Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Terry

    Bottom line: how do we know something is a hoax? It is exposed by evidence.

    What is evidence? Conformity with the way things really are (i.e. reality)

    How do you fool science? You manufacture evidence.

    How is the evidence exposed a manufactured? It is tested. The facts refute it.

    In christianity, how do we know something is a hoax? Have there ever been any christian hoaxes?

    Who perpetrated them? How were the exposed?

    Does the presence of a hoax (or many) undermine Science and more or less than they undermine Christianity?

    That is the REAL issue.

    Anybody can be fooled. How long they stay fooled tests their resolve to truth.

  • Perry

    I agree Mad Sweeney. The software is quite remarkable. I used a few posters here as Phd experts and got this load of science garbage ...... beautiful.

  • designs

    6 days of Creation, Hell Fire... lovely.

  • bohm

    I got no idea what perry point is. the autogenerated paper wouldnt fool a high-school student on acid, so what? computational linguistics have come so far as to autogenerate semantically correct sentences full of nonsence? that some journals are not reviewed?

    hey perry, here is a fun project: take a binder and write: "My cool scientific journal" on the side, and put some random crap you have written in the middle. you now have a binder full of random crap which says "journal" on the outside!

  • sizemik
    hey perry, here is a fun project: take a binder and write: "My cool scientific journal" on the side, and put some random crap you have written in the middle. you now have a binder full of random crap which says "journal" on the outside!

    Having read through this thread . . . I would venture to say this project has now been completed.

  • EntirelyPossible

    I have new name for this yahoo... Piltdown Perry. Will you all join me in applying this new name to this willfully ignorant pseudoscience proprietor & hypocrit?

  • designs

    The scary part- How many Presidential contenders believe the same....

  • HintOfLime
    It's like you have suffered a toatal disconnect from that which is practical and self explanatory.

    Maybe you have a point. Let's consider the merits of this statement, and determine if I am "totally disconnected" from what is practical and self explanatory....

    prac·ti·cal Adjective
    1. Of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something.
    2. (of an idea, plan, or method) Likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible.

    Let's consider what I consider to be practical:

    • Placing a sterile bandage on a serious wound. I would call it "practical". It is entirely "likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances".
    • Oberserving and documenting the laws of physics, so that we can build more efficient vehicles. I would call that "very practical" again... our vehicals have indeed become more efficient year after year.
    • Recording data, formulating a hypothosis, and testing predictions made by that hypohtosis (aka science). I would consider it very "practical". All quite doable, and history has demonstrated that this is a very successful methodoloy. (Again, look in any direction from where you are, and you're likely to be staring at a practical result of science... better metals, better glass, better everything.)

    Now let's consider your alternative anti-science Christian world view:

    • Believing that when the mind dies, our neurons retain their connections and continue to function in an alternate dimension. Well, what is the 'practical' application of this belief (beyond taking money from people)? How does one 'use' this idea in the real world.. when all observation tells us that when a person dies, they are simply gone. Comforting, perhaps. But not practical. As these 'souls' seem unable to communicate with us, we can't use this idea in any predictable, reliable way.
    • Assuming that some distant alien being is actively monitoring all your neural pathways, knows which cluster of neurons in your head is associated with which concepts, and is possibly using that information to make changes to our world. Practical? Is it measurable? If there any solid evidence this actually works? Is it predictable? Is it reliable?
    • Believing that science is bunk, filled with hoaxes and "cult speak". Is this practical? If we measure the frequency and value of 'good, repeatable' science and compare it to the frequency and harm caused by poor science - is it practical to be anti-science? Is being anti-science likely to be an effective and successful path for mankind?

    Personally, I have considered and find no validity to your statement.

    Chill Out - this is a fun thread - it's nothing personal, unless you are on some psedo-science jihad.

    Oh, I am having fun - trust me on that. I wouldn't bother posting if I wasn't having fun. This post was particularlly fun to compose.

    Is my pointing out your hypocritical attitude toward science spoiling your fun?

    - Lime

  • Perry

    No sense of humor this Saturday guys? All this phoney stuff pased off as science is hilarious to about 95% of the population. How about a paper like this:

    Atheism's Unintended Consequences and Pernicious Effects on Laughter


    The successive, rhythmic, spasmodic expiration with open glottis and vibration of the vocal cords, often accompanied by baring of the teeth and facial grimaces is noticably dimished among the small atheist global community numbering less than 5% of the human population. While it may be tempting to some to draw some sort of causal correlation between pompous arogance and the above mentioned diminishment, such extractions and interpolations may not necessarily be warranted in such a reality construct that organically requires omniscience as a social and psycho-centric objectified construct.

    Ok, enough humor. How about this whopper that is still taught as fact:(the imaginary geologic column)

    Figure 1. The presence or absence of all ten Phanerozoic systems in a 'stack' is not the only issue concerning the reality or otherwise of the geologic column. The column to the left represents the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period (100 miles). (the sum of all field observations). The column to the right represents to the same scale the thickness of sedimentary rock in North Dakota. (where all ten are thought to exist)

    Yet the earth's crust is only about 5 to 6 miles deep in the oceans and 16 to 19 miles deep on the continents.

    The fact is that the geologic column as presented in textbooks is a hoax. A fugazi.

    So-called "index fossils" are constantly being revised because "200 million yr. old" critters are regularly found running around alive and well.

  • EntirelyPossible

    Totally have a sense of humor. Piltdown Perry is HILARIOUS. Unfortunately, willful ignorance and hypocrisy are no laughing matter, PP.

Share this