[MBTI General] Intuitive Bible processing

[Totenkindly]

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.

 

[INTJ123]

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?

 

[stringstheory]

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?

 

[INTJ123]

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/forums/picture.php?albumid=490&pictureid=5061

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=490&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.

 

[stringstheory]

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.

 

[INTJ123]

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.

 

[stringstheory]

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.

 

[INTJ123]

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.

 

[ajblaise]

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]

 

[Virtual ghost]

[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)

 

[Totenkindly]

Are intps afraid of the unknown?

Dude, give me a break; my entire life has been about pushing through fear and abandoning everything I ever knew, which has been a pretty sucky and terrifying experience, and coming out whole and healthy on the other side. So I'm anything but that; please don't even go here. Your ideas just didn't make any sense, and you seemed incapable of critically examining them.

If you don't understand my point, you could actually make an effort to discuss it rather than resorting to cheap shots about my character.

Thank you for including some links later in the thread, with information to your experiments. That's more helpful that your general philosophical approach in the early parts of this thread, which I did not find very rational or intellectual reasonable and explained my reasoning very thoroughly about, without my issues being addressed by you.

 

[ajblaise]

Are intps afraid of the unknown?

No, because we don't make up nonsense to try and explain the unknown, like some. We're comfortable with it.

 

[INTJ123]

No, because we don't make up nonsense to try and explain the unknown, like some. We're comfortable with it.

Then just admit that evolution is not a fact. What is so wrong with having ideas, other than evolution? Because it seems so improbable?

We thought it was impossible for us to bend light and become invisible(highly improbable and educated guess, seemed to make sense), now we have meta-materials, it's possible. I'm well aware of how improbable things may seem, but I also know that if we don't KNOW, then everything is possible. You can't discount any other theory because it seems stupid on the surface.

 

[INTJ123]

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]

It's like you havn't understood a single word I said, you are being ridiculous. I actually agree with you about the bible, there is wisdom in it as well as practically every other religion, and it's obvious it's been beaten to death, christianity is the most popular religion in the WORLD. I don't belong to any religion I told you! You seem to think your statement would offend me but it doesn't!

All of you also seem to misunderstand where I stand on the matter. I think many theories are quite plausible, including evolution.... however...just as you feel that the bible has been beaten to death, I feel that evolution has been beaten to death as well.... Do you get it?

 

[kelric]

Okay, my last post in this thread...

Then just admit that evolution is not a fact. What is so wrong with having ideas, other than evolution? Because it seems so improbable?

Without sliding into a philosophical consideration of what a "fact" is and isn't, by any reasonable conclusion based on the evidence we have available to us now, it *is* a fact. As close as we can be certain with our evidence, of course - which is as close as we can *ever* get on this or any other question. Obviously this is pretty good for practical purposes. To use only the most simplistic example, take the increase in the frequency of infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Bacterial populations were challenged with a change in environment, and ones that possessed genes (of varying types and configurations) that made them more competitive in light of this new threat increased their frequency (and the frequency of the resistance genes they carry) in the population. A change in allele frequency over time. That's the definition of evolution. There are more complex examples, to be sure - but that's one.

There's nothing wrong with having ideas, even offbeat ones, but hyping ideas that conflict with observable evidence, and then trying to make a point of denying the conclusions that many people have made, without any evidence for your idea, is just annoying and counterproductive. It's like if I were to hypothesize that a big pink cosmic unicorn might kick the earth around so that the sun rises in the west... and then go around telling people that they "can't be sure" that the sun's coming up in the east tomorrow. Sort of an amusing idea, but putting it on the same level as the "sun's gonna come up in the east" idea is well, sort of ridiculous - unless, of course, you've got evidence of said pink cosmic unicorn. But detractors of evolution - even those who do the "something else is *possible* thing - don't provide any such evidence. *That* is what's annoying.

All of you also seem to misunderstand where I stand on the matter. I think many theories are quite plausible, including evolution.... however...just as you feel that the bible has been beaten to death, I feel that evolution has been beaten to death as well.... Do you get it?

You may be sick of hearing about it (and I'd have to agree - the constant arguments and flamewars over the topic get old), but that doesn't mean that it's any less valid. Do you also feel that Einstein's theory of relativity has been beaten to death?

Anyway, all done .

 

[lowtech redneck]

Wait, you mean the OP wasn't a joke?

 

[INTJ123]

YouTube - Dr. Michio Kaku: SCI FI or SCI FACT, Part 1

YouTube - The Divine Matrix: Gregg Braden Pt.1

Stephen Hawking called it "mind of God" lol.

And I love what he says about the big bang.

 

[Totenkindly]

Then just admit that evolution is not a fact. What is so wrong with having ideas, other than evolution? Because it seems so improbable?

It's fine to have other ideas.

What is not fine is to say that all ideas have the same merit, backing, and support. There is differing quality among theories, and you don't seem to be making much of a distinction.

We thought it was impossible for us to bend light and become invisible(highly improbable and educated guess, seemed to make sense), now we have meta-materials, it's possible. I'm well aware of how improbable things may seem, but I also know that if we don't KNOW, then everything is possible. You can't discount any other theory because it seems stupid on the surface.

Again, every theory should be tested on its own merits. The issue is that you seem to give the same weight to all theories (well, at least yours) regardless of evidence. It seems more like you're defending yourself rather than trying to present a case for your theory at this point, so I won't trouble you any longer on the matter.

 

[onemoretime]

For crying out loud - evolution through genetic variation and natural selection fits the evidence and we are able to make predictive observations based on it. Not only that, it's falsifiable - if overwhelming evidence comes across that it's an incorrect view of the nature of life, we'll change it.

Creationism has none of these going for it. No evidence save what some feel is "self-evident" (meaning non-empirical) indicates the existence of a creator, much less that this figure created life as we know it, nor can we predict a damn thing based on that. Finally, even given the overwhelming evidence of evolution through genetic variation and natural selection, will the hard-core creationists even budge on their position?

I swear, to argue that falsifiability is one of science's weaknesses is perhaps the most disingenuous position one could take.

 

[The Decline]

It's a miracle!

I believe now. And all it took was a couple mason jars!

Oh and don't worry, it's not just an NT nerve being struck; my NF friend lol'd heartily at this thread.