User Tag List

First 5678917 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 176

  1. #61
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    My point is, he can't put himself in the position of, could my current belief be like the flat earth earth theory? Is there something else? Because obviously we are missing something here if it's not a fact.
    Because it's not LIKE the Flat Earth theory.

    In fact, if anything is MOST like the Flat Earth theory, I'd have to say it's the religious belief that "life is so complicated that God MUST have created it" -- it correlated pretty close to the same vague idea that "The Earth is flat because it LOOKS like it's flat."

    The flat earth theory was the general layperson's "common sense" view on what the earth must be shaped like. Currently, that similar style of thought is held by the side that believes in a creator... and the claim is basically, "It's self-evident."

    Evolution theory is actually the side that collected all the data and challenged the predominating notion (i.e., the religious perspective) and continues to collect data and makes observations and then actually tests the theories in modern research and product design. Evolutionary principles are already being regularly used in order to develop new antibiotics, for example; the sharp arc in technological capability are allowing use to crunch more and more copious quanties of data and thus actually try to apply evolutionary principles.

    So that's why your comments come across as somewhat empty and uninformed, I guess. You're making a very broad layperson's case for why evolution should be categorized differently just on the "But we don't know" principle, where actually you're ignoring copious amounts of research, data, and practice that validates evolutionary principles even if there is no way we can actually have sat there and observed millions of years of evolutionary change. It sort of reminds me of the solipsist argument -- "How do you know that you're not just a figment of my imagination and don't actually exist?" Just because you can make a statement like that that cannot be disproved doesn't mean it's anywhere close to the most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn, but you're giving weight to an idea that can't be validated versus one that is continually under validation.

    We also can trust that evidence will eventually win out and that the theory will correct itself not based on evidenceless assertion but when enough data is accumultaed to refute the theory's claims. Ideas that cannot be checked and validated (like the solipsist argument I mentioned above) just really have no bearing on the dialog.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #62
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Because it's not LIKE the Flat Earth theory.

    In fact, if anything is MOST like the Flat Earth theory, I'd have to say it's the religious belief that "life is so complicated that God MUST have created it" -- it correlated pretty close to the same vague idea that "The Earth is flat because it LOOKS like it's flat."

    The flat earth theory was the general layperson's "common sense" view on what the earth must be shaped like. Currently, that similar style of thought is held by the side that believes in a creator... and the claim is basically, "It's self-evident."

    Evolution theory is actually the side that collected all the data and challenged the predominating notion (i.e., the religious perspective) and continues to collect data and makes observations and then actually tests the theories in modern research and product design. Evolutionary principles are already being regularly used in order to develop new antibiotics, for example; the sharp arc in technological capability are allowing use to crunch more and more copious quanties of data and thus actually try to apply evolutionary principles.

    So that's why your comments come across as somewhat empty and uninformed, I guess. You're making a very broad layperson's case for why evolution should be categorized differently just on the "But we don't know" principle, where actually you're ignoring copious amounts of research, data, and practice that validates evolutionary principles even if there is no way we can actually have sat there and observed millions of years of evolutionary change. It sort of reminds me of the solipsist argument -- "How do you know that you're not just a figment of my imagination and don't actually exist?" Just because you can make a statement like that that cannot be disproved doesn't mean it's anywhere close to the most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn, but you're giving weight to an idea that can't be validated versus one that is continually under validation.

    We also can trust that evidence will eventually win out and that the theory will correct itself not based on evidenceless assertion but when enough data is accumultaed to refute the theory's claims. Ideas that cannot be checked and validated (like the solipsist argument I mentioned above) just really have no bearing on the dialog.
    Are intps afraid of the unknown? Why do you have trouble simply stating that it's not a fact? You have to keep pushing how it's an educated guess. I get the point, it does SEEM TO MAKE SENSE. All I'm saying is that we don't really know. And I'm open to hearing alternative perspectives, ARE YOU?

  3. #63
    THIS bitch stringstheory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    1
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    Are intps afraid of the unknown? Why do you have trouble simply stating that it's not a fact? You have to keep pushing how it's an educated guess. I get the point, it does SEEM TO MAKE SENSE. All I'm saying is that we don't really know. And I'm open to hearing alternative perspectives, ARE YOU?
    Because, well, you came here presenting another idea that appears to have holes in it. You say words have frequencies and vibrations, but that has a lot to do with the pitch and not the word. What if I said "JESUS" and it registered at 440 Hz? What if I said the same word at 880 Hz? Does it have the same effect? Has this been tested? The video you showed us shows how it shapes matter, but there are no words so how does this prove that it's the words that can shape matter and not the frequency of the vibrations/pitch?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Introverted Feeling (46.7)
    Extraverted Intuition (45.7)
    Introverted Intuition (37.5)
    Introverted Thinking(26.5)
    Extraverted Feeling (25.4)
    Extraverted Thinking (22.1)
    Extraverted Sensing (19.5)
    Introverted Sensing (17.0)



  4. #64
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stringstheory View Post
    Because, well, you came here presenting another idea that appears to have holes in it. You say words have frequencies and vibrations, but that has a lot to do with the pitch and not the word. What if I said "JESUS" and it registered at 440 Hz? What if I said the same word at 880 Hz? Does it have the same effect? Has this been tested? The video you showed us shows how it shapes matter, but there are no words so how does this prove that it's the words that can shape matter and not the frequency of the vibrations/pitch?


    I demonstrated our ability in the prayer experiment. I use words.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...pictureid=5061

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...pictureid=5060

    And so have thousands of others, and you can too...

    or yea I guess you mean how are words sounds? because we use sounds to create words. and sounds are vibrations and frequencies of these vibrations. It's just a micro to macro thing.

  5. #65
    THIS bitch stringstheory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    1
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Yes, I looked through your albums.

    Tell me, what kinds of controls did you and Emoto use to ensure that the results of the experiment are the result of the actual words and not the pitch you speak the word at? Or that they have to do with vibration at all? There are compelling arguments that say Emoto did not control well for key components of supercooling of water. Have you looked into those? What do you think about them? How many times have you performed the experiment?

    The point is that you are accepting an idea without the whole picture behind it. Theory is not simply the findings of one experiment, it is repeated many times under many different circumstances with many various controls to determine the possibility of achieving the same results, but for reasons other than what you hypothesize.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Introverted Feeling (46.7)
    Extraverted Intuition (45.7)
    Introverted Intuition (37.5)
    Introverted Thinking(26.5)
    Extraverted Feeling (25.4)
    Extraverted Thinking (22.1)
    Extraverted Sensing (19.5)
    Introverted Sensing (17.0)



  6. #66
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stringstheory View Post
    Yes, I looked through your albums.

    Tell me, what kinds of controls did you and Emoto use to ensure that the results of the experiment are the result of the actual words? Or that they have to do with vibration at all? There are compelling arguments that say Emoto did not control well for key components of supercooling of water. Have you looked into those? What do you think about them? How many times have you performed the experiment?

    The point is that you are accepting an idea without the whole picture behind it. Theory is not simply the findings of one experiment, it is repeated many times under many different circumstances with many various controls to determine the possibility of achieving the same results, but for reasons other than what you hypothesize.
    The fact that his team pioneered water crystal photography alone is pretty good credential, I want to see these "arguments" you speak of but do you even know this fact? They are the first in history to invent a microscope that can take those photos. It would be logical to assume they had very good control measures.

    And also, I don't think they were supercooling the water, they were freezing it all the way and photographing it as it melts.

  7. #67
    THIS bitch stringstheory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    1
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    The fact that his team pioneered water crystal photography alone is pretty good credential, I want to see these "arguments" you speak of but do you even know this fact? They are the first in history to invent a microscope that can take those photos. It would be logical to assume they had very good control measures.

    And also, I don't think they were supercooling the water, they were freezing it all the way and photographing it as it melts.
    Yes, I know this because I actually looked up more info when you posted about it instead of just going "hmm, that's interesting, and I guess it makes sense, so alright then!". And it's certainly not logical to assume they had "very good control measures" if they are being criticized for those very measures by important people in the field.

    You can find that direct quote from Dr. William A. Tiller in his publication "Visions in Action", Vol. 2, Issues 3-4 on pages 16-20, or from his appearance in the film "What the Bleep Do We Know?". You can find other sources of criticisms here: Masaru Emoto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You can also type in "Emoto water crystal" into Google Scholar and come up with a list of his full publications, as well as publications that review his work.

    They're actually all very good, interesting reads.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Introverted Feeling (46.7)
    Extraverted Intuition (45.7)
    Introverted Intuition (37.5)
    Introverted Thinking(26.5)
    Extraverted Feeling (25.4)
    Extraverted Thinking (22.1)
    Extraverted Sensing (19.5)
    Introverted Sensing (17.0)



  8. #68
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stringstheory View Post
    Yes, I know this because I actually looked up more info when you posted about it instead of just going "hmm, that's interesting, and I guess it makes sense, so alright then!". And it's certainly not logical to assume they had "very good control measures" if they are being criticized for those very measures by important people in the field.

    You can find that direct quote from Dr. William A. Tiller in his publication "Visions in Action", Vol. 2, Issues 3-4 on pages 16-20, or from his appearance in the film "What the Bleep Do We Know?". You can find other sources of criticisms here: Masaru Emoto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You can also type in "Emoto water crystal" into Google Scholar and come up with a list of his full publications, as well as publications that review his work.

    They're actually all very good, interesting reads.
    That's great but seeing that you never read a book by Masaru Emoto, I'd say you don't really see both sides of the argument. I've heard much the skepticism before, and I was even skeptical after reading the book to tell you the truth(you probably don't believe this or don't understand this), maybe you actually have to DO something about it to better understand.



    and that's very odd that James Randi is involved in that wiki. He's just some magician exposer, what is he doing on this? Claiming it's a magic trick? Can you tell me how a double blind test can even be done in this type of experiment? Usually double blind is used for clinical trials, not experiments of this sort, so you tell me how to do it on this type of experiment and I'll DO IT.

  9. #69
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    I have found scientific reasoning and truths in simple vague statements in the bible.
    Couldn't someone write down any set of vague and arbitrary statements, and have people find reasoning and 'truths' in them?

    Frankly, I think people have beaten the Bible to death in trying to extract meaning from it. There is some wisdom in the Bible, just like there is wisdom in Hammurabi's code, and countless other literary works.


    This all reminds me of the people behind the polonium "halo" theory that proves the existence of God and creationism:

    [YOUTUBE="rTICjwUhSys"]Fingerprints Of Creation[/YOUTUBE]

  10. #70
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post

    [YOUTUBE="rTICjwUhSys"]Fingerprints Of Creation[/YOUTUBE]

    To be honest I think this is nonesense.
    I mean, they don't even mention subduction zone in the western part of North America. (subduction zones by definition create igneous rocks)

Similar Threads

  1. Sensing/iNtuiting Game: Perceiving Differences
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 179
    Last Post: 02-11-2012, 05:30 PM
  2. Bible Toys Invade Wal-Mart
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-04-2007, 12:53 AM
  3. RIAA and investigatory processes
    By rivercrow in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 04:55 PM
  4. Intuitive memory...
    By The Ü™ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 08:43 PM
  5. Do Sensors read faster than iNtuitives?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-26-2007, 03:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO