What Creationists Should Learn Here

[dduckwessel]

 

Only supernaturalists class any kind of “things that occur” as supernatural. Naturalists class all occurrences as natural – they reject the dualistic dichotomy of two classes of occurrences, natural and supernatural.

 

Here again, my thinking of natural is 'mortal', and supernatural 'immortal'. However, I agree that as far as this space-time is concerned, natural rules govern here.

 

I do believe, however (and the only proof I can offer, which is presently not considered real evidence) is Bible and Apocrypha writings that speak of an immortal element to our existence. The immortal element does not rule in this space-time but according to those writings human beings are apparently very connected to it.

 

Many naturalists, maintain that they arrived at their worldview via the rational arguments, primarily the one that notes that knowing is a form of detection, so if the supernatural is by definition undetectable, is tautologically unknowable, AKA nonsensical.

 

That's the thing, it's undetectable as no evidence seems to exist for it. On the other-hand the lack of physical proof for the supernatural (while so many people experience it) suggests to me that something else is going on. Maybe it's not perceivable (as we currently understand perception) but could it be we are just unfamiliar with it?

 

A few important technical criticisms:

[*]You’re using “theory” in a non-scientific sense, meaning more-or-less a speculation, tentative claim, or guess.

 

I thought I clarified that my definition of theory (as I understand the scientific definition) is 'not' a guess but a 'verifiable hypothesis' but perhaps I phrased it wrong!

 

Can you rephrase it simply for me CraigD so that I understand it better and can say it right so that I don't confuse anyone. :)

 

 

While the physical vs. non-physical dichotomy, is IMHO false, it’s semantically well-defined – that is, it makes sense. Equating it to the mortal vs. immortal doesn’t make sense to me.

 

When I think supernatural, I think immortal but I think that you and others have a different sense of the word?

 

Think of immortal as the opposite of mortal.

 

There's just too much in ancient writings (and personal experience) that points to an immortal aspect to our existence. If I'm correct, immortality is our natural state and mortality, unnatural.

 

Science has given all of its attention to the mortal (which is fine and fascinating but temporal).

 

Have you ever watched Stargate SG 1 and Stargate Atlantis? To me these T.V. shows represent the epitome of what science should be; a balanced mix of (mortal) natural and supernatural (immortal).

[dduckwessel]

 

Thanks for this video. Certainly worth watching. People need distractions as this video conveys. A good marketing company understands that when money is plentiful and people are bored, business is good.

 

I think it's wrong to assume that the people themselves don't understand they're mere pawns in the marketing game.

[Turtle]

...

There's just too much in ancient writings (and personal experience) that points to an immortal aspect to our existence. If I'm correct, immortality is our natural state and mortality, unnatural.

 

Science has given all of its attention to the mortal (which is fine and fascinating but temporal).

 

Have you ever watched Stargate SG 1 and Stargate Atlantis? To me these T.V. shows represent the epitome of what science should be; a balanced mix of (mortal) natural and supernatural (immortal).

 

good grief! :doh: stop already. let me rephrase craig's more delicate expansive admonitions: your call is based on rotted books, dreamy impressions, & tv shows. we get it. it's worthless, it's not science, but we get it.

 

good grief.

[Essay]

I think you're confusing the properties of something with the fundamental nature of that thing. There are agreed upon properties or attributes that describe God, but the fundamental nature or even existence of God is much less agreed upon.

 

Here again, my thinking of natural is 'mortal', and supernatural 'immortal'.

 

I do believe, however (and the only proof I can offer, which is presently not considered real evidence) is Bible and Apocrypha writings that speak of an immortal element to our existence.

 

So you seem to "translate" or interpret those words based on your understanding of what you think reality might/must be. "Supernatural" seems to makes sense to you (in a certain way), but throughout this discussion others have been reading that word with their own subjective interpretation and historically-personal spin.

 

But how do you define immortal? When I hear talk of (spiritual) immortality, I assume they must mean the genetic lineage that we owe to our ancestors and to our posterity (however others might be envisioning that fact of reality in their own minds, or regardless of whatever details they might subjectively ascribe to the concept of "immortality"). Personally I like the idea that our ancestors actually see the world through our eyes, and that we will see the world through the eyes of our descendants [or can see the future world hazily through the eyes of our descendants?]. It's a neat way to meditate on.... But that is my own subjective, irrational, supernatural interpretation for that non-material concept of immortality.

 

Do you think the phrase "life-everlasting" refers to an individual's life, or to the phenomenon of life itself?

~ :o

[Moontanman]

I think you know what I was getting at!! <_<

 

I most certainly did watch the video and it points out the fallacies of creationism very nicely. However, Creationists have videos that point out the fallacies of science (it's a game: science makes a video and Creationists make another video to counteract the video that science made). I think the whole thing is really ineffective and does not bring the desired end as Creationists and I.D.er's actually end up more indoctrinated! There's got to be a better solution!

 

 

No Duck, creationists lie, they have to lie to support their position, science does not have to lie to support it's position, if your version of the truth requires lies to support it it's not really the truth now is it? How can you equate the lies, misrepresentations and outright fabrications of the creationists with the observable supported evidence of science? I've watched the creationist videos, the banana man is hilarious until you realize his lies are actually believed by the sheep he is indoctrinating. If you cannot see the difference then you are no better then the sheep the creationists are indoctrinating with their lies. Lies vs supportable evidence, i know where my money is....

 

 

Ahh humor, it often cuts to the chase when serious debates does not....

 

 

[dduckwessel]

No Duck, creationists lie, they have to lie to support their position, science does not have to lie to support it's position,

 

 

You're right, I've caught them misquoting scientific articles and even when I pointed it out, they couldn't seem to see it. It's not intentional though. I don't know how to describe religious indoctrination except to say it's an emotional sickness.

 

Great videos (croco'duck' - funny) but creationists believe what they're told without question if someone is considered an authority on a subject.

 

One of the comments in the second video was 'your mind just shuts down' - that is truer than science realizes. Something happens to the brain of a religiously indoctrinated person. It's as if critical thinking has literally been shut off and the same neuro-pathways are used over and over. Science should look into this more instead of just putting it down to irrationality or stubbornness.

[dduckwessel]

 

So you seem to "translate" or interpret those words based on your understanding of what you think reality might/must be. "Supernatural" seems to makes sense to you (in a certain way), but throughout this discussion others have been reading that word with their own subjective interpretation and historically-personal spin.

 

The Biblical interpretation of supernatural most definitely means immortal.

 

But how do you define immortal?

 

Immortal = eternal/supernatural/forever/indestructible/ etc. According to Bible and some Apocryphal writings, human beings are both mortal and immortal.

 

 

When I hear talk of (spiritual) immortality, I assume they must mean the genetic lineage that we owe to our ancestors

 

It's not genetic in a physical sense, but genetic in an immortal way. The immortal part of us is passed on through mother to child. In that sense it can almost be considered physical, except that this part of us is ethereal and eternal.

 

The phantom limb effect is the result of the physical part being gone while the immortal part remains.

 

Personally I like the idea that our ancestors actually see the world through our eyes, and that we will see the world through the eyes of our descendants [or can see the future world hazily through the eyes of our descendants?]. It's a neat way to meditate on.... But that is my own subjective, irrational, supernatural interpretation for that non-material concept of immortality.

 

Interesting! Tell me more.

 

Do you think the phrase "life-everlasting" refers to an individual's life, or to the phenomenon of life itself?

 

It means 'without end'. The idea behind the Bible, which has been lost in creationist/I.D. circles, is that the soul (body) can gain an immortal existence with the gaining of certain knowledge.

[dduckwessel]

good grief! :doh: stop already. let me rephrase craig's more delicate expansive admonitions: your call is based on rotted books, dreamy impressions, & tv shows. we get it. it's worthless, it's not science, but we get it. good grief.

 

That's what I like about you Turtle - straight and to the point. <_<

 

And your absolutely right, it's not physical science and I'm not questioning science.

 

It's the lack of God in this reality, while there are so many writings that point to a God, that I'm questioning. I wouldn't bring these things up were it not for the puzzle paradigm I've discovered in ancient writings.

 

About ten or more years ago, I was watching a Canadian T.V. show called Midday and the host said that it had just been discovered that the universe is flat and comprised of sound waves (I have tried to find it in the CBC archives without success but I know I watched it, if you would like to try I think it was 1999: http://archives.cbc.ca/emissions/emission.asp?page=1&IDLan=1&IDEmission=497&s=emission). Recently it was discovered the body operates on sound impulses, not electric ones, which would make sense if the universe itself was based on sound, it would just naturally filter down.

 

Notice the mention of 'sound waves' in the 4th para:

http://www.universetoday.com/12436/finding-dark-energy-in-a-supercomputer/

 

Infrared pictures were taken of people that showed a halo effect around the body, which was passed off at carnivals as the person's 'supernatural aura'. I read in one of Vic Stengers papers that scientific studies revealed that the supposed aura was merely the magnetic field that is around every living thing, even plants. However, if the Bible is right, there is another, presently undetectable, halo (comprised of pulsating sound frequencies) that causes the phantom limb effect.

 

Apparently the immortal self emits some form of energy (but not magnetic), I think it might be sound impulses. Is there presently any way to measure the (possible) existence of sound fluctuations that may be present around the human body?

 

I believe the reason why we enjoy music so much is because the immortal persona is comprised of sound.

[Moontanman]

You're right, I've caught them misquoting scientific articles and even when I pointed it out, they couldn't seem to see it. It's not intentional though. I don't know how to describe religious indoctrination except to say it's an emotional sickness.

 

Great videos (croco'duck' - funny) but creationists believe what they're told without question if someone is considered an authority on a subject.

 

One of the comments in the second video was 'your mind just shuts down' - that is truer than science realizes. Something happens to the brain of a religiously indoctrinated person. It's as if critical thinking has literally been shut off and the same neuro-pathways are used over and over. Science should look into this more instead of just putting it down to irrationality or stubbornness.

 

 

Duck, it goes far beyond simple misquoting and you know it and to suggest other wise is indeed a lie as well. It's not the sheep that lie Duck, it's the people who are doing the indoctrinating, "the shepards" as they style themselves, they lie intentionally, maliciously, and repeatedly no matter how often the lie is pointed out as a lie. There is no defense of people who intentionally lie to indoctrinate others into their system of belief no matter what it is. The creationist claim degrees they do not have, fabricate knowledge that does not exist, misinterpret any facts that they disagree with, and do this to people who are not educated enough to even ask the correct questions. There is no defense of creationism, no matter if it is Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu or any other other belief system that must lie to defend it's beliefs.

[Turtle]

good grief!:doh: stop already. let me rephrase craig's more delicate expansive admonitions: your call is based on rotted books, dreamy impressions, & tv shows. we get it. it's worthless, it's not science, but we get it.

 

good grief.

 

That's what I like about you Turtle - straight and to the point. <_<

 

And your absolutely right, it's not physical science and I'm not questioning science.

 

It's the lack of God in this reality, while there are so many writings that point to a God, that I'm questioning. I wouldn't bring these things up were it not for the puzzle paradigm I've discovered in ancient writings.

...

 

i'm also right that you should STOP! are you really so dense that you don't understand that your incessant postings in the face of our admonitions to stop is not only irritating, but against our rules? either you are grossly ignorant or grossly ill-mannered, but whatever the case, we are telling you to STOP. so plain & simple that a 5 year old child would understand. if you don't stop, i urge the staff to consider suspending your posting priveleges. capiche!?

 

Science Forum Rules

...

■Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned.

 

...

[dduckwessel]

i'm also right that you should STOP! are you really so dense that you don't understand that your incessant postings in the face of our admonitions to stop is not only irritating, but against our rules? either you are grossly ignorant or grossly ill-mannered, but whatever the case, we are telling you to STOP. so plain & simple that a 5 year old child would understand. if you don't stop, i urge the staff to consider suspending your posting priveleges. capiche!?

 

Science Forum Rules

 

You're calling me ignorant!! This is the 'theology' forum. I simply corrected some long-held erroneous thinking about the Bible but I think you just want to bash creationists instead of trying to find out what's motivating their behavior. Your narrow-mindedness and intolerance is exactly like the creationists I've encountered.

 

Yes, you can urge staff to consider suspending me but I did not do anything wrong, except the unpardonable sin of proving just how much you don't know about the Bible.

 

You have a personal vendetta with Moontanman as your lapdog. Nothing I would say here would please you unless it fell in line with your ideas, which makes critical thinking impossible.

[coldcreation]

[...] you just want to bash creationists instead of trying to find out what's motivating their behavior. [...]

 

This thread isn't about trying to find out what motivates creationists behavior.

 

It's about what creationists should learn here at Scienceforums.com.

 

 

Modest summed up the problem at the outset of the thread (post #4):

 

I think applying the scientific method to whatever religious topic is at hand would have the best results.[...]

1. The fables in the bible are testable because they make testable predictions. The book of Luke lists a few dozen generations between Adam and Jesus. This leads to a testable prediction: all human ancestors lived less than 200 generations ago. This kind of prediction fails confirmation when (for example) the most recent matrilineal common ancestor lived approximately 10,000 generations ago. If DNA studies had found all humans were related by less than 200 generations then the bible's prediction would have been confirmed. But, the prediction failed showing the bible is unmistakably wrong.
    
   
2. Believing God made people out of dirt 6 thousand years ago is no different from believing the flying spaghetti monster raped an invisible monkey and had the first human baby. They're both made up stories with no evidence so you'd have to be just as stupid to believe either.

[...]

 

Incidentally dduck, all you proved in your Adam Was A Primate thread, and your Interpreting Method For The Bible And Some Apocrypha thread, is that practically anything you wish can be interpreted or extrapolated from the bible, i.e., you proved nothing.

 

 

And Turtle set the stage, with post #7:

 

[...]

What creationists ought learn here is to expect a Turtle lambast for their trouble. :D

 

Lambast complete. :)

 

 

CC

[CraigD]

i'm also right that you should STOP! are you really so dense that you don't understand that your incessant postings in the face of our admonitions to stop is not only irritating, but against our rules? either you are grossly ignorant or grossly ill-mannered, but whatever the case, we are telling you to STOP. so plain & simple that a 5 year old child would understand. if you don't stop, i urge the staff to consider suspending your posting priveleges. capiche!?

 

Science Forum Rules

You're calling me ignorant!! This is the 'theology' forum. I simply corrected some long-held erroneous thinking about the Bible …

Turtle could be more tactful, but he’s right both on the forum rules and the more specific Rules for the theology forum. “Correcting erroneous thinking about the bible” by discussing Bible verses is, verbatim, what these rules prohibit.

 

The common religious idea that a given holy document contains secret knowledge from non-human authors which can be deciphered via esoteric techniques is what we define here as an extraordinary (and strange) claim, requiring extraordinary scientific evidence – not support by more interpretation of holy documents, but objectively observable data. For example, the claim “God parted the Red Sea” requires not quoting Exodus 14:21, but an actual demonstration of what that verse claims happened. An unsupported claim cannot be used to support the same or another unsupported claim, even if that claim is written in a sacred text.

 

... but I think you just want to bash creationists instead of trying to find out what's motivating their behavior. Your narrow-mindedness and intolerance is exactly like the creationists I've encountered.

Understanding what motivates creationists is a legitimate psychological subject. However, like any hypography discussion, this subject requires that claimants back up their claims with acceptable evidence, which does not include supernatural explanations.

 

Personally, I think the subject is important, because the rejection of science by religionists, or insistence on rewriting it to support religious claims, is detrimental to the teaching of science. Not all scientifically-minded people agree with me. There’s a strong school of thought that people predisposed to a scientific world view will have one, while people predisposed to a supernatural one will have that, and that little to nothing can be done to change that. Even if this is so, I think understanding how supernaturalists think is a worthwhile psychological pursuit, because it illuminates how psyches work in general, which for a AI hobbyists like myself, is critical knowledge.

 

:Exclamati Dduck, I strongly recommend you pause and redirect yourself to an effort to scientifically support, and if you find that impossible, not make, claims like

Infrared pictures were taken of people that showed a halo effect around the body, which was passed off at carnivals as the person's 'supernatural aura'. I read in one of Vic Stengers papers that scientific studies revealed that the supposed aura was merely the magnetic field that is around every living thing, even plants. However, if the Bible is right, there is another, presently undetectable, halo (comprised of pulsating sound frequencies) that causes the phantom limb effect.

"Kirlean auras" are a well-understood and documented phenomena, but are not at all what you appear to believe them to be. Your misconception is common, and is actively promoted by a small fraudulent industry. It’s vital, I think, to resist accepting verifiable, fraudulently false claims that support ideas you want to prove true, such as “the Bible”.

 

Kirlian photography as evidence of supernatural auras is just one of many such claims that reasonable people need to know how to research and debunk.

[dduckwessel]

I will keep on topic CraigD.

 

:Exclamati Dduck, I strongly recommend you pause and redirect yourself to an effort to scientifically support, and if you find that impossible, not make, claims like

 

"Kirlean auras" are a well-understood and documented phenomena, but are not at all what you appear to believe them to be. Your misconception is common, and is actively promoted by a small fraudulent industry. It’s vital, I think, to resist accepting verifiable, fraudulently false claims that support ideas you want to prove true, such as “the Bible”.

 

Kirlian photography as evidence of supernatural auras is just one of many such claims that reasonable people need to know how to research and debunk.

 

That's really interesting but what do Hypographers think of it?

[dduckwessel]

It's about what creationists should learn here at Scienceforums.com.

 

I brought up a good point as to your strategy for dealing with creationists: science makes a video to disprove creationism and then creationists make another video to disprove the video that science made. It accomplishes nothing.

 

Incidentally dduck, all you proved in your Adam Was A Primate thread, and your Interpreting Method For The Bible And Some Apocrypha thread, is that practically anything you wish can be interpreted or extrapolated from the bible, i.e., you proved nothing.

 

I must be presenting it wrong because to me the puzzle-paradigm is very noticeable.

 

 

As for the point that Modest brought up; it's wrong. Adam alone could have been 10,000 generations old. Something unusual happened to him but the only evidence I have is Bible and Apocrypha and that's not acceptable here.

[Turtle]

Turtle could be more tactful, but he’s right both on the forum rules and the more specific Rules for the theology forum. “Correcting erroneous thinking about the bible” by discussing Bible verses is, verbatim, what these rules prohibit.

 

let me preface by saying i have the deepest respect & admiration for your tacfullness lo these many years and an acute sense of my own... erhm... uh... directness here at hypography. one might just say that i don't suffer fools gladly whether they are corinthian or hypographian and leave it at that.

 

nonetheless, i did use tact here and in fact used all i had keeping my mouth shut in this thread and all around these past weeks as ducky has flown from old thread to old thread thread making his quack call(s). always eager to learn something new by listening, i wanted to see how the rest of you handled it & what the outcome was in regard to ducky's behavior. in my particular succinct vernacular style, duck screwed the pooch. :dog:

 

Personally, I think the subject is important, because the rejection of science by religionists, or insistence on rewriting it to support religious claims, is detrimental to the teaching of science.

...

 

damn straight! :thumbs_up

[Moontanman]

let me preface by saying i have the deepest respect & admiration for your tacfullness lo these many years and an acute sense of my own... erhm... uh... directness here at hypography. one might just say that i don't suffer fools gladly whether they are corinthian or hypographian and leave it at that.

 

nonetheless, i did use tact here and in fact used all i had keeping my mouth shut in this thread and all around these past weeks as ducky has flown from old thread to old thread thread making his quack call(s). always eager to learn something new by listening, i wanted to see how the rest of you handled it & what the outcome was in regard to ducky's behavior. in my particular succinct vernacular style, duck screwed the pooch. :dog:

 

 

 

damn straight! :thumbs_up

 

 

Hey turtle! Don't i get a treat for being a good doggy?