My alleged illiberalism

I think I said it in the last post about Egnor: he really has no idea what the difference between atheism and secularism is. I get the feeling he never will.

Why aren't they "creationists"? Paley was generally considered to be a creationist, and the only major difference between his ideas and theirs is that he actually predicted that design would be visible in life--something that an architect or artificer would produce. IOW, Paley's ideas were potentially within the realm of science, while Egnor's type steadfastly refuses to conform to science. Is the fact that Paley wrote "Creator" and they write "Designer" supposed to absolve them from the charge of creationism? OK, Egnor, I'll call you a cdesignproponentsist.

And have you ever noticed that they want to teach "strengths and weaknesses" without disavowing their earlier stated desires to teach ID as an "alternative?" Any chance that's because "weaknesses of evolution" were all that ID was ever able to come up with, and those were generally dishonest and false?

I would have to say that I think a person could make a case that evolutionary theory has "weaknesses." But it's a tough call, because there isn't some glaring weakness in evolutionary theory, like not explaining the orbit of Mercury, or the fact that light doesn't blend together (which Planck explained, starting quantum mechanics). It's more a matter of questions, which are many, but which do not at present seem to present any show-stopping "weaknesses" in the theory. The case for "weaknesses" could still come in the remaining questions (especially early evolution of biochemical pathways), depending on what one means by "weaknesses."

Unfortunately, what they mean by "weaknesses" is not that questions remain--which is not an unusual state in science. That's what's so disingenuous about Egnor, he won't honestly deal with the fact that the theory is really quite sound.

And he's quite dishonest when he implies that criticism of evolution is not allowed in public schools. Religiously-inspired rot that claims to be criticism of evolution, but is only so much special-pleading and prejudice against the scientific method--about all that Egnor and the DI have ever come up with--is unconstitutional to teach in science classes.

Glen D

http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

So, there are no weaknesses in evolutionism--my arse!

When Darwin wrote his book it was as though Satan, Beelzebub, and all of the hosts of Hell opened their bowels and covered all of Europe in two meters of excrement that they have been shoveling all over the world ever since. It turned God's continent into Satan's stronghold.

The religion of evolution is ripe with contradictions. First, they claim natural selection is the reward for reproductive fitness which means making babies is the highest moral imperative, but the most sacred beliefs of evolutionists promote the opposite.

Abortion/Birth Control--fewer children

Sodomy--fewer children

Feminism/Womens' careers--fewer children

How do evolutionists sing Hosannas to natural selection one minute and believe in all of those things the next? What a bunch or morons!

I was recently hit in the head with a brick, and am unable to separate totally unrelated ideas in my head. Just thought you'd like to know. I also feel that pudding justifies pi=3.

Toidel Mahoney said: So, there are no weaknesses in evolutionism--my arse! When Darwin wrote his book it was as though Satan, Beelzebub, and all of the hosts of Hell opened their bowels and covered all of Europe in two meters of excrement that they have been shoveling all over the world ever since. It turned God's continent into Satan's stronghold. The religion of evolution is ripe with contradictions. First, they claim natural selection is the reward for reproductive fitness which means making babies is the highest moral imperative, but the most sacred beliefs of evolutionists promote the opposite. Abortion/Birth Control--fewer children Sodomy--fewer children Feminism/Womens' careers--fewer children How do evolutionists sing Hosannas to natural selection one minute and believe in all of those things the next? What a bunch or morons!

Egnor sez... He and I disagree on this point: I believe that teaching the strengths and weakness of Darwin’s theory in public schools is constitutional and is good science.

he really has no idea what the difference between atheism and secularism is. I get the feeling he never will.

At some point about halfway through Egnor's post I lost track of the number of false or misleading conflations he presents. I honestly am impressed: it takes far more than standard levels of dishonesty or intellectual laziness to manage a Full Egnor. Even among his creationist brethren, he stands out.

Wow, is Mahoney's post the best thing you've ever read or what? Or is it a late April Fools satire? I love it!

Toidel Mahoney said: The religion of evolution is ripe with contradictions. First, they claim natural selection is the reward for reproductive fitness which means making babies is the highest moral imperative, but the most sacred beliefs of evolutionists promote the opposite.

I second Stevaroni. All of this talk of weaknesses in general is supposed to distract us from the fact that they have no specific weaknesses to teach that are at all legitimate.

Do they honestly think that the courts are going to look at a list of claims like there are no transitional fossils or that mutation can't add new information and not see the connection to earlier creationist efforts?

I am "theologically ignorant" in the same way I am ignorant of the 'theory of Phlogiston' and the 'theory of Phrenology". And for the same reason, too.

All are complete rubbish and have no place whatsoever in a general science class as anything other than complete rubbish that some people once put forth as an explanation for how aspects of the universe worked.

" First, religion is a belief in a particular ultimate metaphysical reality. Mr. Sandefur’s religion is that there is no God. "

Game over Dr. Toolbag

"A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.[1] It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos, and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience."

Do you have the trouble defining the word, "Truth"?

What is with these authoritarians who call themselves "conservatives" and are hell-bent on liberalizing science education to include pseudoscience and the word "illiberal"?

Frank J said: What is with these authoritarians who call themselves "conservatives" and are hell-bent on liberalizing science education to include pseudoscience and the word "illiberal"?

Toidel appears to be channeling that brilliant preacher and compassionate man of God, the Rev. Fred Phelps, the Prophet of Topeka, Kansas.

I hope he has copious quantities of industrial-strength brain cleanser on hand.

As Ken Miller is fond of pointing out, ID (via Berkeley's Phillip Johnson) borrows its component of philosophical relativism from the academic left. When you try to redefine science itself to push your agenda, crazy things happen.

— James F

Why aren’t they “creationists”? Paley was generally considered to be a creationist, and the only major difference between his ideas and theirs is that he actually predicted that design would be visible in life–something that an architect or artificer would produce. IOW, Paley’s ideas were potentially within the realm of science, while Egnor’s type steadfastly refuses to conform to science. Is the fact that Paley wrote “Creator” and they write “Designer” supposed to absolve them from the charge of creationism? OK, Egnor, I’ll call you a cdesignproponentsist.

— Glen Davidson

Frank J said: I repeat that the only way we can stop the ID activists from getting mileage with "ID is not creationism"...

...is to make it perfectly clear that the key feature of modern creationism (including ID and designer-free "strengths and weaknesses" scams) is not belief in a Creator/designer, but a strategy to misrepresent, and yes "liberalize", science and science education.

Iason Ouabache said: he really has no idea what the difference between atheism and secularism is.

toidel maheiny said: I was recently hit in the head with a brick, and am unable to separate totally unrelated ideas in my head. Just thought you'd like to know. I also feel that pudding justifies pi=3.

eric said: I think the key feature of modern ID is still old creationist content.

I notice how nobody even tried to respond to the points in my post. It's amazing how incapable evolutionists are of defending their fetid faith!

Toidel Mahoney said: This idiot is a cheap imitator. I am the real thing! All of my ideas were critiques of the religion of evolutionism. How are they unrelated?

The real Toidel Mahoney says: This idiot is a cheap imitator. I am the real thing!

Toidel Mahoney said: So, there are no weaknesses in evolutionism--my arse! When Darwin wrote his book it was as though Satan, Beelzebub, and all of the hosts of Hell opened their bowels and covered all of Europe in two meters of excrement that they have been shoveling all over the world ever since. It turned God's continent into Satan's stronghold.

Toidel Mahoney Said: Abortion/Birth Control–fewer children Sodomy–fewer children Feminism/Womens’ careers–fewer children

They’ve changed the box numerous times but the stuff inside is the same, and the courts have recognized this.

— eric

So, there are no weaknesses in evolutionism–my arse!

When Darwin wrote his book it was as though Satan, Beelzebub, and all of the hosts of Hell opened their bowels and covered all of Europe in two meters of excrement that they have been shoveling all over the world ever since. It turned God’s continent into Satan’s stronghold.

The religion of evolution is ripe with contradictions. First, they claim natural selection is the reward for reproductive fitness

which means making babies is the highest moral imperative,

but the most sacred beliefs of evolutionists promote the opposite. Abortion/Birth Control–fewer children Sodomy–fewer children Feminism/Womens’ careers–fewer children

How do evolutionists sing Hosannas to natural selection one minute and believe in all of those things the next?

What a bunch or morons!

Harold responds to Toidel.... There is no such thing as “evolutionism”. If you have a serious weakness in the theory of evolution to discuss, please proceed.

Frank J said: Well the "active ingredient," which is "any argument that promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution" is the same.

I’ve noticed that when my intelligence is insulted by a stupid person, it’s usually because I’m doing or saying something intelligent that intimidates them. I do plenty of stupid things, but oddly, almost never get insulted for those.

Frank J -

I'm optimistic enough to think that there is an exponential decay of the ability of creationists to make trouble in public schools.

In the twenties, they could get teachers fired for teaching evolution. But they gradually lost that power.

In the seventies and eighties, they were able to force court cases on outright YEC, which they lost. At this point, YEC was a compromise relative to Scopes trial ambitions. They realized that they couldn't just say "we want the law to command the teaching of Biblical literalism"; now they had to say "science supports Biblical literalism".

During the nineties, they were able to promote outright ID ("bacterial flagellum couldn't have evolved"/"if we admit that an ant hill was actively and directly designed by ants, we're obliged to admit that living organisms were actively and directly designed by magic"). This was a further compromise - now they had to dump overt reference to Biblical literalism, and just falsely claim that "science opposes evolution".

In parallel with that, the Kansas school board tried to simply censor evolution out of the curriculum. Another compromise - "We don't overtly say that it contradicts Biblical literalism, we just don't teach it at all". This strategy actually failed at the legislative, not court, level - the school board was tossed out by the voters.

Now, they're reduced to "teach evolution, but included some exaggerated, unreasonable 'criticisms', while not treating the rest of the science curriculum this way". This is very likely to fail.

But of course, exponential decay never falls to zero. My guess is that it will ultimately be a steady state, in which every few years some zealot tries to introduce some dishonest but trivial "criticism of evolution", and is shot down after a lot of expense and trouble.

Oh I think we can be MUCH more specific about the contents of the box. In 95% of creationist boxes, I bet you will find all of the following...

"No child should graduate public school without intimate familiarity with Aquinas' Five Ways, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Elohist and Jahwist contribution to the Torah, and the philosophy of Epicurus and Lucretius, the views of Nietzsche and Hume, among many others. The philosophical and theological illiteracy of public school graduates is a scandal. Although public schools cannot constitutionally advocate the truth of any one of these views, students should be aware of all of these perspectives — both theist and atheist."

And he is saying that this isn't teaching religion? Wow. I think most people study those things in private, as they should.

And I didn't know that evolution had anything to do with atheism either.

harold said: Toidel Mahoney - I'll allow myself the cheap luxury of pretending that you're serious and ripping your post apart.

So, there are no weaknesses in evolutionism–my arse!

There is no such thing as "evolutionism". If you have a serious weakness in the theory of evolution to discuss, please proceed.

When Darwin wrote his book it was as though Satan, Beelzebub, and all of the hosts of Hell opened their bowels and covered all of Europe in two meters of excrement that they have been shoveling all over the world ever since. It turned God’s continent into Satan’s stronghold.

First of all, Satan and Beelzebub are the same guy (fictional guy, in my opinion). Your lack of basic knowledge about the Devil (also the same guy; also known as Lucifer, the Evil One, etc) discredits you as a commenter on matters related to Satan. Second of all, this is a purely subjective opinion, even when we overlook the basic error. A fair number of competent scientists and scientifically literate people actually do believe in Satan, but even to those who hold this belief (which is outside the realm of anything science can deal with), there is no way to document what Satan thinks of any particular scientific theory. Nor, even if Satan existed and "believed" in, say, the theory of relativity, would this argue against the theory.

The religion of evolution is ripe with contradictions. First, they claim natural selection is the reward for reproductive fitness

Natural selection isn't a "reward"; it's just something that happens.

which means making babies is the highest moral imperative,

Non sequitur. The theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with moral imperatives. We have to look elsewhere for moral imperatives. This is actually true of all scientific theories, even theories that may be related to explaining how moral ideas could have developed in the human brain.

but the most sacred beliefs of evolutionists promote the opposite. Abortion/Birth Control–fewer children Sodomy–fewer children Feminism/Womens’ careers–fewer children

The pope and his Vatican science adviser (a highly competent scientist) accept the theory of evolution, but oppose all of these things. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether these things are "right" or "wrong". Someone who's long term goal is to promote the sustainable survival of as many human babies as possible could support these things, and in fact that's seen above. Personally, I agree with the pope on a vast number of social issues, but I disagree with him on all of these issues. The theory of evolution, which we both accept, is irrelevant to this.

How do evolutionists sing Hosannas to natural selection one minute and believe in all of those things the next?

Again, natural selection is just something that happens.

What a bunch or morons!

I've noticed that when my intelligence is insulted by a stupid person, it's usually because I'm doing or saying something intelligent that intimidates them. I do plenty of stupid things, but oddly, almost never get insulted for those.

And he is saying that this isn’t teaching religion? Wow.

And I didn’t know that evolution had anything to do with atheism either.

stevaroni said: Oddly, you never, ever find any actual facts demonstrating their side.

Toidel Mahoney said: So, there are no weaknesses in evolutionism--my arse! When Darwin wrote his book it was as though Satan, Beelzebub, and all of the hosts of Hell opened their bowels and covered all of Europe in two meters of excrement that they have been shoveling all over the world ever since. It turned God's continent into Satan's stronghold. The religion of evolution is ripe with contradictions. First, they claim natural selection is the reward for reproductive fitness which means making babies is the highest moral imperative, but the most sacred beliefs of evolutionists promote the opposite. Abortion/Birth Control--fewer children Sodomy--fewer children Feminism/Womens' careers--fewer children How do evolutionists sing Hosannas to natural selection one minute and believe in all of those things the next? What a bunch or morons!

Lissa sez... Right Harold, many scientists believe in Satan and the Pope Believes in Evolution.

"From the perspective of Christian theology, biological evolution and creation are by no means mutually exclusive. We can, if we consider the term evolution more broadly without any reference to any one specific evolutionary mechanism, that evolution is ultimately God’s tool of creation..." Fr Marc Leclerc S.J., professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University and director of the conference

Now, they’re reduced to “teach evolution, but included some exaggerated, unreasonable ‘criticisms’, while not treating the rest of the science curriculum this way”. This is very likely to fail. But of course, exponential decay never falls to zero. My guess is that it will ultimately be a steady state, in which every few years some zealot tries to introduce some dishonest but trivial “criticism of evolution”, and is shot down after a lot of expense and trouble.

— harold

Toidel Mahoney said: I notice how nobody even tried to respond to the points in my post. It's amazing how incapable evolutionists are of defending their fetid faith!

Dan said:

Toidel Mahoney said: I notice how nobody even tried to respond to the points in my post. It's amazing how incapable evolutionists are of defending their fetid faith!

Evolution is not a faith.

stevaroni said:

Harold responds to Toidel.... There is no such thing as “evolutionism”. If you have a serious weakness in the theory of evolution to discuss, please proceed.

I'll do Harold one better. Pretend the Theory of Evolution does not exist. Put some evidence on the table for your preferred explanation. Let's have your version of where all the dead dinosaurs come from, and how all those weird half human/half chimp creatures come to be buried in the ancient sediments of Africa?

stevaroni said: (snip) but back in March, the Pontifical Council for Culture sponsored a conference in Vatican City, titled "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A critical appraisal 150 years after ‘The origin of species'" as part of their ongoing STOQ project (Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest).

First, he begins by complaining about my referring to him as a creationist. The reason for this is that “The term creationist in this debate refers to young earth creationism,” so that when I call him a creationist, I’m misrepresenting him. This is nonsense. There’s no reason that “creationism” necessarily refers to a person who believes that the earth is about 10,000 years old. Such people are one variety of creationist, but they are hardly the only variety. Dr. Egnor is a creationist also, as he believes that species did not evolve through a process of natural selection but were “created” by a “Creator.” He is a creationist who thinks the earth is a bit older; that’s all.

lissa said:

stevaroni said:

Harold responds to Toidel.... (snip) Let's have your version of where all the dead dinosaurs come from, and how all those weird half human/half chimp creatures come to be buried in the ancient sediments of Africa?

http://17.1911encyclopedia.org/Emanation

Flint said:

And he is saying that this isn’t teaching religion? Wow.

There's nothing wrong with, and a great deal to be said in favor of, teaching religion. Religion is pretty much ubiquitous across all human societies, at any time and anywhere. What's wrong is teaching that SOME particular religion is True, and has the One True Insight on the human condition.

And I didn’t know that evolution had anything to do with atheism either.

Probably a problem with definitions here. Science (of which evolution is just one) seeks natural explanations for all natural phenomena. It rules out gods NOT because of any philosophical conviction that there are none, but because the scientific method cannot address gods, so they are not involved. But many deeply devout people are so married to their gods that it's impossible for them to conceive of any human endeavor that does not include them. From this perspective, you either intimately involve your gods and attribute everything to them, or you necessarily deny the gods. There is no neutral, no indifference, no middle ground. Neutrality is atheism in this view.

fnxtr said:

lissa said:

stevaroni said:

Harold responds to Toidel.... (snip) Let's have your version of where all the dead dinosaurs come from, and how all those weird half human/half chimp creatures come to be buried in the ancient sediments of Africa?

http://17.1911encyclopedia.org/Emanation

(forehead planted in palm) What? Emanation made the fossils? Your logic needs a shave, Lissa.

stevaroni said: the Pontifical Council for Culture sponsored a conference in Vatican City, titled "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A critical appraisal 150 years after ‘The origin of species'"

Was that the one the DI wasn't invited to?

stevaroni said:

stevaroni said: the Pontifical Council for Culture sponsored a conference in Vatican City, titled "Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A critical appraisal 150 years after ‘The origin of species'"

Was that the one the DI wasn't invited to?

Yeah, but IIRC they were equal-opportunity dis-inviters, there were a bunch of noted biologists who were told that their presence wasn't necessary either. As I understand it, it was more an opportunity to dig into the theological implications of why God needs/wants/uses a mechanism like evolution than it was to argue whether evolution actually occurs (which, as far as the Vatican is concerned, is pretty much accepted as established fact)

In the meantime ~75% of the public still thinks that it’s fair to teach some kind of anti-evolution pseudoscience as science, so with every win in court we are perceived more as “bullies.”

Lissa -

I'm not sure whether you and I agree or disagree.

I have no opinion on the existence of higher planes.

The theory of evolution explains the diversity of physical life here on earth. I believe that high school biology should include some exposure to the theory of evolution.

Of interest, I did not study evolution in high school. I had a very disrupted high school education, and had almost no high school biology.

I was a biology major in college because I loved Intro Biology so much. However, even then, I switched majors a couple of times.

I took biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, neurobiology, and population genetics before I even had my formal course on evolution. So by the time I got to the formal course, I had already been extensively exposed to evolution. Because it's a central concept that emerges from all of those fields.

I found learning about evolution to be extremely satisfying. For someone who is interested in life, it is an incredibly enlightening insight into why things are the way they are. It certainly doesn't diminish the pleasure that people take in learning about the world around them.

harold said: Frank J - I believe that you are too pessimistic here -

In the meantime ~75% of the public still thinks that it’s fair to teach some kind of anti-evolution pseudoscience as science, so with every win in court we are perceived more as “bullies.”

This conclusion is based on biased poll results. Frank, of course, if I dishonestly frame a question to imply that many respectable scientists "question" evolution (or the theory of relativity, or anything else), the average person is going to be heavily biased in favor of "teaching the controversy". As they probably should be if there really is a controversy. Which of course there actually isn't. If I dishonestly frame a question to make "accept evolution" seem to imply "outright contradiction of religious beliefs", the average person is going to be made very uncomfortable. But when they see what's really going on, see that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with religion, see what a pile of crap creationism and ID are, and see the naked authoritarian motivations of those who deny evolution, they are inclined to OPPOSE the crap and support science. I have STRONG evidence for this. In Kansas and in Dover, the creationists were VOTED OUT as well as defeated in court. Read that carefully. I didn't say that in Marin County and the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the creationists were voted out. I said they were voted out in the very rural areas where they falsely assumed that they could win. I don't know what's going to happen in Texas, but based on those results, I predict that McElroy does not have a secure future as a public servant. Notice how I offer a prediction that will support my hypothesis. (Caveat - Texas is a VERY weird, split personality place, simultaneously one of the most regressive states and also frequently an enlightened place and home to some of the best universities in the country. I'll still stand by my prediction, though.)

I have STRONG evidence for this. In Kansas and in Dover, the creationists were VOTED OUT as well as defeated in court. Read that carefully. I didn’t say that in Marin County and the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the creationists were voted out. I said they were voted out in the very rural areas where they falsely assumed that they could win.

— harold

Frank J said:

Also, since I saw something about "teach religion in religious schools" I have to mention another of my "usuals," which is that teaching anti-evolution pseudoscience in religious schools is just as morally wrong as teaching it in public schools. Even more so if those schools preach "thou shalt not bear false witness."

— harold

Yeah, In some states they still have to teach evolution, because they still have to go by the State's Education Standards. They don't necessarily have to believe what they are teaching, but they have to teach it. I didn't suggest they teach anti-evolution, just that the religion should stay in the private schools we already have.

lissa said:

harold said: Frank J - I believe that you are too pessimistic here -

In the meantime ~75% of the public still thinks that it’s fair to teach some kind of anti-evolution pseudoscience as science, so with every win in court we are perceived more as “bullies.”

This conclusion is based on biased poll results. Frank, of course, if I dishonestly frame a question to imply that many respectable scientists "question" evolution (or the theory of relativity, or anything else), the average person is going to be heavily biased in favor of "teaching the controversy". As they probably should be if there really is a controversy. Which of course there actually isn't. If I dishonestly frame a question to make "accept evolution" seem to imply "outright contradiction of religious beliefs", the average person is going to be made very uncomfortable. But when they see what's really going on, see that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with religion, see what a pile of crap creationism and ID are, and see the naked authoritarian motivations of those who deny evolution, they are inclined to OPPOSE the crap and support science. I have STRONG evidence for this. In Kansas and in Dover, the creationists were VOTED OUT as well as defeated in court. Read that carefully. I didn't say that in Marin County and the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the creationists were voted out. I said they were voted out in the very rural areas where they falsely assumed that they could win. I don't know what's going to happen in Texas, but based on those results, I predict that McElroy does not have a secure future as a public servant. Notice how I offer a prediction that will support my hypothesis. (Caveat - Texas is a VERY weird, split personality place, simultaneously one of the most regressive states and also frequently an enlightened place and home to some of the best universities in the country. I'll still stand by my prediction, though.)

Yeah, that's basically all you can do is Vote someone out of office if you don't like them. I think in terms of teaching it on any level you HAVE to use science to explain it. I believe all things are NATURAL occurances that can be explained with science with enough testing and such. But I also believe that there's a lot we don't yet know about how things work. Some believe you can't even prove that the material world even exists, simply because what we perceive is a result of nerve impulses. It's interesting that the same chemicals that are present in an insect to let it fly are also present to make a human's heart beat. None of this disproves a "God" behind the mechanism in my opinion. Although I don't perceive "God" as the bible depicts "God" in a literal sense.

harold said: Lissa - I'm not sure whether you and I agree or disagree. I have no opinion on the existence of higher planes. The theory of evolution explains the diversity of physical life here on earth. I believe that high school biology should include some exposure to the theory of evolution. Of interest, I did not study evolution in high school. I had a very disrupted high school education, and had almost no high school biology. I was a biology major in college because I loved Intro Biology so much. However, even then, I switched majors a couple of times. I took biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, neurobiology, and population genetics before I even had my formal course on evolution. So by the time I got to the formal course, I had already been extensively exposed to evolution. Because it's a central concept that emerges from all of those fields. I found learning about evolution to be extremely satisfying. For someone who is interested in life, it is an incredibly enlightening insight into why things are the way they are. It certainly doesn't diminish the pleasure that people take in learning about the world around them.

John Kwok -

Thanks for the kind words.

I know we sometimes have disagreements about economic policy and US political parties.

I'm actually a strong supporter of everyone's right to hold and express their own political beliefs, although my nerves can be a bit more raw than they were before GWB was elected.

However, it is good that we are able to fully agree on objective scientific topics. To some degree, that's what science is all about.

John:
I haven't figured out how to use the quoting properly but in response to this:

lissa,

Any discussion of "GOD" really belongs more in a discussion of metaphysics or theology than science. It is because he has conflated his personal belief in a Roman Catholic Christian version of "GOD" and have tried to reconcile it with his acceptance of what is valid science that, regrettably, Ken Miller has been accused by some of being a "creationist":

If we are talking about the "pope" then yes, I wasn't referring to the pope or the catholic church, I know what the Catholic Church does. But I was speaking of my own beliefs about it.
Einstein himself, it turns out, was a pantheist. In his own words:

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestation of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man.

Moreover, Einstein strongly resented having his religious convictions misrepresented:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Clearly, Einstein's "God" is not at all like the God that most people think of when they hear the word. Neither is the "God" of the famous cosmologist and mathematician, Stephen Hawking, whose talk of "the mind of God" has given comfort to many religious believers. Hawking also is a pantheist. When asked by CNN's Larry King whether he believed in God, Hawking answered:

Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.

We began by asking "Did Einstein believe in God?" The answer, as Hawking pointed out, depends on what you mean by "God". In one sense (the Pantheist sense), Einstein did believe in God. But in another sense he didn't. Indeed, except for his deciding to use the term "God" in a way that is unfamiliar to most people, his views are indistinguishable from those of someone who is an unabashed atheist.

And here's an interesting article about evolution.

http://www.bigear.org/vol1no2/life.htm

lissa said: John: I haven't figured out how to use the quoting properly but in response to this:

lissa said: Clearly, Einstein's "God" is not at all like the God that most people think of when they hear the word.

The CIA Factbook said: Christians 33.32%, Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)

Just THINK at it real hard, and for reasons we're not inclined to examine, it should quote just fine!

Dan said:

lissa said: John: I haven't figured out how to use the quoting properly but in response to this:

Gee. Lissa has previously claimed that there were no limits to her perception. Now she admits to not perceiving how to work the quote function.

Flint said: Just THINK at it real hard, and for reasons we're not inclined to examine, it should quote just fine!

Dan said:

lissa said: Clearly, Einstein's "God" is not at all like the God that most people think of when they hear the word.

I know quite precisely what Einstein meant when he said "God", because Einstein described it very clearly. On the other hand, I don't know what "most people" think when they hear the word "God". In fact, I don't even know most people! I do have solid evidence that 66% of people aren't Christian:

The CIA Factbook said: Christians 33.32%, Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)

And I most certainly do not know what lissa means when she says the word "God".

The words "energy at different vibrations" are ripe nonsense, going back to Madame Blavatsky or before. One might as well say "colours at different wattage" or "aardvarks at different seizure" or better still "splondiforms at different charuncular". It doesn't mean anything.

lissa is not referring to the electromagnetic spectrum. She is trying to say that she knows something we don't. She has no evidence for this - other than what goes on inside her head, whatever that might be - and she has no actual description of what it is, or what it does. A few vague handwaves, a series of words meant to obscure rather than enlighten, and that's it. That, and the carefully-nurtured self-delusion that she is wiser than those who actually look for objective evidence for assertions, and are not content with mystery and inscrutable pronouncements.

It's truly sad to see foolish superstition like lissa's, still scuttling about under the floorboards of the Enlightenment. I suppose we have to live with some cockroaches, as the price of civilisation. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be stamped on when found, though.

Dave Luckett said: The words "energy at different vibrations" are ripe nonsense, going back to Madame Blavatsky or before. One might as well say "colours at different wattage" or "aardvarks at different seizure" or better still "splondiforms at different charuncular". It doesn't mean anything. lissa is not referring to the electromagnetic spectrum. She is trying to say that she knows something we don't. She has no evidence for this - other than what goes on inside her head, whatever that might be - and she has no actual description of what it is, or what it does. A few vague handwaves, a series of words meant to obscure rather than enlighten, and that's it. That, and the carefully-nurtured self-delusion that she is wiser than those who actually look for objective evidence for assertions, and are not content with mystery and inscrutable pronouncements. It's truly sad to see foolish superstition like lissa's, still scuttling about under the floorboards of the Enlightenment. I suppose we have to live with some cockroaches, as the price of civilisation. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be stamped on when found, though.

Dave Luckett said: The words "energy at different vibrations" are ripe nonsense, going back to Madame Blavatsky or before. One might as well say "colours at different wattage" or "aardvarks at different seizure" or better still "splondiforms at different charuncular". It doesn't mean anything. lissa is not referring to the electromagnetic spectrum. She is trying to say that she knows something we don't. She has no evidence for this - other than what goes on inside her head, whatever that might be - and she has no actual description of what it is, or what it does. A few vague handwaves, a series of words meant to obscure rather than enlighten, and that's it. That, and the carefully-nurtured self-delusion that she is wiser than those who actually look for objective evidence for assertions, and are not content with mystery and inscrutable pronouncements. It's truly sad to see foolish superstition like lissa's, still scuttling about under the floorboards of the Enlightenment. I suppose we have to live with some cockroaches, as the price of civilisation. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be stamped on when found, though.

Dan said:

lissa said: John: I haven't figured out how to use the quoting properly but in response to this:

Gee. Lissa has previously claimed that there were no limits to her perception. Now she admits to not perceiving how to work the quote function.

lissa said: Lissa is a pantheist. And Lissa Thinks 'God' and 'Satan' for that matter are just energies at different vibrations than our own that we don't normally see because we are vibrating at a different rate. I don't necessarily believe that we can't vibrate at the same rate, just that most people don't, especially people who would prefer to be prejudice than to consider possibilities.

Dave Luckett said: The words "energy at different vibrations" are ripe nonsense, going back to Madame Blavatsky or before. One might as well say "colours at different wattage" or "aardvarks at different seizure" or better still "splondiforms at different charuncular". It doesn't mean anything. lissa is not referring to the electromagnetic spectrum. She is trying to say that she knows something we don't. She has no evidence for this - other than what goes on inside her head, whatever that might be - and she has no actual description of what it is, or what it does. A few vague handwaves, a series of words meant to obscure rather than enlighten, and that's it. That, and the carefully-nurtured self-delusion that she is wiser than those who actually look for objective evidence for assertions, and are not content with mystery and inscrutable pronouncements. It's truly sad to see foolish superstition like lissa's, still scuttling about under the floorboards of the Enlightenment. I suppose we have to live with some cockroaches, as the price of civilisation. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be stamped on when found, though.

lissa said: I'm not trying to say I know something you don't. I'm saying what I perceive may not be the same thing as you perceive. And I didn't say it was any different than saying: One might as well say "colours at different wattage" or "aardvarks at different seizure" or better still "splondiforms at different charuncular". It doesn't mean anything. either, and I certainly didn't say I think I'm wiser than the rest of you. Maybe less prejudice, and less inclined to presume that everything there is to be known is already known because Darwin made everything so perfectly clear by studying it all within a narrow field.

Lissa, your claims are plainly self-contradictory. Specifically, you are claiming to know of the existence and nature of God or Satan. I claim no knowledge of these things. Therefore, you are claiming to know what I do not.

Further, you claim to presume less than I, but you actually presume a great deal more. You presume the existence of things for which you have no evidence. You further presume that I think that everything is known, when I think nothing of the sort. "Energies of different vibration" is, of itself, an assembly of words without definition, without objective reality, without context or specific content. Not only is there no evidence for such things, but the very words are devoid of meaning, being so lacking in actual semantic content as to convey nothing whatsoever. Yet you advance these meaningless expressions as if they were knowledge. This is nothing but presumption and pretence.

You claim to be less prejudiced, but it is you, not I, who has drawn conclusions without objective evidence. For all I know, there may be a God, gods, demons, and the supernatural. But I am not going to proceed on that basis without evidence. You, on the other hand, are doing that very thing. You are acting without objective evidence which is the very definition of prejudice. And that you are willing to do this is an expression, not of open-mindedness, but of ignorance, simple credulity and willing superstition.

As I said, it's a shame to see such things in this day and age.

lissa said: Why is it nonsense? Because you say it's nonsense? It dates back at least 5000 years, probably MUCH farther than that though, probably ever since people started being what you call "supersticious" I'm not the least bit supersticious about it. I just have an opinion about it. It's not like I'm AFRAID of demons (if they exist, which YOU don't know whether they do or not, you just presume they don't)

lissa said:

Dan said:

lissa said: John: I haven't figured out how to use the quoting properly but in response to this:

Gee. Lissa has previously claimed that there were no limits to her perception. Now she admits to not perceiving how to work the quote function.

I could perceive it dan. I'm just to tired to try it.

lissa said: I certainly didn't say I think I'm wiser than the rest of you. Maybe less prejudice, and less inclined to presume that everything there is to be known is already known because Darwin made everything so perfectly clear by studying it all within a narrow field.

Dan said:

lissa said: I certainly didn't say I think I'm wiser than the rest of you. Maybe less prejudice, and less inclined to presume that everything there is to be known is already known because Darwin made everything so perfectly clear by studying it all within a narrow field.

No one here has ever suggested "that everything there is to be known is already known". This would mean unemployment for all scientists.

"Or he (Dave Luckett) at least thinks that Everything that is known about whether or not there is a Deity behind the whole thing is known." (sic)

I have no idea what this means, but can only remark that that sentence is far more expressive of Lissa's state of mind than it is descriptive of mine. I believe, as Wayne Francis said, that it is approaching the "word-salad" stage of incoherence, and as such is symptomatic of greater ills than mere confusion. Clearly, there is no point in further discussion.

lissa said: Why is it nonsense? Because you say it's nonsense? It dates back at least 5000 years, probably MUCH farther than that though,

Why is it nonsense?

Because you say it’s nonsense?

It dates back at least 5000 years

Wayne Francis said:

lissa said: I'm not trying to say I know something you don't. I'm saying what I perceive may not be the same thing as you perceive. And I didn't say it was any different than saying: One might as well say "colours at different wattage" or "aardvarks at different seizure" or better still "splondiforms at different charuncular". It doesn't mean anything. either, and I certainly didn't say I think I'm wiser than the rest of you. Maybe less prejudice, and less inclined to presume that everything there is to be known is already known because Darwin made everything so perfectly clear by studying it all within a narrow field.

Forgetting your own reality of grammar the statement in bold speaks volumes. Your word salad doesn't mean anything. It doesn't make sense. It, like the words most people that try to promote pseudoscience say, is nothing more then a bunch of impressive sounding words pushed together to confuse and impress the stupid and ignorant. No one here claims to that "everything there is to be known is already known". In fact we fully admit what we don't know. What we don't do, that you do, is lie about what we do know to sound like we are "spiritually enlightened"

eric said:

lissa said: Why is it nonsense? Because you say it's nonsense? It dates back at least 5000 years, probably MUCH farther than that though,

It is nonsense precisely because it is a 5000 year old concept and in alllll that time no one has been able to replicate or confirm this human detection independently via machine. You don't have any vibratometer, just like there's no Chiometer or Evilometer. Therefore it is much more likely that you are perceiving something that has no outside existence. I'm not saying "doesn't exist," I'm saying it exists the same way that the colored spots or lines you see when you close your eyes real tightly exist - as a product, and solely a product, of your own nervous system and brain.

stevaroni said:

Why is it nonsense?

Um, it's nonsense because none of the terms actually means anything. What energy? Are we talking heat? Light? Energy stored as chemical or gravitational potential? Compressed air? Compressed aether? What kind of energy are you talking about? How does it manifest itself? How do I measure it? How can I tell it exists? Given two boxes, one of which contains this energy and one of which doesn't, how could I go about telling the difference? Maybe it's something completely unknown. If so, how do I demonstrate it? Surely, if it can be noticed to exist, there's some way of measuring it. Likewise with "at various frequencies". Near as I can tell, only one type of "energy", electromagnetic radiation, has frequency as an inane property. Frequency is a physical property, and therefore is measurable. It's even detectable without instruments because our bodies respond to different frequencies of EM radiation in different ways, depending on the detector (the sensation of warmth on your skin for far-IR, the colors of the spectrum for visible light, ringing in your ears for microwaves, etc). Nonetheless, we have mapped the entire EM band, from 0 up to the gigahertz range. There's lots of stuff there, but it's nothing we haven't seen at least once. I can think of some other borderline cases, where you could conceivably claim that energy has "frequency", like energy shuttling back and forth between momentum and gravitational potential in a pendulum, but let's face it, that's measurable and demonstrable.

Because you say it’s nonsense?

No, I think it's nonsense because it's a word salad that means nothing if you can't define the terms, or, at the very least, demonstrate that there's some phenomena happening for which there currently are no terms and this is the best description you have at the moment.

It dates back at least 5000 years

So do the Gods that pull the sun across the sky every morning. Just because an idea is old doesn't magically make it wise. Go to a Renaissance Faire someday, you'll see what I mean.

Dave Luckett said: "Or he (Dave Luckett) at least thinks that Everything that is known about whether or not there is a Deity behind the whole thing is known." (sic) I have no idea what this means, but can only remark that that sentence is far more expressive of Lissa's state of mind than it is descriptive of mine. I believe, as Wayne Francis said, that it is approaching the "word-salad" stage of incoherence, and as such is symptomatic of greater ills than mere confusion. Clearly, there is no point in further discussion.

Wayne Francis said:

lissa said: Why is it nonsense? Because you say it's nonsense? It dates back at least 5000 years, probably MUCH farther than that though, probably ever since people started being what you call "supersticious" I'm not the least bit supersticious about it. I just have an opinion about it. It's not like I'm AFRAID of demons (if they exist, which YOU don't know whether they do or not, you just presume they don't)

I don't know if invisible pink winged unicorns exist either. I wouldn't suggest that listening to someone rant on about them is a good use of their time either. I have an opinion about demons. I have an opinion that their existence is only in the minds of those that believe in them because, to date, there is no real proof that they do exist anywhere but in the minds of people. I say your closed minded because you won't accept my reality. The thing I have on my side is that more people have my perception of reality when it comes to most things. Just because something was believed 5000 years ago by nomadic sheep herders doesn't mean that those of us today should believe in it especially when we have other explanations that can and have been tested and shown to be the most probable answer given our current knowledge. This is where you say our "current knowledge" could be wrong thinking it supports your ideas. Well it doesn't. While our "current knowledge" may be wrong it is better at making predictions about future events then your idea. This is where science is better then your pseudoscience. Science makes testable predictions. You make unsupported claim that no one can verify.

@ Dan:
In 1961, Allen Frey, a freelance biophysicist and engineering psychologist, reported that humans
could hear microwaves. Most United States scientists dismissed this discovery as the result of
outside noise.
James C. Linn offered a more technical description of the experiment.
"Frey found that human subjects exposed to 1310 MHz and 2982 MHz
microwaves at average power densities of 0.4 to 2 mW/cm2 perceived auditory
sensations described as buzzing or knocking sounds. The sensation occurred
instantaneously at average incident power densities well below that necessary for
known biological damage and appeared to originate from within or near the back
of the head."

http://www.earthpulse.com/epulseuploads/articles/SynTelepathy.pdf
LOL

Lissa sez... @ Dan: In 1961, Allen Frey, a freelance biophysicist and engineering psychologist, reported that humans could hear microwaves.

the sensation of warmth on your skin for far-IR, the colors of the spectrum for visible light, ringing in your ears for microwaves,...

stevaroni said:

Lissa sez... @ Dan: In 1961, Allen Frey, a freelance biophysicist and engineering psychologist, reported that humans could hear microwaves.

Um, yeah. We've already established that, in comment 183340 I said...

the sensation of warmth on your skin for far-IR, the colors of the spectrum for visible light, ringing in your ears for microwaves,...

Or perhaps I miss your point...

Ah. Hence the tinfoil hats. I see. Thanks, Lissa, I thought those people were just crazy, glad you cleared that up for me.

btw have you seen all the MI-5 spam on the newsgroups? Maybe they really are out to get him!

fnxtr said: btw have you seen all the MI-5 spam on the newsgroups? Maybe they really are out to get him!

fnxtr said: Ah. Hence the tinfoil hats. I see. Thanks, Lissa, I thought those people were just crazy, glad you cleared that up for me.

stop, we checked her story, it’s all true

of course that wasn't comforting when I felt like cats were scratching me, and I felt like needles were being stuck in me.

(I know it was probably all just nerves, but oddly before I got to the point of the needle feeling making me paranoid, it felt like I was being doped and had a calming effect.)

Can someone please explain to me exactly and specifically how first talking about magical, fossil-making emanations, then segueing into lissa's problems with the government and the voices in her head directly concerns Michael Egnor accusing Timothy Sandefur of being "alliberal"?

If this does not directly concerns Michael Egnor accusing Timothy Sandefur of being "alliberal," would it be possible if Mr Sandefur could kill this derailed thread? I mean, every time she comes onto a thread, she always steers the conversation towards moronic New Age psychobabble, then uses that as a springboard into another one of her anti-government/doctor/medication rants.

Stanton said: Can someone please explain to me exactly and specifically how first talking about magical, fossil-making emanations, then segueing into lissa's problems with the government and the voices in her head directly concerns Michael Egnor accusing Timothy Sandefur of being "alliberal"? If this does not directly concerns Michael Egnor accusing Timothy Sandefur of being "alliberal," would it be possible if Mr Sandefur could kill this derailed thread? I mean, every time she comes onto a thread, she always steers the conversation towards moronic New Age psychobabble, then uses that as a springboard into another one of her anti-government/doctor/medication rants.

It hasn't anything to do with MY problems with the government, if you read it in the proper context.

It's not got a thing to do with ME, but the implications of the technology PERIOD, END OF STORY.

lissa said: Lissa is a pantheist. And Lissa Thinks 'God' and 'Satan' for that matter are just energies at different vibrations than our own that we don't normally see because we are vibrating at a different rate.

Stanton said: Can someone please explain to me exactly and specifically how first talking about magical, fossil-making emanations, then segueing into lissa's problems with the government and the voices in her head directly concerns Michael Egnor accusing Timothy Sandefur of being "alliberal"? If this does not directly concerns Michael Egnor accusing Timothy Sandefur of being "alliberal," would it be possible if Mr Sandefur could kill this derailed thread? I mean, every time she comes onto a thread, she always steers the conversation towards moronic New Age psychobabble, then uses that as a springboard into another one of her anti-government/doctor/medication rants.

lissa said: The only way it directly relates to any of it is people continually calling me a LIAR. And frankly I'm getting tired of it.

lissa said: Also nobody HAS BEEN talking "New Age Psychobabble" except in you people's minds. I clearly stated that I have been talking about something entirely different than that. If you don't read what I give you to read and want to call it what was never said, that makes all of you liars, not me.

Wayne Francis said:

lissa said: Lissa is a pantheist. And Lissa Thinks 'God' and 'Satan' for that matter are just energies at different vibrations than our own that we don't normally see because we are vibrating at a different rate. I don't necessarily believe that we can't vibrate at the same rate, just that most people don't, especially people who would prefer to be prejudice than to consider possibilities.

Umm I think your definition of "pantheist" is different from the rest of us. You seem to be more of some type of Neale Walsch/New Age, Abrahamic believer by my view. I'm not going to get in a discussion of your "vibrations" just as I don't get in discussions with people that believe in "pyramid power" or "therapeutic touch" because they, like you, ignore the evidence. Don't get me wrong if people find comfort in these things more power to them to do them. Placebos are a great thing. I would not recommend someone with a broken arm to get it healed by "therapeutic touch" or by putting it inside a wire framed pyramid unless they want the broken arm to set in an awkward position. When it comes to Hawking's or Einstein's religious view I hope you are not trying to imply that they believed in any type of metaphysical or personal "God".

lissa said: (nature intelligence) can be seen in migration habits of animals as well.

Also Wayne. There is always a possibility that my "American Indian" genes carry something in them that has caused me to have visions spontaneously.

I can't say for sure. But oddly on a certain day which Buddhists happen to meditate on, I had a weird experience. And things just started getting weirder and weirder after that.

I had never even heard of the festival though.

Stanton said:

lissa said: (nature intelligence) can be seen in migration habits of animals as well.

So explain to us why nature is so intelligent if so many migratory animals are now threatened and or critically endangered because the habitats they migrate to and from have been severely damaged and or destroyed due to human intervention and interference, and please explain how it ties in with Michael Egnor accusing Timothy Sandefur of being "illiberal."

lissa said:

Stanton said:

lissa said: (nature intelligence) can be seen in migration habits of animals as well.

So explain to us why nature is so intelligent if so many migratory animals are now threatened and or critically endangered because the habitats they migrate to and from have been severely damaged and or destroyed due to human intervention and interference, and please explain how it ties in with Michael Egnor accusing Timothy Sandefur of being "illiberal."

I said "nature" was intelligent, I didn't say politicians are intelligent (actually they might be more intelligent than you think). They are in fact greedy beings. It ties in because they are trying to distort things and lie to kids.

Dan said:

lissa said: Lissa is a pantheist. And Lissa Thinks 'God' and 'Satan' for that matter are just energies at different vibrations than our own that we don't normally see because we are vibrating at a different rate.

Lissa ... do you really think that God is measured in units of kilogram meter²/second²? Because those are the units of energy.

Stanton said:

lissa said:

Stanton said:

lissa said: (nature intelligence) can be seen in migration habits of animals as well.

So explain to us why nature is so intelligent if so many migratory animals are now threatened and or critically endangered because the habitats they migrate to and from have been severely damaged and or destroyed due to human intervention and interference, and please explain how it ties in with Michael Egnor accusing Timothy Sandefur of being "illiberal."

I said "nature" was intelligent, I didn't say politicians are intelligent (actually they might be more intelligent than you think). They are in fact greedy beings. It ties in because they are trying to distort things and lie to kids.

I was asking how nature was intelligent, lissa, not politicians. And yet, you constantly accuse us of distorting what you say. Or, please explain how politicians lying to children demonstrates "nature intelligence," and please explain how it ties in with the topic of this thread.

lissa said:

Wayne Francis said:

lissa said: I'm not trying to say I know something you don't. I'm saying what I perceive may not be the same thing as you perceive. And I didn't say it was any different than saying: One might as well say "colours at different wattage" or "aardvarks at different seizure" or better still "splondiforms at different charuncular". It doesn't mean anything. either, and I certainly didn't say I think I'm wiser than the rest of you. Maybe less prejudice, and less inclined to presume that everything there is to be known is already known because Darwin made everything so perfectly clear by studying it all within a narrow field.

Forgetting your own reality of grammar the statement in bold speaks volumes. Your word salad doesn't mean anything. It doesn't make sense. It, like the words most people that try to promote pseudoscience say, is nothing more then a bunch of impressive sounding words pushed together to confuse and impress the stupid and ignorant. No one here claims to that "everything there is to be known is already known". In fact we fully admit what we don't know. What we don't do, that you do, is lie about what we do know to sound like we are "spiritually enlightened"

It isn't my intent to "lie about what I know, or to say that I am spiritually enlightened" That is just your perception of what I've been saying. I was asked what I meant when I said God, and I responded to the very question I was asked. I understand that it doesn't mean anything and is merely an effect with a cause. BTW people can control their own destiny to a degree, through making choices, they can also learn from their experiences in order to avoid future "mistakes" that people tend to repeat if they get into the habit of making a lot of "mistakes" which a lot of people do. Some things you can control. Other things you can't control. So what you need to do is focus only on what you can, and not worry too much about what you can't. (the thing you can't control MOST, is OTHER PEOPLE)

lissa said: I understand that it doesn't mean anything and is merely an effect with a cause.

lissa said: LOL. Maybe people do have an EVILOMETER. I know it’s a product of a person’s brain and nervous system. What is odd about it that the SAME things have been perceived by COUNTLESS people, even people who have never been exposed to a particular belief that they are perceiving, that’s what’s odd about it.

lissa said: All of your questions are good questions. And those are the precise questions that Science would use to discover more about it. It’s tested with biofeedback. Or if one were really, really interested in testing it, they could get a spell book and see if it works (I’m not that interested, but I’ve known others to do it and claim that it worked). I put a date on it to dispute that it started with the “Madame” and for that reason only.

lissa said: O.K. How is your perception of reality different than mine then? I never said they have been proven to exist other than in the minds of people (a LOT of people though) and I say YOU are closed-minded because YOU won’t accept MY perception of reality.

lissa said: P.S. If anyone had BOTHERED TO READ what I gave them (which seems unlikely considering the responses I’ve been getting) it says: To be precise, when we say that “X exists,” we mean that the presently available, cumulative statistical database for experiments studying X, provides strong, scientifically credible evidence for repeatable, anomalous, X-like effects. With this in mind, ESP exists, presentiment (physical changes in skin reactivity, pupil size, heart rate, and other factors indicating precognition before a stimulus is applied) exists, telepathy (direct mind-mind communication) exists, and mind-matter interaction (previously known as psychokinesis or PK) exists. The survival of bodily death remains unproven, though there is suggestive evidence for this from the reincarnation research performed by Ian Stevenson and others. (Note that we are using the terms ESP, telepathy and MMI in the technical sense, not in the popular sense.

lissa said: @ Dan: In 1961, Allen Frey, a freelance biophysicist and engineering psychologist, reported that humans could hear microwaves. Most United States scientists dismissed this discovery as the result of outside noise. James C. Linn offered a more technical description of the experiment. “Frey found that human subjects exposed to 1310 MHz and 2982 MHz microwaves at average power densities of 0.4 to 2 mW/cm2 perceived auditory sensations described as buzzing or knocking sounds. The sensation occurred instantaneously at average incident power densities well below that necessary for known biological damage and appeared to originate from within or near the back of the head.” http://www.earthpulse.com/epulseupl[…]elepathy.pdf LOL

lissa said: I asked Dan before how he knows I can’t feel the magnetic field, I was just joking of course, but basically was just implying that what a person perceives is a result of nerve impulses and as you said: . “Likewise with “at various frequencies”. Near as I can tell, only one type of “energy”, electromagnetic radiation, has frequency as an inane property”

lissa said: When someone begins having paranoid thoughts, (especially someone who has been complaining about certain politicians in a position of power) how do they KNOW that the Government isn’t doing something to interrupt their brain waves? They don’t

lissa said: Also nobody HAS BEEN talking “New Age Psychobabble” except in you people’s minds. I clearly stated that I have been talking about something entirely different than that. If you don’t read what I give you to read and want to call it what was never said, that makes all of you liars, not me.

lissa said: I know the definition of Pantheism. I am a Pantheist. I have said over and over again, I don’t believe in a “personal” god. I do believe that throughout nature intelligence is displayed that happens in cycles. And that the cycles are intergenerational. Some “memories” are clearly genetic. After a while they just become second nature, instinctual. That has been demonstrated by teaching a rat things and noticing that after several generations they don’t need any teaching, it comes natural to them. It can be seen in migration habits of animals as well.

lissa said: Also Wayne. There is always a possibility that my “American Indian” genes carry something in them that has caused me to have visions spontaneously.

lissa said: I can’t say for sure. But oddly on a certain day which Buddhists happen to meditate on, I had a weird experience. And things just started getting weirder and weirder after that. I had never even heard of the festival though.

O.K. then Wayne. YES I said there are spell books, and people have claimed that they work. YES, I said I have experienced Psychokinesis.

I DON'T CARE if you object to it, I'm simply stating FACTS. It is not necessary for you to call me a liar simply because YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME.

it's a special Buddhist HOLIDAY where they meditate at a specific TIME. (the same time that my "angels" (go ahead and attack me if it's improper for me to call them that, frankly I don't care what someone wants to call it or attack someone else for calling it something not to their taste)came and said something to me.

Also, it's mostly YOU and STANTON that are getting on me about it. Especially STANTON.

Dave doesn't bother me much, except I didn't like him insinuation I was supersticious, just because he didn't care for the terminology I used.

lissa said: Also, it's mostly YOU and STANTON that are getting on me about it. Especially STANTON. Dave doesn't bother me much, except I didn't like him insinuation I was supersticious, just because he didn't care for the terminology I used.

Stanton said:

lissa said: Also, it's mostly YOU and STANTON that are getting on me about it. Especially STANTON. Dave doesn't bother me much, except I didn't like him insinuation I was supersticious, just because he didn't care for the terminology I used.

You are the one who constantly posts off-topic and nonsensical comments in order to steer the conversation towards New Age psychobabble and eventually to your monologue ranting about the government/doctors/medication. I mean, you were warned before about this. That, and I thought you didn't care about defending your position. If you don't care about what other people say about your position, then why do you constantly get upset when we refuse to swallow your nonsense?

Did DAN say it's nonsense? No he just asked me if I really think god could be measured as energy.

Any pantheist would probably do so actually.

I wasn't RANTING about medications Stanton. I didn't even bring up MEDICATIONS in fact. I merely brought up SYMPTOMS.

Can't you tell the difference?

I guess not, or you wouldn't be saying I was ranting about anything, because I wasn't ranting except in your mind.

Dan: that marriage wasn't so bad, but the demon child we had was kind of like a monkey. and it jumped on me and bit me (because it needed blood I guess) and then it told me it hates milk. And as scary as that was, it made me laugh.

Also, I'd like to say that I wouldn't use a spellbook myself, because the paranormal effects it creates can actually lead to a mental illness, especially if someone is already genetically susceptible to a mental illness...

Paranormal issues are not really about God/Satan but the brain and how it perceives things. That doesn't mean that a person cannot bend an object. That effect has already been proven, though it's rare, it's just that the mechanism that causes it isn't fully understood.