My alleged illiberalism

| 116 Comments

At long last, Michael Egnor has posted his explanation of how I am “illiberal” in wanting to see the Constitution’s First Amendment enforced. It’s a typically delightful example of the good doctor’s logic.

116 Comments

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!

Yeah! If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys? The second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution! Darwin was responsible for the Holocaust, which never happened! Take that, heathens!

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.

Hell, Mike, I agree with you.

And just as soon as you can actually demonstrate a significant weakness that affects the ToE at the level it is taught in a high school science class, then, by all means I think you should be able to bring it up.

So, um, Mike, when you gonna have one of those for us? Cause so far, you guys have provided zip. As in nothing.

When can I expect to see a documented “weakness” that amounts to more than quote-mining, some lame assertion that’s been disproven for two decades, or a reference to Hitler?

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

I’m quite sure he never CAN. In Egnor’s view of the world, his particular god created everything, does everything, decides everything, is responsible for everything, and is the one true explanation for everything. Egnor’s god is pervasive and ubiquitous.

And this means that it is not even conceptually possible to omit Egnor’s god from any discussion of much of science (some sciences get a free pass for some reason), without explicitly and deliberately denying that god. To Egnor, it’s very simple. If you say “Praise Jeezus for that meal” you appreciate the meal. If you say “That was an excellent meal” you are denying god!.

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.

Assuming you aren’t a Poe, you are halfway there with Darwinian selection.

Half of selection occurs when the organism reproduces. The other half of selection occurs when the offspring reproduces.

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”?

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.

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.

James F Wrote:

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.

Conservative critic of ID/creationism Paul Gross also likes to point that out. Speaking of Miller, when I heard his talk at Penn last 2/12, he said something about Rev Paley that I always suspected - that were he alive today he’d probably accept evolution and not appreciate how the ID movement used his ideas. Even Dawkins, in “The Blind Watchmaker” was rather respectful of Paley. With that in mind:

Glen Davidson Wrote:

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.

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.

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

To be fair, Judge Jones should be credited with doing some stopping already.

…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.

Well, the deception is certainly disturbing. Creationists have a box of stuff they want to teach. They’ve changed the box numerous times but the stuff inside is the same, and the courts have recognized this. The way I’d describe the latest ‘strengths and weaknesses’ strategy is an attempt to sell the box to school boards before they open it. That’s deceptive and wrong. However, even if they get away with it, in order to teach any iota of creationism to any student, they have to effectively open the box and show their stuff. And its going to be the same stuff.

Which is a long-winded way of saying I think the key feature of modern ID is still old creationist content. Their deception strategy is just meant to be a new way to get the same old content into the classrooms.

Iason Ouabache said:

he really has no idea what the difference between atheism and secularism is.

Which is funny on the face of it, because you can’t, to my knowledge at least, have freedom for religion without secularism.

Here is one of very few times where a philosophical analysis seems to clarify the picture. Secularism is necessary and sufficient to ensure religious freedom. (Or conversely if you prefer secularism, freedom for religion is necessary and sufficient to ensure secularism.)

It is fairly consistent with observation, so the analysis may actually correspond to an empirical model for once. For example, Sweden had a fairly secular state when in possession of a state church, but that church wasn’t especially free nor where the remainder especially fairly treated. It is better on both sides now. (Or at least will be, as soon as a few remaining issues such as gender-neutral marriages or maintaining old religious buildings are fixed.)

But of course Egnor isn’t interested in freedom for all religion, just freedom for his.

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.

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?

eric said:

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

I would add that it seems to be confusing, and not very clear (at least to me), to refer to a specific and contingent strategy instead of the sole goal (or purpose, if you will) of creationism. It would also dilute the meaning of the term, by way of changing its definition no less.

But of course it is important to be clear about exactly why it is a scam, and how any of its many strategies tie into the scam.

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?

What do you know, I was so easily sold on the idea that you were trying out a parody that I didn’t notice the difference in names!

Are you sure you want to stand for your, yes, unrelated ideas, that does seem to be of the quality of “pudding justifies pi=3”??? It would be easier for all if you instead asked real questions, for example “what is natural selection”, because it is obvious that you don’t know the science you try (and so fail) to critique.

[Personally I prefer to believe that ice cream justifies the value of numbers. Just thought you would like my opinions as well, totally unrelated to actual science as they are.]

The real Toidel Mahoney says:

This idiot is a cheap imitator. I am the real thing!

Um, you’re claiming to be the real idiot?

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.

No actually this all happened when Copernicus proposed his “Theory” that the earth circled the Sun and not the other way around. As related by Peter Laundry at http://www.blupete.com/Literature/B[…]pernicus.htm:

“Man, it was believed (and still believed by some) was made by God in His image, man was the next thing to God, and, as such, superior, especially in his best part, his soul, to all creatures, indeed this part was not even part of the natural world (a philosophy which has proved disastrous to the earth’s environment as any casual observer of the 20th century might confirm by simply looking about). Copernicus’ theories might well lead men to think that they are simply part of nature and not superior to it and that ran counter to the theories of the politically powerful churchmen of the time.”

And interestingly, also from Mr. Laundry:

“Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! – there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his “betters,” he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.”

Toidel Mahoney Said: Abortion/Birth Control–fewer children

Sodomy–fewer children

Feminism/Womens’ careers–fewer children

World Running Out Of Food-fewer children

World Running Out Of Oxygen-fewer children

Raving Foul Mouth Idiot-fewer children

Good people of all faiths are working on the first two problems. But Toidel, that last problem is a blessing for the rest of us.

eric Wrote:

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

Well the “active ingredient,” which is “any argument that promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution” is the same. But whether you call it the “box” or “inert ingredients” a lot of arguments, i.e. those for a young earth or independent origin of “kinds” - indeed the only parts with any semblance to science - have been removed. So if we must refer to “any argument that promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution” as “creationism,” we still must not let ID activists bait-and-switch that definition with the one the public usually uses, which is “honest belief in a literal, 6-day, ~6000 year ago creation.”

BTW, as you probably know, Judge Jones deserves special credit for linking to creationism not only ID (the subject of the case) but also the designer-free replacement scam that was waiting in the wings.

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.

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?

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

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:

- A canard about the lack of transitional fossils

- The argument to the effect that minor discrepancies between dating methods render all dating methods unreliable.

- The assertion that “random” action (itself a misnomer for what occurs in natural selection) cannot produce structure.

- A wrong definition of macroevolution.

- The assumption of the false dichotomy, unchanged since Paley, that there are only two possible explanations. (Ironic considering how much time they spend trying to convince the world that ID is distinct from Creationism, i.e. a third explanation.)

*****

I would also say that most of the boxes creationists want to foist on the public contain the following items, but I don’t think they are as certain to appear as the ones above:

- A statement downplaying the importance or the value of theories to science.

- Misquotes of Gould and other famous evolutionary scientists that take a critique about the value of a specific mechanism to evolution and make it appear to be a critique of evolution.

- The argument that the presence of homology renders it impossible to trace lineages.

- Statements about the evil consequences of social Darwinism.

I think that just about covers the big ones. Call it the creationist top nine. :)

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.

They are crazy. The whole point of doing it is to make them crazy: Today, the ability to remotely transmit microwave voices inside a target’s head is known inside the Pentagon as “Synthetic Telepathy.” According to Dr. Robert Becker, “Synthetic Telepathy has applications in covert operations designed to drive a target crazy with voices or deliver undetected instructions to a programmed assassin.”

The voices I heard were saying really weird things: like stop, we checked her story, it’s all true, and I’m not hurting her, she didn’t do anything wrong.

I had to go to the hospital to get stable, but even my doctor said I was calmer than what he expected.

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.

Stanton, somebody asked me what my views were, then others jumped in and accused me of saying things I didn’t say. 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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

If you’re tired of people pointing out that everything you say is nonsensical, then why do you insist on making post after inane post on all of the threads you visit?

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.

Then please explain why you insisted that “Intelligent Design” was actually a “method of healing” using the energy of the Universe, or how you posted a claim that fossils were made by “emanations,” and not from the remains of dead organisms?

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”.

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:

(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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

LOL. Depends on what you mean by “God”

My visions (if y’all don’t get it whatever then)

Voices saying: they are after you be still, we can protect you.

Nothing for quite a few months, then the feeling of somebody coming down and writing on my forehead.

Thoughts of me dying over and over again, people shooting me, stabbing me etc but all the while this presence that was there keeping me warm, and also helping keep my vitals stable.

Some weird “marriage” to some weird being and two different weddings, with that one’s family and with my family.

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.

I explained in the original post how nature was intelligent. It adapts to it’s environment, and follows cycles as in Winter/Spring/Summer/Fall. In fact I posted an article about evolution that addressed it earlier. The fact that PEOPLE are destroying it is nothing more than corruption and greediness (which could be termed “evil” if you will).

and so this all started with THAT post about evolution, and then Dan responding to it.

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)

See Lissa what you just said here in the 2nd paragraph make sense and I don’t think anyone would disagree with you.

What we disagree with is your claim of telekinetic and telepathic powers, your ability to see in a drastically larger spectrum of the EM band and your claim of hearing outside the normal range of frequencies for humans.

Your claims of sensing these other vibrations and being able to alter reality point towards your claim of spiritual enlightenment. You can claim that you are not saying that you are spiritually enlightened all you want but the words you use to explain why your reality is right and everyone else is wrong because we refuse to believe falls under that category. It is like someone claiming that they are not racist but time and time again that person degrading anyone that is not of their own race.

Take this sentence

lissa said:

I understand that it doesn’t mean anything and is merely an effect with a cause.

Word salad. You are in one sentence saying that you understand that a previous statement of your doesn’t mean anything, which begs the question why did you say it then, and then says it is “an effect with a cause”. Really? Please show me an effect without a cause. What is worse is you combine that into one sentence that makes absolutely NO sense to any of the readers here.

You have to under stand that peoples perception of what you say is important. If it was just me that seemed off tilt about what you would say then I would chalk it up to me misinterpreting what you have been saying as that is pretty easy to do when exposed to just a little bit of the written word. The problem comes in when you look at what you have said we have a LOT of written words backed up with more detailed explanations by you and EVERYONE here is perceiving things the same way besides you. Get a clue if you see something as blue and 1,000 other people see it as red then it is probably your perception that is at fault not everyone elses. You claiming that everyone else’s perception is as fault because they perceive red because you are more open minded points toward the label “spiritually enlightened”

Another example I can give you is one from my past. I worked with this woman that took offense to me walking into a room of women and saying “Good morning Ladies”. Most peoples perception of that phrase I would guess would be that I was being polite, noting I did say it in a friendly voice. What she was against was the origin of the word Lady and what it could mean in today’s society. I still use it today because most people don’t perceive it as offensive.

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.

Again here you distort what is being talked about. We aren’t talking about showing someone pictures of body parts chopped up in a ditch and having everyone say if they think that is “evil” or not. When a woman gets on an elevator with a man inside and she feels afraid or not it isn’t some magical organ in her body or soul that is triggering some alarm. It is her unconscious brain picking up on different clues that are detectable by our normal senses that add up to this instant risk analysis of the situation. Nothing really surprising here.

When you look at a picture like this

http://www.athousandandone.com/phot[…]a1422f_s.jpg

Most people get the feeling that she is in a state of fear. If you don’t get that reaction then there is an indication that your brain is working a bit differently then most people and probably not in a good way. There isn’t any fear-o-meter in our body. It is just our brain taking in what we see, in the normal spectrum that we see in and responding. Sure this is instinctual but so what. In our past, and even in present day, if you saw someone with this look it paid to at least be on a heightened state of alertness for any potential danger. This alertness is all via our normal senses. This is because the people that didn’t respond appropriately where probably more likely to get hurt or killed from what ever was causing the other people to look like this.

In http://pandasthumb.org/archives/200[…]mment-183356

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.

You had me up until the point where you said “they could get a spell book and see if it works”. Are you claiming that there are people out there with magical spell books and have got those magical spells to work?

What is the “it” in the “I put a date on it” and what does that have to do with a married French woman? Perhaps someone could clue me in on what I’m missing but that whole sentence doesn’t make sense in that post to me. I get the link to the talk about a renaissance fair but really…it seems like just babbling.

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.

In just that little paragraph you ask how my perception of reality is different then yours then say that I’m closed minded because I won’t accept your perception of reality. How can you say I’m closed minded about something that you don’t know. I mean if you don’t know what my perception of reality is when compared to yours then surely you can’t call me closed minded for not accepting the differences. In your word you can see, hear and do things that everyone else here says that they can not but you will not show any proof of this capability. In my reality telekinesis and telepathy have never been shown to be real. When ever they have been examined closely they’ve been shown to be frauds or statistically unverified and in the case of “therapeutic touch” the success rate results ended up even worse then the statistical average.

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.

No! No it doesn’t. What is this “cumulative statistical database. There is no strong or even weak “scientifically credible and repeatable” evidence for ESP, telepathy, telekinesis. That is the problem. When these studies are done they are either been shown to be questionable in their data collection methods or if the test are attempted to be independently performed and verified the results end up as not statistically different from the controls. Forget people like James Randy that have had the offer of 1 million dollars to anyone that can demonstrate any paranormal power under proper observing conditions, and no one has been successful to date. You have people like Emily Rosa who was published in the journal Nature at just 11 years old when her study showed that from 21 therapeutic touch practitioners their average success rate of detecting which of their hands where within her “Human Energy Field” was only 44%. She did 280 test over the 21 people. The chance of a random people doing the test would only have a 4% chance of scoring that low on average.

Please provide a reference to a verified test that shows some paranormal power.

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

And? This is still a physical and measurable phenomena. There is some really interesting work being done with ultrasound by people like Woody Norris to achieve direction and true binaural sound. When you claim to hear, see and feel stuff the rest of us can’t that other people can’t perceive because you are more open minded is totally different. The ‘electromagnetic sounds’ can be perceived by every one and it has no more to being opened minded then being able to “see” is a function of being open minded.

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”

Because there is a big difference. We understand why everyone can feel IR. We are learning more about “hearing” certain modulations of EM which everyone can perceive . You are claiming to feel magnetic fields which, has been studied, but no one has ever been found to have this power naturally. I do remember an experiment where a scientist implanted some magnets in the tips of his fingers and for a while could feel fields near his fingers but this is first artificial and second actually not sensing a magnetic field as a magnetic field.

You say you are joking but as we have pointed out before you can’t tell your joke about feeling magnetic fields from your claims of telekinesis. I’d be more inclined to believe in your “joke” then your claim of telekinesis.

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

Are you joking? Do you wear tin foil hats?

If you think that dropping Dr. Robert Becker’s name or his “research” will impress us think again. I’d say many of us have come across him before and, to put it bluntly, he is a bit of a nut job himself. Funny how no one has ever been able to verify his body electric hypothesis.

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.

People like you that talk new age psychobabble don’t think they are talking new age psychobabble. All you do is latch on to bits of science that you think support your idea of reality and ignore the complete context of the actual science in question. I can read the body electric a million times. It is still paranormal / new age / crystal healing / pyramid power nonsense.

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.

Do you have any references for this study? I’d like to see this “memory” because this is an entirely different phenomena then instinct like “fear of snakes” and I would like to see how this could be epigenetic in nature. IE training a rat how to push a red button to get food is not going to be genetic or probably even epigenetic. Setting up 10,000 rats and selecting the ones that push the red button to see if they live or die, breading the living ones and repeating the experiment over and over is expected to produce a rat with an instinct to push the red button. It has nothing to do with “training” tho.

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.

This goes beyond a claim of “spiritually enlightened” to a possible claim of being of the “chosen people” How much do you know about your ancestry ? Do you realise that vision are probably brought on by “quests” that often involve days of fasting or use of known hallucinogens like peyote which contains psychedelic alkaloids like mescaline?!?!? Have you being eating peyote lately?

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.

Umm Buddhists meditate every day. So the fact that you had a “weird experience” on a day of well like any other day is nothing to be surprised about. You know one of my best friends just recently had a little baby girl. They didn’t have the doctor say what the sex was so no one knew. While everyone was guessing the sex I was asked once what I thought it would be and I said “Human”. You know I was right! Funny enough about half of everyone else where right with their prediction of the sex of Nat. What do you think the odds of that are! Where you see a correlation between 2 events most other people would just see a coincidence

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.

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?

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?

It’s not nonsense, it’s THEORIES, and they aren’t any less valid theories than any other theory, I didn’t steer the conversation in this direction, someone else did by not liking what I said about how I perceive God when someone asked me. I can defend my position to someone who addresses it in a NICE manner. I don’t need someone like Wayne to nitpic every word and say why HE has a problem with what I said. But I will answer his one question about why I said it if I know it doesn’t mean anything. It’s called being DESCRIPTIVE, nothing more.

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.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Timothy Sandefur published on April 13, 2009 1:32 PM.

Pinus palustris was the previous entry in this blog.

Snails have nodal! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter