• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Four Modern “Scientific” Myths

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
/E: Anyway, i think this thread is over. You have already forgotten your original point and are now trying to save your manliness by proving the supremacy of capitalism.

I haven't forgotten, I've just been following the tangent.

You dumped nazis into socialists and claimed that they're also left-wing. What the hell are you if you actually think nazis are socialist? KKK member?

There are two primary types of socialism: communism, where the state owns everything and controls the means of production, and fascism/nazism, where the state controls the means of production and property. You don't own the land, you rent it from the government via real estate taxes--and what it doesn't tax, it owns outright. Both forms ALWAYS end up as autocracies of one form or another because of the centralization/concentration of power which enables corruption. They always say what they do is for the common good, until they don't need that pretense anymore. Our left, with it's allies in fake news which had already given up that pretense, was making that transition, but enough people were aware or woke up, and elected Trump.

Socialism/communism is an economic model for government. The other is libertarian capitalism. And I've opposed the KKK and the Church since I was a teenager in the South. I was also, irrationally, a "moderate" socialist at the time until I realized what I wrote in the above paragraph.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
I haven't forgotten, I've just been following the tangent.

Whatever you say.

There are two primary types of socialism: communism, where the state owns everything and controls the means of production, and fascism/nazism, where the state controls the means of production and property. You don't own the land, you rent it from the government via real estate taxes--and what it doesn't tax, it owns outright. Both forms ALWAYS end up as autocracies of one form or another because of the centralization/concentration of power which enables corruption. They always say what they do is for the common good, until they don't need that pretense anymore. Our left, with it's allies in fake news which had already given up that pretense, was making that transition, but enough people were aware or woke up, and elected Trump.

Socialism/communism is an economic model for government. The other is libertarian capitalism. And I've opposed the KKK and the Church since I was a teenager in the South. I was also, irrationally, a "moderate" socialist at the time until I realized what I wrote in the above paragraph.

Okay. First you accuse every one of your opponents of being a liberal democrat leftie, and now you ARE dumping nazis and communists into the same clump. So which one is it:

Are we lefties, or are we fascist nazis?

Socialism:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

^^ The Nazis and Soviet Russia did not fulfill those. They were authoritarian "empires". You are welcome to think that socialism refers to crap like that, but it's not strengthening your point.

/E: JUST to make sure: You do think Nazis are left-wing, right? I could have SWORN that they are extreme right-wing.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
There you go again, accusing the accuser of what you're doing.

You're not even making the slightest bit of sense. I've not accused anyone of anything, let alone being part of some long-running, worldwide conspiracy to implement a nebulous "agenda", so why I would need to provide evidence of such a thing is a mystery.

You OTOH have done exactly that, yet you are completely unable to provide evidence to support your accusations. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to reject them.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
"Long ago debunked"? Typical leftist response, "He's nuts, It's wrong, 'nuff said."...
So now you're doing long distance psychoanalysis and lie detecting--and, I presume, think the UN is God's righteous wealth transfer gift to the planet...
Which is it, she didn't mean what she said (she lied) or she was confused...
So the UN just stood by and let the wacko rave on? C'mon, you're not connecting the dots, you just scribbling all over the page...with your eyes closed....
Yeah, "known", because they didn't fit the necessary (for global warming) outcome. Read the things, they were doing it to keep the "corrections" from going public. Their cred was shot.
Once again TPT, not a single scrap of data, not a single sentence to show that you actually understand anything about it...

...there's only one part of anything you've said so far that I agree with - you're "nuts", everything you have said is "wrong" - more than wrong - its plain stupidity. And most definitely "'nuff said".
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Okay. First you accuse every one of your opponents of being a liberal democrat leftie, and now you ARE dumping nazis and communists into the same clump. So which one is it:

Are we lefties, or are we fascist nazis?

It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. Read what I wrote, Nazis are socialists which means they're on the left. Nazis = National Socialists but unlike communists, everything doesn't belong to the state, everything is controlled by the state. It's a minute distinction, but it puts both of them on the economic left

Socialism:

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated (controlled) by the community as a whole."

^^ The Nazis and Soviet Russia did not fulfill those. They were authoritarian "empires". You are welcome to think that socialism refers to crap like that, but it's not strengthening your point.

Government ownership (communism) for all intents and purposes equals government control (nazism/fascism). You keep ignoring that simple equation. It's a difference without a distinction. Nazis understood they were socialists after all, re: NAZI = the fascist National Socialist German Workers' Party (dictionary.com, Wikipedia, etc.) If you find a racist capitalist, which do exist, then you can say they're on the right.

/E: JUST to make sure: You do think Nazis are left-wing, right? I could have SWORN that they are extreme right-wing.

Due to the very ubiquitous left wing media's propaganda, because the NAZIs emerged as the greatest undeniable example of evil in modern history. Never mind that Stalin's and Mao's communist governments killed many times more than Hitler's NAZIs did, together, in the neighborhood of 100 million. We have much more to fear from our own governments than from countries we're at war with, the numbers prove it.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Read what I wrote, Nazis are socialists which means they're on the left. Nazis = National Socialists but unlike communists, everything doesn't belong to the state, everything is controlled by the state. It's a minute distinction, but it puts both of them on the economic left

I just wanted to make sure you actually meant it, and was prodding you to say it again. So i could quote it and make fun of it. I've never seen anyone make the claim that nazis are left-wing.

But then i realized you're actually serious, and i kind of felt like not to. I'm actually going to apologize for my involvement in this thread.

My mother told me it's bad manners to make fun of disabled people.

Sorry. And Bye.
 
Last edited:

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I just wanted to make sure you actually meant it, and was prodding you to say it again. So i could quote it and make fun of it. I've never seen anyone make the claim that nazis are left-wing.

But then i realized you're actually serious, and i kind of felt like not to. I'm actually going to apologize for my involvement in this thread.

My mother told me it's bad manners to make fun of disabled people.

Sorry. And Bye.

IOW, instead of responding with an answer (which you obviously don't have), you launch another slew of insults and stick your head in the sand. You have to have been here in the first place to say "Bye".
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Piltdown man was true 'without doubt' and the cornerstone of human evolution among academia, for far longer than either global warming or global cooling were academically fashionable, Us 'ignorant masses' never fell for any of them, at least give us some credit for a pretty good track record!

False on almost all claims. The Piltdown man was hidden by its 'discoverer' from examination by others. As more evidence from other sources was accumulated, it became more and more clear that something was wrong in the Pitdown case. The rest of the data simply didn't fit with the Piltdown claims. When the actual 'fossil' was finally examined by independent investigators, it was found to be a fraud.

This highlights the necessity of having more than one person (or group) look at the raw data and to have that data freely available to all who are qualified and ask.

In the case of climate science, the data *is* freely available, has been extensively investigated by several independent sources and no new data is contradicting the basis findings. Your analogy fails miserably.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
False on almost all claims. The Piltdown man was hidden by its 'discoverer' from examination by others. As more evidence from other sources was accumulated, it became more and more clear that something was wrong in the Pitdown case. The rest of the data simply didn't fit with the Piltdown claims. When the actual 'fossil' was finally examined by independent investigators, it was found to be a fraud.

This highlights the necessity of having more than one person (or group) look at the raw data and to have that data freely available to all who are qualified and ask.

In the case of climate science, the data *is* freely available, has been extensively investigated by several independent sources and no new data is contradicting the basis findings. Your analogy fails miserably.

Basically true, but climate fabricators can't jigger the weather. What they do is insert variables that get the results they want. Yes other scientists can examine those formulae (sometimes!) and see what's going on, but in order to expose their shenanigans, they need the mainstream media to translate the complicated situation into English--instead of the psychobabble which is what gets the airtime. The leftist support of Muslim extremism (Sharia) shows how far the Left will go to attack the right, even if their own factions (women, LGBQ, legal immigrants) are made into victims.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Basically true, but climate fabricators can't jigger the weather. What they do is insert variables that get the results they want. Yes other scientists can examine those formulae (sometimes!) and see what's going on, but in order to expose their shenanigans, they need the mainstream media to translate the complicated situation into English--instead of the psychobabble which is what gets the airtime. The leftist support of Muslim extremism (Sharia) shows how far the Left will go to attack the right, even if their own factions (women, LGBQ, legal immigrants) are made into victims.

Oh, garbage. There is no requirement that scientific debates be conducted with public input, especially when the public is as atrociously misinformed about science as it is. nAll it takes is different groups of scientists, studying the same thing, to realize their results conflict.

Liberal support of Moslems is NOT the same as support for extremism. I no more want an Islamic theocracy than I do a Christian one. But as long as religion still plays a role in human affairs, all law abiding followers should be welcome. Discrimination based on religion is a violation of human rights, don't you agree?
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Oh, garbage. There is no requirement that scientific debates be conducted with public input, especially when the public is as atrociously misinformed about science as it is. nAll it takes is different groups of scientists, studying the same thing, to realize their results conflict.

Who said anything about public input? But we have a right to know what they're saying when the information is being converted to social policy via public propaganda.

Liberal support of Moslems is NOT the same as support for extremism. I no more want an Islamic theocracy than I do a Christian one. But as long as religion still plays a role in human affairs, all law abiding followers should be welcome.

Not when the stated goal of a religion is to establish a theocracy.

Discrimination based on religion is a violation of human rights, don't you agree?

My overriding principle has always been that freedom is the right to be as dumb as you want...on your own dime. Theocracy will always violate that principle, just as any concentration/focus of power will (e.g. socialism).
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Who said anything about public input? But we have a right to know what they're saying when the information is being converted to social policy via public propaganda.
What is required is that you have a scientific consensus (majority of those concerned with researching that area). The public can then decide upon policies based on that knowledge. For example, we can let the science tell us what the consequences of our actions or inaction will be. We get, as a society, to decide which consequences we are willing to deal with.

Not when the stated goal of a religion is to establish a theocracy.
Which is the ultimate goal of *all* religions.

My overriding principle has always been that freedom is the right to be as dumb as you want...on your own dime. Theocracy will always violate that principle, just as any concentration/focus of power will (e.g. socialism).

And currently, the biggest problem is the concentration of power in the conservative movements.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
What is required is that you have a scientific consensus (majority of those concerned with researching that area). The public can then decide upon policies based on that knowledge. For example, we can let the science tell us what the consequences of our actions or inaction will be. We get, as a society, to decide which consequences we are willing to deal with.

Consensus doesn't determine the Truth--and the Truth is especially vulnerable when a consensus can be coerced, re: all the major religions at one time or another, and rationalizations for autocratic governance. And if the Truth is skewed, the public is screwed, though the Internet has changed that significantly.

As for climate prognostications, it's been a parade of absurdities (coming ice age/global warming depending on the time of year, planet prognostications of inhabitability starting at 10 years to the current consensus of 100 years.) It got so bad, especially with global warming on Mars and other planets, they had to change it to "climate change", without so much as a whimper from the Left.


Which is the ultimate goal of *all* religions.

I don't think it's the stated goal of Buddhism, and Christianity has been put in it's place for the time being, with most Christians not including that in their vision of their ultimate goal. In any case, no one comes close to the current movement for Sharia Law and and it's liberal appeasers.

And currently, the biggest problem is the concentration of power in the conservative movements.

The current concentration of power/money is still with the Democrat, Republican, academic and mainstream media establishment. Yes the Right has a real go-getter as President now, but he's got 50-100 years of socialism to unravel with the aforementioned establishment fighting him most of the way.

As I've mentioned, LBJ, after signing the Civil Rights Act and gaining some faux social issues cred, was selling his War on Poverty and Great Society socialist programs to a couple of governors, and told them, "I'll have these ******s voting Democratic for 200 years". Fifty years and counting. That's the most incredible behind the scenes statement in US history. LBJ makes, Nixon, Carter, Clinton and Obama look like saints.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Consensus doesn't determine the Truth--and the Truth is especially vulnerable when a consensus can be coerced, re: all the major religions at one time or another, and rationalizations for autocratic governance. And if the Truth is skewed, the public is screwed, though the Internet has changed that significantly.
No, consensus doesn't determine truth. But the truth is likely to be much better approximated by the consensus of experts than it is from the ideas of an uneducated public. At this point, way too many people don't even know that the Earth orbits the sun. Or that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Or that the universe is about 3 times that age. Many have heard of DNA, but can't tell you the name of any nucleotide or what RNA is and does.

As for climate prognostications, it's been a parade of absurdities (coming ice age/global warming depending on the time of year, planet prognostications of inhabitability starting at 10 years to the current consensus of 100 years.) It got so bad, especially with global warming on Mars and other planets, they had to change it to "climate change", without so much as a whimper from the Left.

And I would agree with some of this assessment. The doom-sayers are clearly nuts. We won't be able to do more to the Earth than what happened naturally during the Miocene.


I don't think it's the stated goal of Buddhism, and Christianity has been put in it's place for the time being, with most Christians not including that in their vision of their ultimate goal. In any case, no one comes close to the current movement for Sharia Law and and it's liberal appeasers.
I look forward to a time when no religion has power over governments in any way. The biggest threat to western government is still the nationalists and the science deniers. The Sharia advocates are a loud minority, but it is the silent bigotry of others that scares me much more.

I don't want a theocracy of *any* type. I don't want politicians looking to make friends with fundamentalist Christians any more than I want them to make friends with fundamentalist Muslims. Both are dangerous. Currently ISIS is the nastiest kid on the block. But not so long ago, Christian terrorists were bombing London and Ireland. And, just as a historical aside: the first suicide bombers were Buddhists in Sri Lanka.

The current concentration of power/money is still with the Democrat, Republican, academic and mainstream media establishment. Yes the Right has a real go-getter as President now, but he's got 50-100 years of socialism to unravel with the aforementioned establishment fighting him most of the way.
Unraveling a reasonable consensus isn't a goal I support.

As I've mentioned, LBJ, after signing the Civil Rights Act and gaining some faux social issues cred, was selling his War on Poverty and Great Society socialist programs to a couple of governors, and told them, "I'll have these ******s voting Democratic for 200 years". Fifty years and counting. That's the most incredible behind the scenes statement in US history. LBJ makes, Nixon, Carter, Clinton and Obama look like saints.

Yes, and Republican gerrymandering is attempting to make their Congressional seats safe for the foreseeable future also. Both sides play power games. News flash: that was also going on in the early 1800's.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Yes, and Republican gerrymandering is attempting to make their Congressional seats safe for the foreseeable future also. Both sides play power games. News flash: that was also going on in the early 1800's.

The cavalier way you dismiss what he said is staggering. It just shows there's nothing you won't rationalize to justify what can only be described as a hypocritical defense of evil. Because if It had been a Republican, you'd have sentenced him to the firing squad.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The cavalier way you dismiss what he said is staggering. It just shows there's nothing you won't rationalize to justify what can only be described as a hypocritical defense of evil. Because if It had been a Republican, you'd have sentenced him to the firing squad.

Well, this is one reason the founding fathers didn't like political parties very much. Yet such parties were formed by the very people who claimed to dislike them. Politics is messy. Politics has *always* been a dog eat dog endeavor.

Yes, I think that gerrymandering is a bad way to do things. But, in the current system, and until we get the political will to change it, that is how things will be. Yes, both conservatives and liberals try to get political advantage from short-term power grabs. Again, this has always been the case and I see it as something rather unavoidable in human politics.

I don't see what LBJ did as evil. It is the typical political maneuvering that happens with all major pieces of legislation. When Reagan went for the 'Southern strategy', he was playing off the racial animosities started with LBJ and was, again, politics as it is played. Current gerrymandering is yet another example. There is a HUGE difference between such and actual violations of the laws or the constitution.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
1. Creationism, the position which even some scientists defend, which holds that the universe was created by God only 6000 years ago, and that a flood covered the whole Earth. It’s good to remember all the flood myths in the world, and that during the last glacial maximum or Ice Age which peaked around 17,000 years ago, sea level was 400’ lower than today. Civilizations, whatever form they took, would have been, as always, along those lower coastlines of warmer climes generally closer to the equator. The Persian Gulf would have been an actual, fertile, Garden of Eden, watered by the combined Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Those places would have been inundated by the melting of the glacial ice, sometimes catastrophically. Due to its expense and difficulty, marine archaeology is still in its infancy.
Re: Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization, Graham Hancock (2002)


2. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics held that observation or the act of measurement affects a physical system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse. This idea predominated the scientific community for much of the 20th century, and still has its adherents today. Einstein dismissed it, some would say ridiculed it, by asking, “Do you really believe I think the Moon only exists when I’m looking at it?”


3. The location of the first two Jewish temples was on the so-called Temple Mount in Jerusalem. For the faithful to believe this is one thing, but almost all archaeological (scientific) authorities who specialize in that area, are ideologically invested in disregarding all the biblical and extra-biblical evidence, such as the descriptions of the historian Josephus, that the first temples were just 600 feet to the south of the alleged Temple Mount, in the oldest part of Jerusalem, the City of David. The current alleged Temple Mount has to be the Fortress Antonia, which was left standing when the Romans captured Jerusalem in 70 CE to house the Roman 10th Legion for 200 years afterwards—while the City of David, with the Temple, was completely demolished at that time.
Re: The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth, Marilyn Sams (2015)


4. Global Warming (conveniently renamed to “Climate Change” due to an inconvenient pause in said warming).


All the following incidents indicate willful manipulation of data to support the idea of global warming.


The IPCC Climategate scandal in 2009 which released 1000 emails and other documents, which became known as Climategate:
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia


Then in 2011 another 5000 IPCC emails were released, commonly referred to as Climategate 2:
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate


And again in 2017, whistleblower Dr. John Bates of NOAA, exposed similar manipulation at NOAA. This has also been termed Climategate 2, but it’s better to recognize it as Climategate 2.1:
A Top Climate Scientist Blows the Whistle on Shoddy Climate Science
I want to point out that the truthful religion holds that Adam, was the first human being evolved to a state that with him God Conversed directly, and it happened some 6000 years ago. Please
Regards
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I want to point out that the truthful religion holds that Adam, was the first human being evolved to a state that with him God Conversed directly, and it happened some 6000 years ago. Please
Regards

No,*your* religion says this. It is, however, a falsehood. Which shows your religion isn't true.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I want to point out that the truthful religion holds that Adam, was the first human being evolved to a state that with him God Conversed directly, and it happened some 6000 years ago. Please
Regards

Never happened, because if it had, Adam's (and Eve's) free will would have been instantly negated, Spawning creatures with free will was the whole purpose for Creation (symbolized by the Garden). Full self-awareness enables us to put ourselves in the place of others and thus triggers our free will to make moral choices. None of us are born with free will, only the potential to assume its mantle via self-awareness (the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil) .

An omnipotent God could do anything else instantly. God could fill the universe with angels, but without free will, they'd be nothing but extensions of God, and since God is already omnipresent, it'd just be two descriptions of the same identical thing.
 
Top