan".

 

Why do you think there is "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM" or "New order fo the ages", more accurately "new secular order" written on the 1$ bill? Why do you think there is a pyramid and same eye of horus on the 1$ bill? And why is, "coincidentally", dollar the current currency of the world (aka petrodollar)? Why do all Hollywood stars claim they sold their souls? Why does this eye of Horus appears in Derren Brown show to signify before and after the commercial break: https://www.youtube....h?v=MT3izBQfh5M, and why is the show called "Derren Brown - Messiah" as if to blaspheme/make fun of Christianity? Why do the most influential people from all over the world meet every year in something called the "Bilderberg group"? http://vigilantcitiz...cial-attendees/ . This meeting is highly guarded, and no juornalists or press is allowed. Why? What are they doing at these meetings?

 

The truth is... Satan runs this world.

 

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." - Matthew 4:8-10 (KJV)

 

 

"33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." - John 18:33-36 (KJV)

 

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." - John 16:7-11 (KJV)

 

Don't you think it's interesting that when Jesus replied to Satan in Mark 4, He didn't say "liar, this world belongs to thy God", or something like that? Instead, He simply says that one should worship God. Also, who is the "prince of this world", spoken of in John 16:11?

See, this, among other things, is what makes Christianity different from all other religions. Many religions have "good guys & bad guys". But the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only religious scripture in the entire world that says it sraight into your face: evil runs this world, not good. Why? Because power over the world was given over to mankind. And corrupted people gave this power away to Satan. And there it has been, preserved, ever since. Every major event in history is not just some random revolution or economical restructuring. Everything is carefully planned several hundred years in advence.

Since I'm already in the full conspiracy theory assertion mode, I might aswell touch on the issue of the theory of evolution.

Evolution was tutored to Charles Darwin by Satan himself. Just like Jesus taught His disciples, so did Satan follow (in spiritual presence, not physical) Darwin for years and taught the basic principles of the theory of evolution. Theory of evolution was actually proponed already by Goethe, 70-80 years before Darwin: http://en.wikipedia....Scientific_work. Strangely, when Goethe got old he also wrote a book about a man who sold his soul to the devil to gain knowledge about the world. Coincidence? No, Goethe simply wanted to write an autobiography, but knew that no one would believe him, so he called it "fiction", but those who understand, know that it was his attempt at telling his life story.

Satan understood that theory of evolution would be help for both atheism and satanism to gain its foot, aswell as destroy the words of Genesis in anyone who comes to believe in this theory. Also, don't you think it's a major historical coincidence that every western country installed public schools between 1830-1870? And that in the period between 1870 and 1920 almost all countries had public schools made compulsory? Coincidence? Off course not, it's all planned for the indoctrination of the masses. Think also of the club X and the fact that most institutions were established around the fact that theory of evolution was true, period. There was no questioning this. And the thing is, there never will be...

I don't write on this site because I think some scientist might read this and start to fight the theory of evolution. There has already been a lot of scientists who've done this, but none has come out victorious. Theory of evolution will be taught in school no matter evidence for or against it, till some major events on historical scale (like antichrist coming to Earth or the Judgement day) will happen. And so, my only hope is to tell the truth to the individuals who trapped themselves in Satan's delusion. I can't force you to come out of it, only you can free yourself from the lies all around you and start seeing the truth. But what I can do, is try and plant a seed, a seed of doubt in your mind, that you will hopefully let grow, and over the time come to be saved by the glory and grace of Jesus Christ.

 

15. "Its the other way round. If I dont believe it exists - and I dont - then Im not sure what would need to happen to convince me. Im not saying it couldnt happen. Im an agnostic atheist, I dont believe, but Im not discounting that the supernatural might exist."

 

Okay then. This is a quite different tone from the "there is no evidence for the supernatural". So I will not push you for more. I simply hope that the seed is planted, now we just wait biggrin.png

 

16. "But I also think you perhaps assume there is an unconscious "worldview" in these answers, when in fact it's actually not that. It's absence of what you would call worldview, I think. "

 

Everyone has a worldview they rely upon. This worldview is very hard to challenge. And I'm not just talking about atheists, I'm talking about everyone. I may also be close-minded at times, and I can admit that there are certain core "beliefs" that I would have a very hard time changing (for example if you would say that the next time I drop a pen, it will "fall" upwards.) But I try and control this and answer any questions as honestly as possible, regardless of my worldview. However, I found that in other people, both atheists and theists, such is not the case. A lot of people start, whether consciously or unconsciously, missinterpreting the questions that, if given an honest answer, will force them ro reevaluate their worldview. An example of this is the fact that everytime I mention flaws in peer review, you seem to "missinterpret" it as if I was talking about the scientific method. This is clearly evidence of you putting too much trust in scientific consensus, and rather than reevaluating how much trust is too much, you simply dodge the question and just jump on an entirely unrelated topic.

 

But again, I think this happens with most people. I probably do it too sometimes. It's just easier to notice this when others are doing it, than when I myself am doing it. I guess such is the human nature.

 

17. "I sometimes think the religious aspect of the creationist view means that a similar deference to an ideology that doesn;t require evidence but just faith is projected onto the atheist, and the scientist. (not sure that sentence made sense)"

 

Nope, it didn't smile.png . Take into consideration that English is not my native tongue, so if you think that you don't fully comprehend what you've written, chances are I won't at all. Just a heads up smile.png

 

18. "No it's all good. Some other people here are ... um ... quite rude and sound distinctly angry biggrin.png"

 

Yes, even though I regard Christians as my brothers and sisters, sometimes I do get upset with them for not controlling their emotions.

 

Regards

 

Lots of interesting points, I promise I will come back to comment (already tried but shaky internet and power cut today!184.gif )



#349 thistle

thistle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 20 July 2014 - 08:11 AM

 

 

Nah, not really. Doctors in Sweden are highly incompetent. This isn't paranoia, it's really common sense here, most laymen agree on this. At least general doctors and surgeons. If you want some real knowledge, you go to a specialist, which costs about 1000$ per hour, so... (No, I'm not joking, specialists doctors really do cost about one thousand dollars per hour in Sweden, so you better have some insurance, or be under age of 18.) I happened to live in a society that doesn't value education (Sweden got some terrible results in the last PISA examination). There are barely any real experts here at all,(i.e. the ones who know what they're talking about, not just those who have a paper on which it says "Philosophie Doctor") which is why we don't produce anything, except maybe video games. We just buy cheap stuff from China, Indonesia and Thailand, and then sell it here for 100x the price and call that domestic growth. Whenever there is a big scientific project going on, there are always scientists coming in from Germany, France and GB. That's because most sweds know that trusting "the experts" here in Sweden can have fatal consequences. So, I know this is besides the point, but I just don't want you to think that I'm totally paranoid, just because I happened to live in a different culture, which has taught me a different view of "scientific consensus".

 

Fair enough, I can't say anything about Sweden unfortunately, never been, somewhere I'd like to visit actually.  My only point would be that surely the scientific consensus isn't country specific, or region, or continent really. There are experts in say climate research in many countries, the fact that in a particular region or country the expertise may be poor, or even incompetent as you say, surely makes the *global* consensus of all the worlwide experts in that field more important? Isn't that how the best medical treatments are found, not by region or country? If you see what I mean.

 

 

 

Well, actually... I studied molecular biology, after this I came to realize that evolution is impossible (I didn't believe in the ToE before either, but this was the last nail in the coffin). I took a course in physics, after which I stopped believing in gravity. Then I took a course in general relativity and theory behind Leibnitz length contraction. After which I stopped believing in Einsteins theories altogether, because the evidence says against them. After all this I've drawn the conclusion that the more I learn about contemporary science, the more it seems to be stuck back in 1910's. Almost everything is just ad hoc theories to save 100 years old (incorrect) views. Thus, I now bet that it's safer to have a starting point of not trusting the contemporary scientific consensus at all, and only trust it when I have been presented the evidence that convince me, rather than the other way around.

 

Fair enough. I'm not sure that most people would or could take that approach though, society surely needs to take the practical view that the experts in a field will, by following the scientific method, be best placed to discover the facts. I'm not sure how else to do it?

 

 

 

Sure. However the argument was that you claimed there not to be evidence for the supernatural, while stating that you haven't researched the matter yourself. So, I simply appreciate that you now say that you don't know, rather than there not being evidence.

 

Granted. I don't know the evidence, what I've been shown - youtube etc - isn't at all convincing, but I admit for what it's worth I won't be spending a year investigating to convince myself one way or another. Not to disrespect this topic out of all the possible topics available, but I wouldn't have the time to do it when I have so many other topics I am interested in, and have to make that decision as we all do : how am I going to spend limited time?

 

 

I wasn't talking about science, nor the scientific method. I was talking about peer review, and how scientific consensus hinders real science and real discoveries. That was my point.

 

I think science works best when it's capitalistic, just like it was before 1950's. The ideas that gave the most innovation and were the most useful, those are the ones that lived throughout all this hundreds of years. Now, after 1950's, we get a bunch of "science" like quantum mechanics and theorital physics, which no one really cares about, and at the same time, real discoveries that have real innovation value are being hindered from exploration due to scientific consensus. Science today is not the same as it was 100 years ago. Back then it was about exploration, finding the unknown. Today it's just "agreeing with everyone so that I can get my Ph.D. as soon as possible". Such a shame.

 

Hmm. I'm Scottish, I'm about as socialist* as it's possible to be within the mainstream in this country, and I do believe that farming everything out to capitalism leads to (or CAN) concentration on profit, rather than the common good. A mixed economy using both capitalism and socialism is my preference. But we're maybe getting sidetracked wink.png   (* socialist not being an insult in UK or Scotland, unlike US for example, I believe)

 

 

I know I've already replied to your entire paragraph, but I just wanted to give a quick comment to this particular sentence. Tell me now, why were the 34 nobel prize winners rejected by peer review and the scientific consensus? Clearly, they had the testing and experimentation done on their part, had the real evidence, and were still rejected. How come?

 

You already know my answer: because peer review doesn't work. But I'd like to see your answer.

 

 

okay. But isn't it more likely that peer review - like every single process and mechanism humans create - is not infallible? And people are far from infallible? The real question is does peer review work well across the board, and is it the best option we have? If there is a better one, great, let's use that. I don't know what it would be?

 

"Might", that's a good start. I wont be pushing for more today.

 

I'm not an absolutist, on anything. Burned too many times by my own certainties in life. Doesn't mean I expect my opinion to change though.

 

 

But here's the thing, as I'm sure you have noticed: on this site, many people don't think that evolution follows the necessary scientific steps that makes it a scientific theory. To me, evolution is theology, not biology. I too think the process of science is important, but I don't think evolution follows it. I hope you understand the difference, but I haven't read of anyone on this forum attacking scientific method per se, instead we agree that scientific method is good, but that the theory of evolution doesn't follow it.

 

I understand that's peoples' view, I'm not sure I'd agree. Put it this way - we have all this evidence which scientists will say supports evolution. You might be suggesting there isn't enough there to support evolution, but does it better support a different option? I don't believe so.

 

 

Well, evolution attacked religion first, so...

 

If evolution is simply the name given to the theory which best fits the evidence, I'm not sure this can be true?

 

 

Well, no. First, evolution will never fall by mere scientific inquiry. It was designed to be the theory that wouldn't fall, and wouldn't be questioned.

 

I don;t think that's true.

 

 

But evolution is one of many theories that claims to be scientific, without evidence! I'm fine with quantum mechanics, because it falls under theoretical physics, so it acknowledges itself not to have any clear-cut evidence. But ToE says it has evidence, and then rejects the fact that evidence fall flat when under close scientific scrutiny of different branches of science. It's also interesting that you say "regardless of the evidence". It sounds as if it doesn't matter if there are any evidence for evolution, it's still an attack on science. And that's sounds funny to me laugh.png

 

Do different categories of evidence (assuming for arguments sake youre right about the categorization) affect whether something is science or not? Science is still science even if the evidence were slight, surely?

 

 

 

Yapp. The entertainment industry is controlled by a satanic elite. I didn't really wanted to go off topic, but since you asked...

 

Here's a confession by Bob Dylon that he sold his soul to the devil: https://www.youtube....h?v=IqvvOD4bdRs

 

Katy Perry admitting she sold her soul to the devil: https://www.youtube....h?v=10rx15v28yk

 

(Notice that the other girl doing the interview has the upside-down cross, which is a satanic symbol.)

 

Kenye West admitting he sold his soul to the devil (after the 2:00 mark): https://www.youtube....h?v=bbmiOBN3U7Y

 

Here's Eminem stating he hears the voice of the devil in his head (after about 1:35 man): https://www.youtube....h?v=5UnNRFt2iqw

 

(Also, notice how the entire song is about demonic possession.)

 

Here's another good compilation that should make you think twice about the entertainment industry: https://www.youtube....h?v=EIhdTY3x830

 

Here's Denzel Washington stating he invites spirits (?) to possess his body in order ot seem like a good actor (starts at about 0:55 mark): https://www.youtube....h?v=D5oOY2C9wdI

 

It's also ironic how the woman at 0:16 mark says "it was so electrifying that it came through the television". This is a known ability of demons: they can enter your home and you rlife if you watch movies of people been possessed (I don't know the physics of it all, but the fact that they can remains). Don't you think it's weird that Hollywood continues to produce these movies year after year, despite most of them having no cinematographic value at all?

 

At about 1:30 mark in the video there is a reading of a text written by Oprah Winfrey on how she explains acting in a very similar way to how Denzel Washington explained it.

 

Here's Jay Z wearing "do what thou wilt" shirt: 

 

Jay-Z-Do-What-Thou-Wilt2.jpg

 

"Do what thou wilt" was a motto of a famous self-proclaimed satanist and child molester Aleister Crowley (http://en.wikipedia....leister_Crowley), who has claimed that he communicated with Satan, wrote a bunch of books on the occult and magik (with "k"), aswell as started a whole bunch of satanic cults & organizations.

 

Crowley referred to himself as "Aeon of Horus". Horus is another name of Satan (hence "the eye of Horus" symbolism that vigilantcitizen site exposes, among other sites).

 

Now, my question is, why do all these people say that they sold their soul, or that they work with spirits? You can debunk the videos one by one, but why do they all say that? Why don't someone say "I had s@x with a producer", or something like that? Nope, they all say "I sold my soul to the devil/Satan".

 

Why do you think there is "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM" or "New order fo the ages", more accurately "new secular order" written on the 1$ bill? Why do you think there is a pyramid and same eye of horus on the 1$ bill? And why is, "coincidentally", dollar the current currency of the world (aka petrodollar)? Why do all Hollywood stars claim they sold their souls? Why does this eye of Horus appears in Derren Brown show to signify before and after the commercial break: https://www.youtube....h?v=MT3izBQfh5M, and why is the show called "Derren Brown - Messiah" as if to blaspheme/make fun of Christianity? Why do the most influential people from all over the world meet every year in something called the "Bilderberg group"? http://vigilantcitiz...cial-attendees/ . This meeting is highly guarded, and no juornalists or press is allowed. Why? What are they doing at these meetings?

 

The truth is... Satan runs this world.

 

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." - Matthew 4:8-10 (KJV)

 

 

"33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." - John 18:33-36 (KJV)

 

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." - John 16:7-11 (KJV)

 

Don't you think it's interesting that when Jesus replied to Satan in Mark 4, He didn't say "liar, this world belongs to thy God", or something like that? Instead, He simply says that one should worship God. Also, who is the "prince of this world", spoken of in John 16:11?

See, this, among other things, is what makes Christianity different from all other religions. Many religions have "good guys & bad guys". But the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only religious scripture in the entire world that says it sraight into your face: evil runs this world, not good. Why? Because power over the world was given over to mankind. And corrupted people gave this power away to Satan. And there it has been, preserved, ever since. Every major event in history is not just some random revolution or economical restructuring. Everything is carefully planned several hundred years in advence.

Since I'm already in the full conspiracy theory assertion mode, I might aswell touch on the issue of the theory of evolution.

Evolution was tutored to Charles Darwin by Satan himself. Just like Jesus taught His disciples, so did Satan follow (in spiritual presence, not physical) Darwin for years and taught the basic principles of the theory of evolution. Theory of evolution was actually proponed already by Goethe, 70-80 years before Darwin: http://en.wikipedia....Scientific_work. Strangely, when Goethe got old he also wrote a book about a man who sold his soul to the devil to gain knowledge about the world. Coincidence? No, Goethe simply wanted to write an autobiography, but knew that no one would believe him, so he called it "fiction", but those who understand, know that it was his attempt at telling his life story.

Satan understood that theory of evolution would be help for both atheism and satanism to gain its foot, aswell as destroy the words of Genesis in anyone who comes to believe in this theory. Also, don't you think it's a major historical coincidence that every western country installed public schools between 1830-1870? And that in the period between 1870 and 1920 almost all countries had public schools made compulsory? Coincidence? Off course not, it's all planned for the indoctrination of the masses. Think also of the club X and the fact that most institutions were established around the fact that theory of evolution was true, period. There was no questioning this. And the thing is, there never will be...

I don't write on this site because I think some scientist might read this and start to fight the theory of evolution. There has already been a lot of scientists who've done this, but none has come out victorious. Theory of evolution will be taught in school no matter evidence for or against it, till some major events on historical scale (like antichrist coming to Earth or the Judgement day) will happen. And so, my only hope is to tell the truth to the individuals who trapped themselves in Satan's delusion. I can't force you to come out of it, only you can free yourself from the lies all around you and start seeing the truth. But what I can do, is try and plant a seed, a seed of doubt in your mind, that you will hopefully let grow, and over the time come to be saved by the glory and grace of Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

Hmm. You're in an area there that I don't have any experience or knowledge to argue against, but the only thing I'd say is (for example) Katy Perry made a joke about selling her soul to the devil, it was surely a dramatic flourish meaning she had been a wholesome Christian performer and was now much more adult etc. I just dont buy the conspiracy, but I can certainly accept there are some horrible people in entertainment. There are some horrible people in  every industry and within churches.

 

 

 

Okay then. This is a quite different tone from the "there is no evidence for the supernatural". So I will not push you for more. I simply hope that the seed is planted, now we just wait biggrin.png

 

We will see!

 

 

 

Everyone has a worldview they rely upon. This worldview is very hard to challenge. And I'm not just talking about atheists, I'm talking about everyone. I may also be close-minded at times, and I can admit that there are certain core "beliefs" that I would have a very hard time changing (for example if you would say that the next time I drop a pen, it will "fall" upwards.) But I try and control this and answer any questions as honestly as possible, regardless of my worldview. However, I found that in other people, both atheists and theists, such is not the case. A lot of people start, whether consciously or unconsciously, missinterpreting the questions that, if given an honest answer, will force them ro reevaluate their worldview. An example of this is the fact that everytime I mention flaws in peer review, you seem to "missinterpret" it as if I was talking about the scientific method. This is clearly evidence of you putting too much trust in scientific consensus, and rather than reevaluating how much trust is too much, you simply dodge the question and just jump on an entirely unrelated topic.

 

I;m not dodging questions as much as not knowing what I'm talking about laugh.png


 

Nope, it didn't smile.png . Take into consideration that English is not my native tongue, so if you think that you don't fully comprehend what you've written, chances are I won't at all. Just a heads up smile.png

 

Hey, I'm incredibly impressed with those with multiple language skills, and more than slightly ashamed at my own - and our lack of focus on it in our education system. And being Scottish wouldn't help understand me sometimes.

 

 

 



#350 bov930527

bov930527

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Computer science, software engineering. Trying to write and publish a sci-fi novel.
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Skane, Sweden

Posted 21 July 2014 - 04:03 AM

 

 

1. "Fair enough, I can't say anything about Sweden unfortunately, never been, somewhere I'd like to visit actually.  My only point would be that surely the scientific consensus isn't country specific, or region, or continent really. There are experts in say climate research in many countries, the fact that in a particular region or country the expertise may be poor, or even incompetent as you say, surely makes the *global* consensus of all the worlwide experts in that field more important? Isn't that how the best medical treatments are found, not by region or country? If you see what I mean."

 

Not really... There are a lot of people who go to China and discover orbs and healing . But since these things would put local doctors and global pharmaceutical companies out of buisiness, these are rarely acknowledged to be "real" and "functional" methods. This is just an example. Nonetheless... I will bring my point after the next quote.

 

2. "Fair enough. I'm not sure that most people would or could take that approach though, society surely needs to take the practical view that the experts in a field will, by following the scientific method, be best placed to discover the facts. I'm not sure how else to do it?"

 

 Okay, but my point is, how much trust is too much trust? My view towards science may not be paranoia, but I admit it's waaaay more skeptical than most laymen. However, since we agree that science has some blunders, and is wrong in its assumptions time to time, where do you draw the limit? Or do you simply believe in everything that a certain scientific consensus says? Why can't some of the current consensus be challenged, without it been equal to "attack on science"? If scientific theories may be wrong, why can't evolution be one of these? If it can, then why do you plead to scientific consensus rather than discussing evidence for it?

 

3. "Granted. I don't know the evidence, what I've been shown - youtube etc - isn't at all convincing, but I admit for what it's worth I won't be spending a year investigating to convince myself one way or another. Not to disrespect this topic out of all the possible topics available, but I wouldn't have the time to do it when I have so many other topics I am interested in, and have to make that decision as we all do : how am I going to spend limited time?"

 

Indeed, it is a good question. Well then, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the paranormal stuff and move on.

 

4. "Hmm. I'm Scottish, I'm about as socialist* as it's possible to be within the mainstream in this country, and I do believe that farming everything out to capitalism leads to (or CAN) concentration on profit, rather than the common good. A mixed economy using both capitalism and socialism is my preference. But we're maybe getting sidetracked wink.png   (* socialist not being an insult in UK or Scotland, unlike US for example, I believe)"

 

(Don't know why part of the quote is red, and another part is black.) I think you missunderstood. I'm not talking about economics of the issue, I'm talking about scientific ideas as a whole. I think science works best under capitalism: good ideas survive and bring innovation, bed ideas are forgotten and dissappear.

 

5. "okay. But isn't it more likely that peer review - like every single process and mechanism humans create - is not infallible? And people are far from infallible? The real question is does peer review work well across the board, and is it the best option we have? If there is a better one, great, let's use that. I don't know what it would be?"

 

How about... not having peer review at all? Was Alessandro Volta peer reviewed when he invented the battery? Was Nikolaus Otto peer reviewed when he invented the four stroke combustion engine? Was Henry Cavendish peer reviewed when he measured the gravitational "constant"? There will always be people like Andrew Wakefield, regardless of peer review or scientific consensus. In fact, people like him can teach a great deal about trusting "authorities". People should be more skeptical when it comes to accepting "expertise".

 

But what peer review does, is it encloses science into an endless self-confirmation spiral. There is a reason why old theories stay the same. New theories are made, as we discover new things, but when these things contradict old theories, rather than going back to look at their validity, scientists invent a bunch of ad hoc hypothesis to fit in the new data. General relativity is a good example. We've had a ton of experiments done since 1950's that do not fit in with the general relativity. Black holes, acceleration of the expansion of the universe, even the field of quantum mechanics was invented just because general relativity didn't make sense in certain areas already when Einstein was still alive. Yet, instead of going back to look if we can change general relativity, or perhaps create a new theory, that would account for both new and old data, scientists instead invent "invisible", "untouchable", "unvarifiable" dark matter, that somehow magically saves Einsteins assumptions about the universe. Why does this happen? Because peer review does not allow change. It is a process that almost entirely secures that no new theories can challenge the old ones regarding our view of reality. My proof of this? The 34 nobel prize winners, who had evidence and facts on their side, and were still rejected.

 

6. "I understand that's peoples' view, I'm not sure I'd agree. Put it this way - we have all this evidence which scientists will say supports evolution. You might be suggesting there isn't enough there to support evolution, but does it better support a different option? I don't believe so."

 

Well, I do. Again, if you admit that it's possible that current scientific consensus got a couple of things wrong, why can't we discuss evolution outside of reference towards the scientific consensus. If all people believed in what scientists say, there would be no debate. However, scientific views and methods are often found incorrect, and later on are changed by better models/views. This gives a good reason to not trust scientific consensus all the time, 24/7, 100%, all year round. So, if I assume that ToE is wrong, is there anything else but "scientific consensus says it's true" that you have to offer in order for me to change my view?

 

Also, in one of your previous posts, you asked me how I would differentiate if a doctor lied to me or not, if I was presented several different options etc, if the doctor wasn't a madman. Well... The way I see it, the doctor in this case is a madman. It is so painfully obvious that evolution is impossible, and it's such a far stretched magic. And when I tell you this, you just say "well, the scientific consensus says...". To me, you are the man to whom I say "Is the doctor crazy? did he also told you to drink arsenic?", to which you reply "well, he's the doctor, he knows better than you. Better go to the chemical store, and get my daily dosage of arsenic.".

 

7. "If evolution is simply the name given to the theory which best fits the evidence, I'm not sure this can be true?"

 

It's not a theory that best fits evidence. The entire point of evolution was to discredit Creationism.

 

8. "I don;t think that's true."

 

It doesn't matter what you, or I, or anybody else things. Do your research, it is true.

 

9. "Do different categories of evidence (assuming for arguments sake youre right about the categorization) affect whether something is science or not? Science is still science even if the evidence were slight, surely?"

 

Well then, why do you have such a hard time accepting youtube videos as "evidence", hmm? It's also funny how this sentence "Science is still science even if the evidence were slight, surely?" actually defends my view of magic as "science" laugh.png

 

10. "Hmm. You're in an area there that I don't have any experience or knowledge to argue against, but the only thing I'd say is (for example) Katy Perry made a joke about selling her soul to the devil, it was surely a dramatic flourish meaning she had been a wholesome Christian performer and was now much more adult etc. I just dont buy the conspiracy, but I can certainly accept there are some horrible people in entertainment. There are some horrible people in  every industry and within churches."

 

You don't... buy the conspiracy? Even though I can find a video of every major pop-star/actor confessing that they either sold their soul to the devil, or are involved with "spirits"? Katy Perry didn't joke. Nor did Bob Dylon... Nor Denzel Washington... Nor Oprah... Nor Beyonce (she even has a name for her spirit)... Nor Rihanna... I didn't put up their confessions, because I simply didn't thought of them at the time, but I can if you'd like me to. I can also put in Madonnas confession about her involvement with the Kabbalah. (But I don't think you'll be that interested to see al these videos, and I don't really wanna waste my time digging it all up. However, if you are interested, I will find those. Besides, VC has all of these things put up for public view anyway.)

 

If this is not the definition of "dismissing evidence", then I don't know what is.

 

11. "I;m not dodging questions as much as not knowing what I'm talking about laugh.png"

 

Ohh... Okay, I guess... rolleyes.gif

 

12. "Hey, I'm incredibly impressed with those with multiple language skills, and more than slightly ashamed at my own - and our lack of focus on it in our education system. And being Scottish wouldn't help understand me sometimes."

 

Thanks smile.png

 

 

Regards



#351 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 21 July 2014 - 06:20 AM

Bov93:

 

Well then, why do you have such a hard time accepting youtube videos as "evidence", hmm? It's also funny how this sentence "Science is still science even if the evidence were slight, surely?" actually defends my view of magic as "science".

 

A very excellent point. But the person you are dealing with has a very serious case of tunnel vision and probably has the deepest problem of denial of any skeptic on our board. Ex. He arbitrarily declared that Dr. Romunds examination of David Blaine's 'trick' with an ice pick through his hand 'not science' even though he was a professional medical doctor and x-rays were done to prove Blaine had truly pierced his hand...without blood and without pain.



#352 thistle

thistle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 21 July 2014 - 07:15 AM

Bov93:

 

Well then, why do you have such a hard time accepting youtube videos as "evidence", hmm? It's also funny how this sentence "Science is still science even if the evidence were slight, surely?" actually defends my view of magic as "science".

 

A very excellent point. But the person you are dealing with has a very serious case of tunnel vision and probably has the deepest problem of denial of any skeptic on our board. Ex. He arbitrarily declared that Dr. Romunds examination of David Blaine's 'trick' with an ice pick through his hand 'not science' even though he was a professional medical doctor and x-rays were done to prove Blaine had truly pierced his hand...without blood and without pain.

Hellooooo ... can anybody hear me .... I am here you know think.gif



#353 bov930527

bov930527

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Computer science, software engineering. Trying to write and publish a sci-fi novel.
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Skane, Sweden

Posted 21 July 2014 - 07:20 AM

(Don't know why part of the quote is red, and another part is black.) I think you missunderstood. I'm not talking about economics of the issue, I'm talking about scientific ideas as a whole. I think science works best under capitalism: good ideas survive and bring innovation, bed ideas are forgotten and dissappear.

 

 

 

...good ideas survive and bring innovation, bed ideas are forgotten and dissappear.

 

 

 

...bring innovation, bed ideas are forgotten...

 

 

 

bed ideas

 

 

triple_facepalm_by_spottedheart98464-d3k



#354 thistle

thistle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 21 July 2014 - 08:31 AM

laugh.png



#355 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 July 2014 - 09:34 AM

Well then, why do you have such a hard time accepting youtube videos as "evidence", hmm? It's also funny how this sentence "Science is still science even if the evidence were slight, surely?" actually defends my view of magic as "science" laugh.png

 

A very excellent point. But the person you are dealing with has a very serious case of tunnel vision and probably has the deepest problem of denial of any skeptic on our board. Ex. He arbitrarily declared that Dr. Romunds examination of David Blaine's 'trick' with an ice pick through his hand 'not science' even though he was a professional medical doctor and x-rays were done to prove Blaine had truly pierced his hand...without blood and without pain.

 

 
 

This is funny.

 

Not that long ago, I presented a video of Kent H*vind saying that if the Earth were millions of years old, Niagara Falls should have eroded all the way to Lake Erie.  The response I got from creationists was that they wanted a H*vind video that hadn't been "hacked up" by an evolutionist.  I provided an example of Eric saying the exact same thing IN WRITING on HIS "Creation Today" website.  Yet the skepticism persisted.

 

Now, you guys expect us to bow down and accept that these videos are "proof" beyond question of supernatural involvement..... even when the source of the video openly declares they are an illusion.

 

BTW, acupuncture has been doing needle insertions "without blood and without pain" for centuries.  No occult involved.



#356 bov930527

bov930527

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Computer science, software engineering. Trying to write and publish a sci-fi novel.
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Skane, Sweden

Posted 21 July 2014 - 10:31 AM

1.

This is funny.

 

Not that long ago, I presented a video of Kent H*vind saying that if the Earth were millions of years old, Niagara Falls should have eroded all the way to Lake Erie.  The response I got from creationists was that they wanted a H*vind video that hadn't been "hacked up" by an evolutionist.  I provided an example of Eric saying the exact same thing IN WRITING on HIS "Creation Today" website.  Yet the skepticism persisted.

 

This is irrelevant. Just because one YEC may have flaws in his reasoning doesn't make the entire "belief" erroneous. Hence, this is irrelevant.

 

2. "Now, you guys expect us to bow down and accept that these videos are "proof" beyond question of supernatural involvement..... even when the source of the video openly declares they are an illusion."

 

There is a difference between one man having incorrect views and an unstoppable stream of hundred thousands of videos and testimonies every year from all over the world. C'mon man, this is common sense. Plus, all the explanation I've done as to why these "magicians" even exist in the first place and how it's all a deception to make everyone doubt existence of the supernatural.

 

3. "BTW, acupuncture has been doing needle insertions "without blood and without pain" for centuries.  No occult involved."

 

Irrelevant. I can walk down the street. Don't need no cars to drive me. <-- This is how irrelevant your comment is. No offense, just been honest here.

 

Regards



#357 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 July 2014 - 12:42 PM

Not that long ago, I presented a video of Kent H*vind saying that if the Earth were millions of years old, Niagara Falls should have eroded all the way to Lake Erie.  The response I got from creationists was that they wanted a H*vind video that hadn't been "hacked up" by an evolutionist.  I provided an example of Eric saying the exact same thing IN WRITING on HIS "Creation Today" website.  Yet the skepticism persisted.

This is irrelevant. Just because one YEC may have flaws in his reasoning doesn't make the entire "belief" erroneous. Hence, this is irrelevant.

No sir, it is entirely relevant.  The issue isn't whether or not H*vind is right.  The point is that YEC refused to accept a youtube video of H*vind on the basis that it may have been "hacked up" by an evolutionist.  It's a simple matter for anyone to "doctor" a youtube video.  In other words, there is no more reason for me to accept youtube videos than there is for you to accept them.  All I'm doing is using the exact same standard you guys used when I posted a video of H*vind's comment..... and the written confirmation of it from Eric's website.

 

BTW, acupuncture has been doing needle insertions "without blood and without pain" for centuries.  No occult involved.

 

Irrelevant. I can walk down the street. Don't need no cars to drive me. <-- This is how irrelevant your comment is. No offense, just been honest here.

 

The comment was in response to Calypsis' claim that an ice pick thru the hand without pain or blood is evidence of the supernatural.  I can produce tens of thousands of examples of the exact same thing with no hint of the occult.  For that reason, it is completely relevant to Calypsis' claim that this is the result of magic.

 

No offense ..... just being honest here.



#358 bov930527

bov930527

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Computer science, software engineering. Trying to write and publish a sci-fi novel.
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Skane, Sweden

Posted 21 July 2014 - 01:09 PM

No sir, it is entirely relevant.  The issue isn't whether or not H*vind is right.  The point is that YEC refused to accept a youtube video of H*vind on the basis that it may have been "hacked up" by an evolutionist.  It's a simple matter for anyone to "doctor" a youtube video.  In other words, there is no more reason for me to accept youtube videos than there is for you to accept them.  All I'm doing is using the exact same standard you guys used when I posted a video of H*vind's comment..... and the written confirmation of it from Eric's website.

 

 

The comment was in response to Calypsis' claim that an ice pick thru the hand without pain or blood is evidence of the supernatural.  I can produce tens of thousands of examples of the exact same thing with no hint of the occult.  For that reason, it is completely relevant to Calypsis' claim that this is the result of magic.

 

No offense ..... just being honest here.

 

1. "No sir, it is entirely relevant.  The issue isn't whether or not H*vind is right.  The point is that YEC refused to accept a youtube video of H*vind on the basis that it may have been "hacked up" by an evolutionist.  It's a simple matter for anyone to "doctor" a youtube video.  In other words, there is no more reason for me to accept youtube videos than there is for you to accept them.  All I'm doing is using the exact same standard you guys used when I posted a video of H*vind's comment..... and the written confirmation of it from Eric's website."

 

Well, to be honest I haven't really been around on this site that long and therefore have no knowledge of this specific incident. Maybe I would've accepted your video as "proof" of something, I don't know. But I see now that this is more likely something between you and Cal (and/or others), and my intervention may have been redundant, as you've probably already debated the issue to death.

 

2. "The comment was in response to Calypsis' claim that an ice pick thru the hand without pain or blood is evidence of the supernatural.  I can produce tens of thousands of examples of the exact same thing with no hint of the occult.  For that reason, it is completely relevant to Calypsis' claim that this is the result of magic.

 

No offense ..... just being honest here."

 

Fair enough, I guess I will back off from this then. However, be careful as to how you use the phrase "you guys". The reason why I objected was because I expect people to take my arguments with at least some grain of seriosity based on all the youtube videos and links I dig up, and so, following the teachings of Christ, I am not the one to back down by saying "your video is flawed". Rather, I take a fair approach to every piece of evidence I am presented and dissect it individually. I, for instance, wouldn't have claimed that your video is "hacked up" unless I could find another video which had the parts that your video maybe didn't have, and that clearly showed that your video was in fact "hacked up". If there was no evidence of it been "hacked up" then I would've either concurred regarding false (or true) views of H*vind, or simply put myself on "neutral till more evidence is found", on the basis of the video. But I'm not the kind of person who disregards any possible evidence presented to me easily. So, yeah. Be careful with the "you guys", else you may have to debate someone not familiar with specific situations, and where most of the debate won't really be a debate, but just you explaining the specifics of those situations, just so that in the end we find out it was all a missunderstanding, etc, etc. And I don't want to waste your time like that. Just a heads up smile.png

 

Regards



#359 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,738 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 July 2014 - 09:18 PM

This is funny.

 

Not that long ago, I presented a video of Kent H*vind saying that if the Earth were millions of years old, Niagara Falls should have eroded all the way to Lake Erie.  The response I got from creationists was that they wanted a H*vind video that hadn't been "hacked up" by an evolutionist.  I provided an example of Eric saying the exact same thing IN WRITING on HIS "Creation Today" website.  Yet the skepticism persisted.

 

Now, you guys expect us to bow down and accept that these videos are "proof" beyond question of supernatural involvement..... even when the source of the video openly declares they are an illusion.

 

BTW, acupuncture has been doing needle insertions "without blood and without pain" for centuries.  No occult involved.

 

The comment was in response to Calypsis' claim that an ice pick thru the hand without pain or blood is evidence of the supernatural.  I can produce tens of thousands of examples of the exact same thing with no hint of the occult.  For that reason, it is completely relevant to Calypsis' claim that this is the result of magic.

Calypsis response to this comment .... after his accusation I'm lying ..... was that he wanted one example.

 

Notice, I mentioned "acupuncture" as an example in which an object is inserted without either pain or blood.  There are millions of acupuncture patients.  Body piercings are often done without blood being spilled either.  Since Calypsis likes youtube so much, here's a "Sun Dance" ceremony which involves such piercings... though they are obviously painful:

https://www.youtube....h?v=Vioh7ML75Cg the piercing takes place at about 1:30.

 

If you want more extreme examples, I suggest you research "Vlad the Impaler" and what he could do with a stake or some New York subway accidents in which someone gets trapped between the platform and the train.

 

It is not unusual for an object to penetrate the skin without significant bleeding.  Most of the bleeding happens after the object is removed.  As for pain... endorphins and adrenaline do marvelous things for us.

 

For the record, for over a decade, I've been a list member with a Catholic priest who is an exorcist on various groups.   I do not doubt that demons and the supernatural exist.  My comment about youtube videos stands.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: creationism, young earth

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users