Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by Dan Rowden »

Is anybody finding this entertaining? It's about the only reason I can think of for allowing it to continue.
SalMinolta

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by SalMinolta »

The views will give you your answer whether or not people are finding this entertaining. Do I have to think of everything?
You have something really different here, but you just want the same old thing, right? You only like people
who you can easily defeat in a debate. Such is your nature.

How about you answer this:

"THE TRUTH IS:

There is no repeatable, observable scientific evidence that the human eye is continually being created by random chance mutations, yet mainstream science tends to act as though they have all the scientific evidence in the world that the eye is indeed being continually created by random chance mutations.

IT IS A SPECULATIVE MYTH, NOT A SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY

Can we agree on that?"
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by Dan Rowden »

Debate? Is there a debate going on here? Did you make an argument at some point? I must have missed that.
SalMinolta

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by SalMinolta »

Dan Rowden wrote:Debate? Is there are debate going on here? Did you make an argument at some point? I must have missed that.
I sense you are the type of person who has missed a lot of things in life. If you can't understand my above post I can't help you.
Go back to school. I know your atheist type tricks very well and how to counter them.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by Dan Rowden »

SalMinolta wrote:It's amazing how much crap we are expected to believe at face value just because some twit with fancy degrees says it is a fact. I am no longer that stupid. How about you?
An example would be nice.
SalMinolta

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by SalMinolta »

"THE TRUTH IS:

There is no repeatable, observable scientific evidence that the human eye is continually being created by random chance mutations, yet mainstream science tends to act as though they have all the scientific evidence in the world that the eye is indeed being continually created by random chance mutations.

IT IS A SPECULATIVE MYTH, NOT A SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY

Can we agree on that?"
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by Dan Rowden »

Firstly, your main statement is a lie. Secondly, every level of development of the human eye that is postulated by evolutionary science can be seen in extant animal phyla.

Evolutionary science does not state, as a truth, that we know how the eye evolved.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by Dan Rowden »

The problem here is that you're unable to differentiate between an assertion and an argument. An actual debate involves argument.
SalMinolta

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by SalMinolta »

Let me tell you something about myself you may find interesting...although I doubt it

One of my fun hobbies is to play chess against the computer with the game set to the easiest level.
I am not interested in 'beating the other guy". I undo my overly stupid moves working towards
being more careful next time around and not falling for that same trap ever again.

I am towards making my moves faster and faster with needing to think less and responding instinctively

All I'm really interested in is sharpening my strategic thinking. I deliberately only learned
certain basic strategies about chess. The standard person only wants to beat the other guy.
The computer has no ego. I know that the only reason I win every game is because
the computer is letting me win. All I have to do is set the computer to the most difficult level
and I'm 'dead' no matter how many moves I undo.

So, you see that I am an original thinker. I didn't get this idea from anyone else.
I thought it up myself and it's fun developing my own chess strategies rather than
learning them all from chess master strategists.

I venture none of you in this entire forum have considered playing chess
with this goal in mind. Well, now you know something about me
you didn't know before.

This is a screenshot of my chess board on my giant screen TV
along with a nature background that is one of my favorites:

https://scontent.fhnl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=59B29064
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by Dan Rowden »

The instinct expressed in your first sentence was correct.
SalMinolta

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by SalMinolta »

Dan Rowden wrote:The problem here is that you're unable to differentiate between an assertion and an argument. An actual debate involves argument.
All I have to do is restate when I did in a different manner to have a debate. However, you are obviously not an original thinker.
All you want is to beat the other guy in a debate. I'm here to sift through my current beliefs in order to improve upon them.
You're the type of person whose only goal for playing chess is to 'beat the other guy'.
You can't relate to an original thinker. Your mind it much too mediocre
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by Dan Rowden »

Original thinker, huh? Ok, get back to me when you say something I haven't heard a thousand times before.
SalMinolta

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by SalMinolta »

Dan Rowden wrote:The instinct expressed in your first sentence was correct.
Of course, I'm right about you. Nothing interests you besides the reflection of your own boring assumptions about reality.
You have your little mind 'box' of certainties and anything outside of that little box is beyond your level of comprehension
or interest. You like to toss your little bombs into conversations and then congratulate yourself for being so clever.
Go ahead and admit this instinct is correct as well. Of course, you won't admit I hit another proverbial 'bullseye".
Of course not!! As I stated, I know your atheist type tricks and how to counter them.

You are obviously too stupid to realize that my borderline obsession with playing chess is affecting
everything else I may do. You made your move and I just countered it and blasted you with the truth.
Interactions with humanity are now becoming a massive chess game to me and more fun all the time.
I really enjoy seeing through your silly typical atheist moves and quickly countering them
and making you look like the fool you truly are.

Here's the thing: When you are playing chess you know that you are playing chess.
When I play mind chess when dealing with idiots they don't have a clue that I am playing chess.
That gives me a strategic advantage. Even though I have openly told you this it won't matter.
My interactions with you are not much of anything.

It's mind chess when I deal with customer services and the idiots who cross my path in life
that are the most important. You, to me, are nothing much at all. Just another atheist type parrot.
Parroting the teachings of others as though you came to those conclusions yourself.

Great fun!!!

https://scontent.fhnl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=59BB86CF
SalMinolta

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by SalMinolta »

I find most people to be lying, hypocrite, two-faced con artists in one way or the other.
Since they are too stupid to realize I am playing chess when interacting with them
I have them at a severe disadvantage. They may move a proverbial 'piece'
and rather than take that move at face value I'm thinking things like
"Why did they make that particular move?" I am no longer angwed by their deception.
It's all part of the game.

They made the obvious move and left their queen unprotected. Very nicely
I take their proverbial queen while they don't even realize they lost their queen.
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!! Great fun!!

It's much nicer treating interactions with people like a chess game.
I don't blame them for trying to con me. Heck, it's all part of the game.
However, as I stated, the great fun is they don't have a clue I am playing chess.
Dumb sucker idiots. So much fun to take their queens when they didn't even realize
they left their queen exposed. Ha!

Go ahead and lie and say you've heard about people doing this
thousands of times before. Go ahead and try to con me, atheist type.


https://scontent.fhnl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=59743686
SalMinolta

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by SalMinolta »

As I make my chess moves faster and faster I sometimes decide to be adventurous
and make a move I wouldn't ordinarily make. Let's see what happens if I do 'this' instead of 'that'
which I would usually do in a situation like this. Sometimes I really regret it and have to undo
a number of moves to win the game. No matter.

Just yesterday I was in a position where we both had only two pieces left on the board.
We both had a king and a pawn. It was a race to see which one of us
Would make that pawn into a queen first. Black made the queen first and
refused to allow me to turn my pawn into a queen. It was incredible!!
I kept undoing the moves and trying a different strategy
nothing worked!! One of the main reasons I kept undoing the moves
was I wanted to learn how black was kicking my ass over and over and over.
It was quite exciting and it ended in a draw.

I enjoy making lots of queens before winning the game and
usually, am not allowed to do so before the game is called as a 'draw'.
I want to play with my prey like a cat plays with a mouse
and the friggin game seldom allows' me to do so, which is frustrating.
I would like to adjust the game so that I can slowly beat the king
down into complete submission and only checkmate when I'm ready.
Unfortunately, the game will not allow me to do so.

My guess is official chess rules will not allow you to humiliate
your opponent past a certain point. This rule has probably
prevented many an actual war.

Oh well....
SalMinolta

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by SalMinolta »

Dan Rowden wrote:Firstly, your main statement is a lie. Secondly, every level of development of the human eye that is postulated by evolutionary science can be seen in extant animal phyla.

Evolutionary science does not state, as a truth, that we know how the eye evolved.
Unless you have repeatable, observable scientific experiments to back your stance all you have is speculative mythology you blindly believe to be fact.
The blind faith religious can fall back on their faith. You atheist types have no such luxury. You must back all you believe with scientific evidence,
If you have no such evidence all you have is speculative mythology to fall back on, period.

Fancy sounding rhetoric does not take the place of repeatable, observable scientific experiments.

Sorry 'pal'. You lose!!!
SalMinolta

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by SalMinolta »

I can substitute all kinds of wild atheist scientific assumptions into that presented equation.

If consciousness did not come from a conscious source then it must have come from dead matter.
Where are your repeatable, observable scientific experiments demonstrating this?

You have none whatsoever and at the rate you are going you never will.
The science of Quantum Physics is headed towards a scientific justification for ancient spirituality,
not standard materialism.

You are headed towards the death of your old classic paradigm view of reality
and you will obviously go down 'kicking and screaming'
SalMinolta

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by SalMinolta »

All I have to do is consistently challenge you to back your beliefs with repeatable, observable scientific experiments
and you will surely see how much crap you are accepting as fact that has no scientific experiments to back it up.
Without such experiments, all you have is blind faith in science to fall back on.

Suckers like you obviously learned nothing from the Piltdown Man hoax.
Those who have you brainwashed made certain you wouldn't learn anything from that hoax.
SalMinolta

Re: Examining The Wisdom of the Infinite

Post by SalMinolta »

If your kind were wise enough to demand repeatable, observable scientific experiments demonstrating
the Piltdown Man was a genuine artifact they would not have been suckered for about forty years!!

Watch this short video and see how no one is encouraged to critically think
about the crap they are being forced fed in liberal atheists universities:

https://youtu.be/z3BNHX6gNhY
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:Is anybody finding this entertaining? It's about the only reason I can think of for allowing it to continue.
Dan, are you always posting in around 144 characters max as a rule? :-)

It's clear our guest does not want to discuss anything at all but is more consumed by his own feelings, henids about the bigger things in life and bits and pieces learned elsewhere. The copious amounts, forcefulness and haste signify serious emotional problems on top of that which will have to be dealt with.

It's going to stop, one of the 500 moderators here for sure could do it...
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by Dan Rowden »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Is anybody finding this entertaining? It's about the only reason I can think of for allowing it to continue.
It's going to stop, one of the 500 moderators here for sure could do it...
Perhaps we could draw straws? Btw, you do know who this guy is, right? Actually, maybe you might not. It's been quite a while and he mostly haunted the boards run by Naturyl (James Quirk) and Philosophaster. His 'original thinker' leitmotif triggered a memory. Think of Hawaii and guitars and martial arts. Actually it's been so long I can't think of his old moniker.
SalMinolta

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by SalMinolta »

You people are not original thinkers. You are human parrots parroting the information
that has been brainwashed into you. I shared things about myself so that you can easily see
the proof that I am indeed an original thinker. Dan wanted proof and I gave it to him.
Of course, nothing is ever good enough for you closed-minded atheists.

I say that the minimum requirement to being a true genius is to be open-minded.
You people are a bunch of closed-minded parrot brains who think you are something great
because with your moderating powers you are guaranteed to always win the argument.

My moderating powers guarantee I always win every chess game I play with the computer, but I realize
that I am not really winning because I undo my overly stupid moves.
It's similar here. With your moderating powers, you guarantee that you always win the argument.

In all fairness, when the computer makes an overly stupid move at the easiest level
I often undo the move and allow the computer to make a better choice. I feel it's only fair
since I undo my overly stupid moves. It says a lot about me in that I treat the AI mind
with respect. I feel since I undo my overly stupid moves I might as well be fair
and undo the computer's overly stupid moves. That says a lot about my character.

The thing is you liberal atheist types don't even realize you tend to advocate
having blind faith in mainstream science. No matter what I may say you are
too brainwashed stupid to demand repeatable, observable scientific experiments
before you believe anything science says is fact. In this, you are just like
the blind faith religious and that is indeed the worst insult I can present you with.

Who you think I am is irrelevant. What I am stating is relevant. Accusing me
of being someone you may not like does not change the fact that you are
brainwashed human parrots and obviously always intend to stay that way.

Oh well.... It's pointless trying to make a functioning skeletal structure
for a bunch of spineless jellyfish

BTW: Accusing a person of being someone you don't like when you've lost the argument
is another standard atheist trick. Nothing original about it at all.
I've seen it all too often before. Lose the argument then become convinced
that I am someone you don't like with a different name.
The strategy is about as original as armpit and foot stink
SalMinolta

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by SalMinolta »

You do not encourage genius here. A true genius thinks outside
the little 'box' of certainties you non-original thinkers demand.
You would shackle any true genius with your rules and regulations.
You don't want to allow him to express his uniqueness.

You would threaten him with your rules and regulations
so that he is just like everyone else and easy to defeat
in an argument. Such are the ways of limited thinking
parrot brains who cannot think outside of their
little 'box' of taken for granted certainties.

I started this topic thread by stating that
one must face the truth about oneself in order
to be truly "enlightened" and I still stand by that assertion.

I believe most everyone is born a genius.
However, there is an agenda of mind-control
that demands we conform to the status quo.

The liberal scholastic status quo demands
you believe in Darwinian evolution.

The liberal status quo demands you believe
there is no afterlife.

The liberal status quo demands we blindly
believe official authority figures and
not demand they back all their supposed "facts"
with repeatable, observable scientific experiments.

The liberal status quo demands you blindly believe
"official news sources" at face value and consider
all opinions that conflict with what is presented
as "fake news"

It's gotten to the point where the mainstream news
cares nothing about questioning the sources
of the supposed "facts" they may present.
They will take practically any anonymous rumor
that fit's the narrative they are determined
to brainwash with and treat it as hard, cold fact.

The fact is:

James Comey already testified before congress
that no one tried to get him to stop his investigation.
So if there is some memo of his stating that
President Trump tried to stop him from investigating
anyone then Comey perjured himself before congress
and should be in very big trouble!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ey+perjury

That is what I believe to be a fact. I've seen Comey's
testimony about this. However, the mainstream news
will not report that because it doesn't fit the narrative
they want you to blindly believe.

Of course, you liberal atheist types will blindly believe
the mainstream media lies because you have been
hopelessly brainwashed to accept the views of
official authority figures as hard, cold fact.

Again I say that before you bask in the comfort
of your scientific certainties, do yourselves a favor
and research into

Corruption in Science and in the Scientific Peer Review Process:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Corrupt ... e&ie=UTF-8

You are being played for suckers and fools
I'd say it's about time you wake up to the truth.
You should be thanking me
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan Rowden wrote:Perhaps we could draw straws? Btw, you do know who this guy is, right? Actually, maybe you might not. It's been quite a while and he mostly haunted the boards run by Naturyl (James Quirk) and Philosophaster. His 'original thinker' leitmotif triggered a memory. Think of Hawaii and guitars and martial arts. Actually it's been so long I can't think of his old moniker.
It's not a really unique schtick of course, it must work like a drug at some level of the mind. The channeling preacher syndrome?

But this thread was perhaps worth it, just to get to: "I often undo the move and allow the computer to make a better choice". If we'd undo this thread and let it start over, unfortunately the same results will appear, as well, I suppose. Unless: quantum physics!
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Scientific certainty (was "The Truth of Enlightenment")

Post by Pam Seeback »

SalMinolta wrote:I find most people to be lying, hypocrite, two-faced con artists in one way or the other.
Since they are too stupid to realize I am playing chess when interacting with them
I have them at a severe disadvantage. They may move a proverbial 'piece'
and rather than take that move at face value I'm thinking things like
"Why did they make that particular move?" I am no longer angwed by their deception.
It's all part of the game.

They made the obvious move and left their queen unprotected. Very nicely
I take their proverbial queen while they don't even realize they lost their queen.
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!! Great fun!!

It's much nicer treating interactions with people like a chess game.
I don't blame them for trying to con me. Heck, it's all part of the game.
However, as I stated, the great fun is they don't have a clue I am playing chess.
Dumb sucker idiots. So much fun to take their queens when they didn't even realize
they left their queen exposed. Ha!

Go ahead and lie and say you've heard about people doing this
thousands of times before. Go ahead and try to con me, atheist type.


https://scontent.fhnl1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=59743686
Dear God:

At the moment, your wisdom mirror is cracked. Luckily not literally or forever. There's a chance that if you stop this silly repetitive game of trying to corner your queen with your king, you'll hear your crack speak and be free. I'm rooting for you.

Sincerely,

God
Locked