Longest Thread Ever

[babe]

Pearls in the Book of Mormon

(this is a direct troll attempt to reel in Pearl Watson to actually post something in this thread)

So in all the bruhaha about the Book of Mormon and it's so-called anachronisms. . . . . There is now incontrovertible proof of the Book of Mormon.

In the ruins of the Hopewell Civilization of the heartland of the United States. . . . copper helmets and breastplates have been recovered. . . . which have pearls embedded in the surface. . . . dated by archaelogists to a few hundred years A.D., corresponding to the chronology of the Book of Mormon, which stated that people were becoming lifted up in pride, and loving their finery, including the pearls in their headgear. . . . .

I don't think there is any more concrete proof of the Bible in archaeological findings in the Holy Land. . . .

 

[babe]

I've been watching a documentary series on the Book of Mormon, put out by the FIRM organization, in support of Joseph Smith and the restoration of the Gospel and the Book of Mormon.

Not particularly mentioned in this documentary is the fact that people were digging in the Hopewell mounds before the Book of Mormon was written. . . . and in fact, were finding enough stuff in the mounds and in places where there must have been some super heavy-duty wars in antiquity. . . . to stir up some comments in that time about it all. . . .

 

[babe]

So, it could be argued, someone like Solomon Spaulding was basing his stories on the stuff underfoot in his Ohio home, where he was trying to survive as an iron-maker. And yes there were iron artifacts in some of the nearby mounds, lots of weapons in some places, lots of arrowheads, or spearheads. . . and rocks carved for busting heads. . . . body armor like helmets and breastplates as well. . . . enough to stir up the imagination of some settlers in the Ohio valley. . . .

 

[babe]

I like the information which has been gathered up in this set of DVDs. It proves something about stupid scientists claiming to know everything already: they don't.

 

[babe]

full-size horses were in America a thousand years ago. How do I know? I've been in a cave and seen the bones. . . . a cave that was not discovered until 1956, located only about a mile from a settlement site occupied by the white man in 1890. . . which was a settlement site of natives for oh, a thousand years and more before then. Nobody knew about this cave, because its entrance was only a small hole that needed some work to be opened up. . . .. the front side of the "cave" had caved in long ago, long enough ago that the fossils inside were dated to around four thousand years ago.

horse bones were also found in the Hopewell mounds, and in the Lebray tar pits. . . .

I wonder how long it will take for evolutionists and anti-Mormons to notice these facts.

 

[babe]

Not that horses prove anything, actually, about the Book of Mormon. Someone in 1805 in Ohio could have found some old horse bones in the mounds, and everything else mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and worked it into a "story". But it proves to me that people are justified in ignoring unfounded claims advanced to disprove Mormonism. And to prove evolution.

 

[babe]

It may be true that Europeans brought some horses here, and that they were not on the scene at that time, in those places. But I think there were some horses in some places. Well, when I see the wild mustangs running over the hills, I just want to think they were there hundreds of years ago, as well.

But there is a growing body of evidence of pre-columbian contacts between Europe and North America, and between Africa and Brazil, and of sea-faring cultures that existed around the Pacific Rim ten thousand to fifteen thousand years ago. . .. before the "Land Bridge" . . . .

 

[babe]

Enough that now, in order to retain "credibility", the "established authorities" of American pre-history have just got to jump ship with the old story line. The books are all wrong. Time to write some new ones.

 

[♪alt13]

Not that horses prove anything, actually, about the Book of Mormon. Someone in 1805 in Ohio could have found some old horse bones in the mounds, and everything else mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and worked it into a "story". But it proves to me that people are justified in ignoring unfounded claims advanced to disprove Mormonism. And to prove evolution.

Is this really even a debate anymore? The body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is impressive, and well beyond what any "elitists anti-religion conspirators" could possibly forge.

You can believe in any religion you want as far as I'm concerned, but please don't think that archaeologists, biologists, chemists, anthropologists, and geneticists are out to get you.

 

[babe]

Is this really even a debate anymore? The body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is impressive, and well beyond what any "elitists anti-religion conspirators" could possibly forge.

You can believe in any religion you want as far as I'm concerned, but please don't think that archaeologists, biologists, chemists, anthropologists, and geneticists are out to get you.

I wasn't asking for permission to hold my opinions, bro.

And yes, a lot of college-processed specialists have come out with stylized biases and beliefs based on the indoctrination they have accepted, and might feel called upon to dispute my thinking, and even do their best to diss it.

Folks like you who do not carefully evaluate the meaning of others. . . .

what I said is actually beyond any rational dispute, and no thinking person would dispute it, because it is a sort of tautology. Carefully consider the exact words, and focus on that "ignoring unfounded claims" part. And yes, there are devout folks who will proceed along the logical of path of disproving Mormonism while holding out "evolution" as better explanation of life.

I am guilty here of using the term "evolution" in the non-scientific sense of it's religious value for advocates of of a godless belief system. Let me be clear, in the realm of philosophy, there is a school of thought that vehemently holds forth that we, and all life, are mere accidents of meaninglessness. The proponents of this school also vehemently insist that they alone are competent to interpret existence and assign the proper meaning to everything. Wrapped in these priestly robes, they hope to manage the worldwide government, and cull the human herd of useless eaters who won't accept their assigned place in the world.

I laugh at these adherents of meaninglessness who want a world of top-down power. They deny the connectedness of all things, and seek to construct a new order based on their superior comprehension of what "should be done" to achieve a world compliant with their values. . . .

 

[♪alt13]

I wasn't asking for permission to hold my opinions, bro.

And yes, a lot of college-processed specialists have come out with stylized biases and beliefs based on the indoctrination they have accepted, and might feel called upon to dispute my thinking, and even do their best to diss it.

Folks like you who do not carefully evaluate the meaning of others. . . .

what I said is actually beyond any rational dispute, and no thinking person would dispute it, because it is a sort of tautology. Carefully consider the exact words, and focus on that "ignoring unfounded claims" part. And yes, there are devout folks who will proceed along the logical of path of disproving Mormonism while holding out "evolution" as better explanation of life.

I am guilty here of using the term "evolution" in the non-scientific sense of it's religious value for advocates of of a godless belief system. Let me be clear, in the realm of philosophy, there is a school of thought that vehemently holds forth that we, and all life, are mere accidents of meaninglessness. The proponents of this school also vehemently insist that they alone are competent to interpret existence and assign the proper meaning to everything. Wrapped in these priestly robes, they hope to manage the worldwide government, and cull the human herd of useless eaters who won't accept their assigned place in the world.

I laugh at these adherents of meaninglessness who want a world of top-down power. They deny the connectedness of all things, and seek to construct a new order based on their superior comprehension of what "should be done" to achieve a world compliant with their values. . . .

I don't see how bold is any different than what you are saying. It seems that I am the one that needs your permission to hold an opinion.

You will have to elaborate on what unfounded claims have been advanced to disprove Mormonism that people are justified to ignore. I also wonder why you can accept evidence when it conforms to your predetermined view, but when it doesn't you reject it.

 

[babe]

The Quantum Theory of Consiousness. . . .

I've been thinking about this a little, delving into the world-view of "The Brotherhood", the friendship circle that included Vladimir I. Vernadsky, whom I have referenced above. This circle of friends survived under statist communism because they did not dispute "Evolution", but attempted to expand it beyond the mere blological and political realm, making it inclusive of every level of universal organization, ascribing a "progressive" direction to it. . . .But what impressed me the most is their inclusion of mystic or even religious notions. . . . like ascribing to rocks some "living" properties, and developing several lines of supportive evidence.

Also above, I discussed the theory of Quantum Mechanics as applied to the level of intellectual organization. . . the power of consciousness, which my cousin holds as deriving from the fundamentals of universal organization. If gravity can be perceived and responded to by distant objects of a "merely physical" composition. . . . the argument goes. . . . that is a fundamental force of "consciousness. . . . as are all field properties of matter or energy. . . .

So the result of this thinking comes to the point that all living things. . . as we define them on biological principles. . . . as well as all galaxies, planets, rocks, and gas clouds. . . exist in a communicant web and posses some observable properties of the class we call "consciousness". . .. a connectedness to other things "out there".

If this is true, as Vernadsky imputes, "Life" is an elemental force of nature, and the universe as a whole is "living". . .. that means doing work to improve and enhance the conditions that promote "life". In this schema, "evolution" is merely a poorly-defined aspect of some underlying basic principles of organization. . .. co-eternal with the rest of existence. . . and we as well as any anthropomorphic precedents to humanity on this planet. . . as the Mormon God, or as Jesus, or as the Triune God of the Christians. . . . are the results of these principles, if not the propagators of them. . . . .

leaving all the possibilities on the table until we actually have evidence that conclusively excludes them. . . . as in all science every untested or untestable hypothesis can be held out as a possibility, as a "hypothesis", is the right thing to do, and not to claim "science" has dismissed them before even having the capacity to test them. . . .as some self-styled "evolutionists" with statist designs on humanity are wont to do. . . .

yep. I'm calling our current crop out as scientific frauds because of their didactic denials of everything they don't want to consider, things which at once bring us into a more realistic appraisal of ourselves and teach us that we don't yet know it all. . . .

It's called "sense-certainty" when we assert that nothing can be valid except what we can observe or measure by our physical powers of perception. Today we accept some technologies that expand our senses, as long as they pertain to the physical realm we call "real", while denying the fundamental sense of "consciousness" and failing to explore how we connect, how we comprehend. . . and indeed while failing to define the essence of "Life" in a manner that can explain what the difference between life and death is. . . .beyond the merely chemical reactions that differ in the two states. . . .

Every person who has had a moment of "consciousness" somehow realizing the unspoken thoughts of another person. . .. who has experienced some other form of "connectedness" with others, intuitively knows there is not a simple chain of chemical reactions produced the result, sometimes at a distance.

If we really want to get mathematical about our universe, we need some Quantum Mechanics. . . . an equation. . . that can explain and predict it. . . .like we try to explain "gravity".

 

[♪alt13]

I've been thinking about this a little, delving into the world-view of "The Brotherhood", the friendship circle that included Vladimir I. Vernadsky, whom I have referenced above. This circle of friends survived under statist communism because they did not dispute "Evolution", but attempted to expand it beyond the mere blological and political realm, making it inclusive of every level of universal organization, ascribing a "progressive" direction to it. . . .But what impressed me the most is their inclusion of mystic or even religious notions. . . . like ascribing to rocks some "living" properties, and developing several lines of supportive evidence.

Also above, I discussed the theory of Quantum Mechanics as applied to the level of intellectual organization. . . the power of consciousness, which my cousin holds as deriving from the fundamentals of universal organization. If gravity can be perceived and responded to by distant objects of a "merely physical" composition. . . . the argument goes. . . . that is a fundamental force of "consciousness. . . . as are all field properties of matter or energy. . . .

So the result of this thinking comes to the point that all living things. . . as we define them on biological principles. . . . as well as all galaxies, planets, rocks, and gas clouds. . . exist in a communicant web and posses some observable properties of the class we call "consciousness". . .. a connectedness to other things "out there".

If this is true, as Vernadsky imputes, "Life" is an elemental force of nature, and the universe as a whole is "living". . .. that means doing work to improve and enhance the conditions that promote "life". In this schema, "evolution" is merely a poorly-defined aspect of some underlying basic principles of organization. . .. co-eternal with the rest of existence. . . and we as well as any anthropomorphic precedents to humanity on this planet. . . as the Mormon God, or as Jesus, or as the Triune God of the Christians. . . . are the results of these principles, if not the propagators of them. . . . .

leaving all the possibilities on the table until we actually have evidence that conclusively excludes them. . . . as in all science every untested or untestable hypothesis can be held out as a possibility, as a "hypothesis", is the right thing to do, and not to claim "science" has dismissed them before even having the capacity to test them. . . .as some self-styled "evolutionists" with statist designs on humanity are wont to do. . . .

yep. I'm calling our current crop out as scientific frauds because of their didactic denials of everything they don't want to consider, things which at once bring us into a more realistic appraisal of ourselves and teach us that we don't yet know it all. . . .

It's called "sense-certainty" when we assert that nothing can be valid except what we can observe or measure by our physical powers of perception. Today we accept some technologies that expand our senses, as long as they pertain to the physical realm we call "real", while denying the fundamental sense of "consciousness" and failing to explore how we connect, how we comprehend. . . and indeed while failing to define the essence of "Life" in a manner that can explain what the difference between life and death is. . . .beyond the merely chemical reactions that differ in the two states. . . .

Every person who has had a moment of "consciousness" somehow realizing the unspoken thoughts of another person. . .. who has experienced some other form of "connectedness" with others, intuitively knows there is not a simple chain of chemical reactions produced the result, sometimes at a distance.

If we really want to get mathematical about our universe, we need some Quantum Mechanics. . . . an equation. . . that can explain and predict it. . . .like we try to explain "gravity".

I don't think most people dismiss it as absolutely impossible. It (by way of being untestable) is just not science. Metaphysics or religion yes, but not science. I think the issue that many nontheists take is with the certainty with which religious people claim to know the truth about things that are not testable. Most nontheists do have a problem with inserting metaphysics into science because it just simply doesn't belong there.

 

[LogGrad98]

So if they cannot find a way to test it, then it gets labeled as non-scientific therefore not worthy of study or not worthy of consideration, or not "valid" in some way? Since I cannot scientifically test for consciousness then it really isn't valid scientifically, even though the true failing is in my ability to test it, my inability to grasp the parameters necessary, or the lack of technology perhaps, to develop a test for the hypothesis, not in the inherent validity of the subject itself. I am not sure I follow exactly.

 

[♪alt13]

So if they cannot find a way to test it, then it gets labeled as non-scientific therefore not worthy of study or not worthy of consideration, or not "valid" in some way? Since I cannot scientifically test for consciousness then it really isn't valid scientifically, even though the true failing is in my ability to test it, my inability to grasp the parameters necessary, or the lack of technology perhaps, to develop a test for the hypothesis, not in the inherent validity of the subject itself. I am not sure I follow exactly.

There are plenty of things that are worthy of study and consideration that don't necessarily fall into the realm of science. Science involves the testing of hypothesis. You are right(imo) that anything that can be said about consciousness that is not testable is not science, but that does not mean that it isn't meaningful.

I have no problem discussing all sorts of hypothesis on theoretical grounds, but they don't become science until someone has devised a method for testing them.

 

[LogGrad98]

There are plenty of things that are worthy of study and consideration that don't necessarily fall into the realm of science. Science involves the testing of hypothesis. You are right(imo) that anything that can be said about consciousness that is not testable is not science, but that does not mean that it isn't meaningful.

I have no problem discussing all sorts of hypothesis on theoretical grounds, but they don't become science until someone has devised a method for testing them.

To me that seems backward, as I think it should be considered science or scientific whether or not our feeble intellects can figure out how to test it. I guess it might hinge on the definition of "science", or what is implied with the term.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Webster seems to go beyond simply defining science as only that which we can systematically test for. That is definitely in there, but they also define it as simply knowledge, or what we can observe. If you limit it to only that which we can test, then I suppose that largely consciousness would not be considered science. But I think that is mostly arrogance on our part, again depending on our use of the word "science". I am coming at this from the viewpoint I think babe was trying to express, that anything that does not fall in our understanding of science is to be treated as less important, or less valid. I think that is an arrogant viewpoint. However, if it is simply used neutrally, that knowledge of that sort falls outside of our faulty human ability to test the appropriate hypotheses, then I suppose that is accurate.

 

[♪alt13]

To me that seems backward, as I think it should be considered science or scientific whether or not our feeble intellects can figure out how to test it. I guess it might hinge on the definition of "science", or what is implied with the term.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Webster seems to go beyond simply defining science as only that which we can systematically test for. That is definitely in there, but they also define it as simply knowledge, or what we can observe. If you limit it to only that which we can test, then I suppose that largely consciousness would not be considered science. But I think that is mostly arrogance on our part, again depending on our use of the word "science". I am coming at this from the viewpoint I think babe was trying to express, that anything that does not fall in our understanding of science is to be treated as less important, or less valid. I think that is an arrogant viewpoint. However, if it is simply used neutrally, that knowledge of that sort falls outside of our faulty human ability to test the appropriate hypotheses, then I suppose that is accurate.

I think that this viewpoint is caused at least in part by people accepting too wide a definition for science. Science tells us very little about the "human condition" for instance. Science lays out a pretty compelling case for eugenics but most scientists would fervently reject it. They would reject it it because science is a poor place to develop morals.

 

[babe]

thanks for the contributions here. It helps me to see how people approach these ideas.

So as a scientist, I accept the method of proceeding from hypothesis towards a conclusion, as in a statement of some natural law we have demonstrated somehow. But the process is what is "science", more than the conclusion or the statement of the natural law. Science, to remain "science", must keep the subject open to new enquiry, further testing. . .. even to some disproof that may come, say, in the next generation of investigators.

Most people don't realize this "fine point". . . . and do make the mistake of thinking the matter is permanently settled, and will perhaps ridicule the few restless souls who keep on asking more questions. . .. But at the same time I do accept the efforts that others have made up to this point as "good faith" endeavors, and might "believe" the conclusions even. . . . while still being willing to question them and try to discover some way to study the matter in a new light, or with a new test. . . designed perhaps to challenge the "law" in total or in part. . . .

"consiousness" describes a state of awareness. . . . it is fed by data from our senses, but more importantly it is an effort to comprehend what is "out there" in the universe, or perhaps even inside our own heads. Our awareness may very well be partial, or even invalid. . . . as say in a dream state. . . .

"connectedness" describes whatever it is that enables us to be be aware, and may include things we are not even aware of in ourselves, as "intuition" or some "sixth sense" which might entail some transient inputs on some "less than conscious" level of perception. Oh, my. . . . can it be called "perception" if we are not consciously aware of it, intellectually defining it in real time.

I dunno. . . . . But sometimes I know something. . . just "know" it. . . and can't tell you why I know it. So I say "yes" to the idea that we can know things without even having a "good reason" to know.


crazy, huh.

 

[babe]

So you can't just write a textbook on science based on "baseless speculation". It's part of the rules of the game that we try to define our concept or theory or hypothesis on specific terms, and then define our tools and equipment and our method for investigating it, so other s can repeat the test in their labs or whereever they are, and to report the results we observe, and then we get to say what we think it means. This is the "science" we can defend with results, and the "science" that establishes our basis for our conclusions.

But if we are "connected" to the universe in some sense that allows us to serendipitously "know" something, inexplicable though our "knowing" may be, it means we ourselves are "instruments" for seeking, testing, or being aware of something that we are trying to understand. We are tools. Yes, tools. uhhhmmmmm. .. . . what use we make of our cognition, our brain activity, or our emotions. . . . is what can potentially elevate us intellectually beyond the idle chatter around us.


so, anyway, it is a useful exercise to try to understand "God", "Man" , or the "Universe". It takes the place of listening to Coast to Coast in the middle of the night. . . . . lol

 

[babe]

Typhoon Haiyan/ aka Yolanda

So. . . . I've been in or near about twenty typhoons. I love rainy days in the tropics. . . usually. . . .

Normal "rainy season" weather makes for a pretty interesting day. You crawl out from under your mosquito net and immediately want to shower because you feel "greasy" from your night-time sweat, even though you showered before you went to bed. The "cold" water is actually about the temperature you want. . . probably about eighty degrees. . . lol. It's about seventy five degrees outside, in the shade. . ..

I loved my breakfasts. Prepared by inexpensive "houseboys". The local markets open up before sunrise with fresh fish and all kinds of produce, so the servant help has already been to market and brought home fresh food.

Heading out for the business of the day around nine am. . . . it's already getting hot, but the skies are as clear as a bell. . .. well, unless there's a typhoon in the area. . . . sweating profusely. . . like in a sauna. . . . People come in out of the sun about then if they work outdoors, like farmers or fishermen. . . well, actually the fishing is done at night, with lights and nets. . . . and the farming is done from the first light in the eastern sky . . .. sensible folks stay in the shade from ten to three. . . . the clouds start forming overhead a little after noon, and by around three it's overcast, and starts to rain at 4 pm, and rains until midnight. . . . with nice lightning shows too. The temps drop from the low nineties around 3 pm to the low eighties by six or seven.

The way you know a typhoon is coming is by the clouds, and a consistent breeze. High clouds of a different type, and the east wind. In a typhoon, the ordinary regime is altered. . . and it rains all day. The east coast of the Philippines is mostly wilderness. . . a few ports, only a couple of cities. Most of the cities are on the other side of the mountains, where typhoons have usually lost their full force.

The notable exception of the day is Tacloban, on a narrow strait between the islands of Leyte and Samar, in a "corner" so to speak with land stretching eastward for some fifty miles and southward for about a hundred. If a typhoon comes in from the open ocean and hits in that corner. . . . the storm surge is amplified. . . .

And all the ferocity of super-Cat 5-plus of typhoon Haiyan came into that corner, where a storm surge associated with the extreme low pressure of the eye.. . . some ten to fifteen feet. . . . was more than doubled by the "stacking" of the surge in that corner.