When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

[cladking]

My question now is not so much if evolution is true (which I don't believe it is), but rather about the dating process of artifacts. That's a tough one to understand because of the atomic structure and carbon analysis.

There are numerous ways to date various things that are very old and there are some assumptions involved that can confound our estimates. But that the earth is geologically and otherwise billions of years old is probably beyond dispute. At the very least the markers agree with this conclusion. C14 dating is useless before 55,000 years ago because of its short half life and loses a lot of accuracy at about 40,000 years ago.

I'm in general agreement that our reductionistic science has generally failed to understand the mechanisms of what causes species to change and what these changes actually represent. We did not "evolve" from a fish however we each probably had a very similar very fish like ancestor. The fact that taxonomies of all sorts are not real precludes the current understanding of "evolution". While it's true that things change they do it is steps and this even include a fish like ancestors whose nearly fish like off spring lived part of its life on land (or at least in mud). Life will expand to fill every niche and all life in individual.

We may never understand it perfectly, because the Bible says we will never know everything.

We will never really know anything. Even in a couple centuries when we know two billion times as much we'll still not really know much of anything. We'll never know if God set all things in motion or will be ever be able to predict the future. We will merely get better and better at engineering a future for our niche as it expands across the cosmos (if we survive the next century).

Since I believe in the Bible, it does say that the earth will be refreshed, restored, to a far better world than we have around us now.

...When the meek inherit the earth.

I believe it is coming faster than our fearless leaders would have it.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are numerous ways to date various things that are very old and there are some assumptions involved that can confound our estimates. But that the earth is geologically and otherwise billions of years old is probably beyond dispute. At the very least the markers agree with this conclusion. C14 dating is useless before 55,000 years ago because of its short half life and loses a lot of accuracy at about 40,000 years ago.

I'm in general agreement that our reductionistic science has generally failed to understand the mechanisms of what causes species to change and what these changes actually represent. We did not "evolve" from a fish however we each probably had a very similar very fish like ancestor. The fact that taxonomies of all sorts are not real precludes the current understanding of "evolution". While it's true that things change they do it is steps and this even include a fish like ancestors whose nearly fish like off spring lived part of its life on land (or at least in mud). Life will expand to fill every niche and all life in individual.



We will never really know anything. Even in a couple centuries when we know two billion times as much we'll still not really know much of anything. We'll never know if God set all things in motion or will be ever be able to predict the future. We will merely get better and better at engineering a future for our niche as it expands across the cosmos (if we survive the next century).



...When the meek inherit the earth.

I believe it is coming faster than our fearless leaders would have it.

Remember the scripture where the Devil offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world.

 

[cladking]

I had to google it but;

He said to him, "I will give you all of these
things, if you will fall down and worship me."

The devil offers the world for worship. Matthew 4:9

I suppose this is akin to science offering everyone omniscience if they merely shut down their brains and worship reductionism and Peers. Science is hardly inherently evil but the devil isn't really either and cares not for the means but only the ends. Science is a merely tool but people have allowed its worship to run amok. Now there is little difference between the the most devout practitioners of "scientism" and the Spanish Inquisitors. It's only a matter of time until heretics are "reeducated" or otherwise silenced entirely. Already search engines have done a great deal to silence everything but doctrine and advertisers.

​

 

[YoursTrue]

I had to google it but;

He said to him, "I will give you all of these
things, if you will fall down and worship me."

The devil offers the world for worship. Matthew 4:9

I suppose this is akin to science offering everyone omniscience if they merely shut down their brains and worship reductionism and Peers. Science is hardly inherently evil but the devil isn't really either and cares not for the means but only the ends. Science is a merely tool but people have allowed its worship to run amok. Now there is little difference between the the most devout practitioners of "scientism" and the Spanish Inquisitors. It's only a matter of time until heretics are "reeducated" or otherwise silenced entirely. Already search engines have done a great deal to silence everything but doctrine and advertisers.

When someone is designated as evil, it appears to me that the evil outweighs the good in the person. Remember the scripture where God said their minds were set on doing bad all of the time?

 

[cladking]

When someone is designated as evil, it appears to me that the evil outweighs the good in the person. Remember the scripture where God said their minds were set on doing bad all of the time?

Ha!!! I actually remember that time.

I'm not really arguing that the devil wasn't evil. However, my experience is that all people make perfect sense all the time in terms of their premises. A corollary to this is that all people try to do what's right all the time to the best of their ability. The road to perdition is paved with good intentions. I'm not really trying to "contradict" scripture here but merely observing my experience. The worst things people do are usually caused by ignorance or the inability to think things through rather than by intention. There are a few people who have "evil in their hearts" and entire countries can be consumed by madness because people can accept the stupidest or most evil premises imaginable. They can annihilate 6 million of their own countryman through murder or starvation if led by a mad ideology. They can program search engines to return only advertisements and doctrine once the shark is jumped and the days of reckoning approach.

But accepting bad premises is not really evil unless your intent is to use these premises to kill and create chaos. Evil ideas can assume a pleasant shape just like the devil himself. They are packaged up for mass consumption and sold everywhere (especially on google). Evil overruns man because we don't recognize it. It is the butchery of the language and the proffering of beliefs that destroy what is right and good and promote was is wrong and causes institutions to be rent asunder. Evil is especially attractive when it satisfies basic desires and only then can it occupy all men's thoughts.


It's kindda funny how much I agree with you and how little I agree with the purveyors of scientistism and the worshipping of Peers and false gods.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ha!!! I actually remember that time.

I'm not really arguing that the devil wasn't evil. However, my experience is that all people make perfect sense all the time in terms of their premises. A corollary to this is that all people try to do what's right all the time to the best of their ability. The road to perdition is paved with good intentions. I'm not really trying to "contradict" scripture here but merely observing my experience. The worst things people do are usually caused by ignorance or the inability to think things through rather than by intention. There are a few people who have "evil in their hearts" and entire countries can be consumed by madness because people can accept the stupidest or most evil premises imaginable. They can annihilate 6 million of their own countryman through murder or starvation if led by a mad ideology. They can program search engines to return only advertisements and doctrine once the shark is jumped and the days of reckoning approach.

But accepting bad premises is not really evil unless your intent is to use these premises to kill and create chaos. Evil ideas can assume a pleasant shape just like the devil himself. They are packaged up for mass consumption and sold everywhere (especially on google). Evil overruns man because we don't recognize it. It is the butchery of the language and the proffering of beliefs that destroy what is right and good and promote was is wrong and causes institutions to be rent asunder. Evil is especially attractive when it satisfies basic desires and only then can it occupy all men's thoughts.


It's kindda funny how much I agree with you and how little I agree with the purveyors of scientistism and the worshipping of Peers and false gods.

You're a smart person, and a thoughtful one, too. There are some crazy people on this earth. Let's put it this way--even psychiatrists can't help certain nutjobs. Now because humans are not like angels, there is a sacrifice for sin for repentant persons, not for angels or demons that fell.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ha!!! I actually remember that time.

I'm not really arguing that the devil wasn't evil. However, my experience is that all people make perfect sense all the time in terms of their premises. A corollary to this is that all people try to do what's right all the time to the best of their ability. The road to perdition is paved with good intentions. I'm not really trying to "contradict" scripture here but merely observing my experience. The worst things people do are usually caused by ignorance or the inability to think things through rather than by intention. There are a few people who have "evil in their hearts" and entire countries can be consumed by madness because people can accept the stupidest or most evil premises imaginable. They can annihilate 6 million of their own countryman through murder or starvation if led by a mad ideology. They can program search engines to return only advertisements and doctrine once the shark is jumped and the days of reckoning approach.

But accepting bad premises is not really evil unless your intent is to use these premises to kill and create chaos. Evil ideas can assume a pleasant shape just like the devil himself. They are packaged up for mass consumption and sold everywhere (especially on google). Evil overruns man because we don't recognize it. It is the butchery of the language and the proffering of beliefs that destroy what is right and good and promote was is wrong and causes institutions to be rent asunder. Evil is especially attractive when it satisfies basic desires and only then can it occupy all men's thoughts.


It's kindda funny how much I agree with you and how little I agree with the purveyors of scientistism and the worshipping of Peers and false gods.

Once I studied the Bible in earnest and as much detail as possible, I gave up my belief in the theory of evolution. The reason is because, while I don't understand everything, I believe the Bible is God's message to mankind. Evolution no longer is true, as far as I am concerned. To avoid any confusion, that does not mean that I don't think viruses and bacteria change form somewhat. But they still stay within their parameters.
Speaking of peers, I did some research as far as prejudice in peer review in scientific journals goes, and it's not uncommon. Kinda like the rest of the world. Nevertheless...

 

[cladking]

...I believe the Bible is God's message to mankind. Evolution no longer is true, as far as I am concerned.

If "God" is defined as the life force that is in individuals and the amalgam of reality and humanity then the Bible might really be a message from above. It is hardly outside the realm of reason that this "force" might also have created reality or set the whole thing in motion. I don't pretend to have any "answers" to any big question.

I believe we have a very fair understanding of "evolution" but our conclusions are warped by looking at it from a very poor perspective. You're right that every new creature is like its parents but when species change it happens suddenly and the "new species" is not as like its parents as other individuals like grandparents and offspring. Humans did not arise from fish or monkeys. But if we go back enough generations we'll still find a vast array of different types and sorts of creatures, each with its very own consciousness.

Reality is infinitely complex. It plays out one event at a time dependent on every single thing that has come before and every single thing that exists. We simply don't see any of it. We have reduced life itself to some sort of cosmic coincidence that can be understood by looking at it. It is this warped perspective that leads to strange beliefs in the power of Peers.

 

[YoursTrue]

If "God" is defined as the life force that is in individuals and the amalgam of reality and humanity then the Bible might really be a message from above. It is hardly outside the realm of reason that this "force" might also have created reality or set the whole thing in motion. I don't pretend to have any "answers" to any big question.

I believe we have a very fair understanding of "evolution" but our conclusions are warped by looking at it from a very poor perspective. You're right that every new creature is like its parents but when species change it happens suddenly and the "new species" is not as like its parents as other individuals like grandparents and offspring. Humans did not arise from fish or monkeys. But if we go back enough generations we'll still find a vast array of different types and sorts of creatures, each with its very own consciousness.

Reality is infinitely complex. It plays out one event at a time dependent on every single thing that has come before and every single thing that exists. We simply don't see any of it. We have reduced life itself to some sort of cosmic coincidence that can be understood by looking at it. It is this warped perspective that leads to strange beliefs in the power of Peers.

OK, let me understand something. You said when species change it happens suddenly?

 

[cladking]

Obviously there's a gradual drift in the nature of species but this drift is very random and very tiny. Every giraffe has two giraffes for parents rather than slightly different kinds of giraffes. Change comes suddenly and while every giraffe still has a giraffes for parents an entire generation will be born that is much more different on average than its parents. These different giraffes will interbreed until the gene pool is much more stable and there will be less apparent difference between individuals.

The slow random drift that we believe is "evolution" probably would cause speciation if it went on long enough but it rarely does because before that can happen there occurs a bottleneck that selects for unusual behavior causing speciation. For instance if most proto giraffes hated the taste of a berry that grew high up in trees and one year their other food was poisonous to them those which ate the berries would be much different and survive the bottleneck spawning true giraffes. The more unusual the behavior that is selected for the greater the change in species.

If some event killed every cockroach except those which ate only fresh fruit then even this species would change. Cockroaches eat filth and they don't normally eat a lot of other foods and certainly not exclusively.

Even though every experiment and observation shows this it is simply misinterpreted because we see our assumptions. You could say that proto proto giraffes are not really even an ancestor of giraffes. They are only an ancestor of proto giraffes. We didn't come from fish or monkeys but some of the proto species in the past of proto humans came from fish or monkeys. It's not really a fine distinction because of the language we use to think and communicate the concepts, and to describe the reality. Species change, they do not evolve.

 

[tas8831]

This thread has turned into a regular 'meeting of the minds'...

 

[tas8831]

Do you also know why?
It sounds like don't.

Because these people are so-called super spreaders. They are unaffected by the virus, yet the viral infection rages in their bodies, reproducing like crazy and subsequently spreading as crazy as well. Meanwhile, the carrier thinks everything is fine because he is unaffected and doesn't see any reason to get tested. So he thinks he's clear.

People like this infect dozens, if not hundreds, of people, depending where they go and what they do.
Imagine such a person being on a crowded subway while misapplying his mask (or worse: not at all) like so many people do. Viral particles will also remain in there long after he already got off. So commuters who get on several stops after he got off, also likely get infected.

If that person however was vaccinated, the immune system wouldn't let it get that far. The infection would be dealt with a LOT faster and there'ld be a lot less viral particles. And thus a much lower risk of spreading.


It's almost like you know and understand close to nothing about how a virus spreads.

You also seem to be one of those who believes that vaccination is something you do only to protect yourself. This is off course nonsense. The reason why hospitals for examples demand their nurses to be vaccinated... is not (or not only anyway) for their own safety. It is done primarily for the protection of other people at the hospital. Staff, patients, visitors,...



They seem to be pretty good at it as well.
Just look at the current pandemic. 95% of those hospitalized are unvaccinated.



Nothing that wasn't already known.



Says the person why has just made an argument based on nitpicking on a minority of cases, pretending them to be the standard because that sounds the argument being made, while completely ignoring the actual big statistical picture which points to the exact opposite of what is being claimed.

HILARIOUS.

The reality is that the VAST MAJORITY of those that end up in the hospital and / or dead, are UNVACCINATED people. Which demonstrates objectively that getting vaccinated very severely lowers the risk of needing hospitalization or a funeral.


The irony of you complaining about "bias", nitpicking on a pixel while ignoring the bigger picture, is absolutely mindblowing.



Now is a good time to stop projecting your own flaws on the rest of us.

I see the uber-virologist epidemiologist and cosmologist is now also pretending to be the expert at what "science" is...

 

[tas8831]

@cladking

Ah - the absurdities abound! Wow, I guess that totally debunked my statement!

I forgot that your opinion trumps all others on al subjects. Yet here you are, the king of the anti-science religionists.

The do please tell us all about all of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along 'science' experiments that you have engaged in.


Indeed - I would like you to lay out the actual experiments you did to support your claim about the ability to grow a "broccas" area anywhere in the brain as you have asserted is the case:

"Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area to create an interface between the digital speech center and the higher brain functions that begin operating on modern language."

"...We are operating a digital system with analog programming and it's the broccas area that is the interface. We are born without this area..."
​

I will refrain from further humiliating you while we all wait for you to provide links to your amazing experiments and published research that determined this - this is Nobel Prize level science, as it is contrary to over a century of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological studies that indicate something very, very different from this. And do not do what you have historically done - demand that others provide THEIR evidence that contradicts your unsupported claims (which you then ignore or dismiss - but NEVER counter by presenting your own evidence).

Follow up?

 

[cladking]

@cladking

Follow up?

See post #142

I will not respond further unless you actually contribute something both new and relevant.

 

[tas8831]

I've done this a dozen times (in the relevant threads) for you and will not do it again for you.

You have not once described ANY experiments you have done.

 

[tas8831]

See post #142

I will not respond further unless you actually contribute something both new and relevant.

Cool with me - you never produce anything worthy of consideration. You DO spew a lot of nonsense and egotism, and so I will on occasion continue to debunk that nonsense as I enjoy doing it.
I will also remind readers of your past failures and your refusal to admit to having made them.

 

[tas8831]

" This [Broca's area] varies in position from individual to individual because we are all at a loss to figure the best place for it."

Waiting for the experimental evidence for that claim of yours.

 

[paarsurrey]

Once I studied the Bible in earnest and as much detail as possible, I gave up my belief in the theory of evolution. The reason is because, while I don't understand everything, I believe the Bible is God's message to mankind. Evolution no longer is true, as far as I am concerned. To avoid any confusion, that does not mean that I don't think viruses and bacteria change form somewhat. But they still stay within their parameters.
Speaking of peers, I did some research as far as prejudice in peer review in scientific journals goes, and it's not uncommon. Kinda like the rest of the world. Nevertheless...

G-d's word is for guidance of humans in ethical, moral and spiritual domains for getting prepared for the afterlife primarily. Agreed?
It is not intended to interfere with Science head on
that only deals in material and physical realms, please. Science is not to interfere with the Word of G-d as it is out of its limits.
Let them work in their own domains for peace among the human civilization, please. Got it?
Even if the whole scientific community announces in full voice with consensus that there is no afterlife, it is useless as it is beyond the limitations of science and hence foolish to do it, I must say please. Right?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

To err is human, and I understand, there is no exception to it, please. Right?
Friends here won't contest it and give a heavy nod to it and perhaps or certainly. vigorous one, please. Right?
If one man can make mistake and therefore it is useless to give any authenticate it, the same way all men of a group every one of them can make mistakes and they can make as many mistakes as form the group. Right?
And scientist have most certainly no exception to it, I figure. Right?

Regards

 

[tas8831]

Darn, I was hoping Native would have replied to my pointing out his hypocrisy and double standards.