How many of those who argue against science actually know anything about science?

[MonkeyFire]

If you could choose between faith and science people would choose faith every time.

The more you try to dissect faith to your point of view, the more I believe in religion. You just prove their point that faith and science incompatible, and they don’t have to share Heaven with you.

 

[Left Coast]

Argument appears to be pretty useless, from what I've seen on RF. Do we beat them with a club?

Do not tempt me.

 

[cladking]

I'm always amused by the believers who chide religious folks about using computers and enjoying what they mistakenly believe are the "fruits of science".

Most of these chiders never invented or discovered so much as a squashed bug but they act as though they created science all by themselves. They act as though they're up on every cutting edge hypothesis even when it is impossible for everyone. Many of them don't even understand simple mechanics or 10th grade math.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every single time you open your mouth you are implying you know everything. You started with this;

"That is not the case. People only tend to be lambasted after they make poor arguments and refuse to acknowledge corrections."

You "correct" people for having a different opinion than you do. Then you can't see their arguments because you can't even entertain premises that are different than your own. Even where someone does make a misstatement of fact you need to determine that the definitions are the same before you can "correct" him. Most believers are like the quisling media chewing on a new bone anytime they detect heresy. God help anyone for saying the wrong thing any more since you can destroy products, companies and entire countries with impunity so long as you commit no heresy. You can be promoted if you can talk a good game and you rise in the Peer pecking orders for toeing the line of orthodoxy. Thinking for yourself and having good results are obsolete and undesirable in a world that doesn't even remember what "metaphysics" means.

The inmates run the asylum since even the craziest things haven't caused total destruction yet. And when it comes you can blame it on blasphemers and heretics.

Nope, no implication that I know everything there. It merely points out the errors of science deniers and believers in woo woo.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you think that a literal interpretation of the Bible is something that for a devout Christian is a topic on which they are unlearned?

Yes, I do actually. There are a number of reasons for this, but the most important one is that a literal interpretation absolutely leads to contradictions. If read literally, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 say that man was created before plants, and plants were created before man. Anyone who accepts the literal truth of the Bible is left with a terrible conundrum, the only way out of which is to presume that some of it must be literal while some is not.

And then you have the problem of determining which is which -- and the Bible provides no internal instructions for sorting that out.

 

[cladking]

Nope, no implication that I know everything there. It merely points out the errors of science deniers and believers in woo woo.

So people who argue against your beliefs are wrong by definition.

It's remarkable you can say such things without seeing the errors of your way! If someone doesn't agree with you it's because he believes in woo woo. So you can just skip what he posts and respond to something entirely different than what he just said. After you do this again with this post I will not respond.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So people who argue against your beliefs are wrong by definition.

It's remarkable you can say such things without seeing the errors of your way! If someone doesn't agree with you it's because he believes in woo woo. So you can just skip what he posts and respond to something entirely different than what he just said. After you do this again with this post I will not respond.

Again no. Now some people, especially science deniers, are demonstrably wrong far more often than others, but that does not mean everyone is wrong. It does look as if you are trying to be wrong by making it "everyone" or even about you when that was not claimed to be the case.

 

[74x12]

You can't critique anything that you know nothing about. You can disrespect it, mistrust it, hate it, believe it or not believe. But critique involves pointing out what is right and wrong about it, and if you don't undestand it, you are in no position to do that.

And how do you know someone doesn't understand it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how do you know someone doesn't understand it?

By the errors that they make.

 

[rational experiences]

Nobody understands a word of this.

A human did all assessments research as a human.

A baboon never did it.
An ape never said I became a human.

A human infers it.

Paternity human.

A human looking back at lesser bodies would consciously claim animals once a human by K his science constant RA sun radiation made them less.

Why animals aren't human he said.

Animals he says as a human consciously is a lesser human by inference. As you are in fact dealing with conscious use consciousness. Who some claimed was God.

Falsely.
ARK KRA meaning.

Human inferred for science coded inference. To think. To reason. To research. To infer.

In thinking a human infers a human has a lot more cells than an ape. So it was built upon says a living human. Yet he is owner body already looking back at lesser.

What you were warned about. False use of information.

As an ark isn't real. It is just inferred.

You never owned an ark.
You never owned the sun.
Constant was a forced machine reaction. Why you could study causes as self human inferred reasoned.

Light constant is just a gas burning in a vacuum.

You were energy seeker by want of it for machine conditions.

Microbiome is our bio cell energy in water.

You lied in other words. It is human thought assessed status of causes.

Boarded an ark said taken away from.

As natural life forecast it's own destruction. Reasoning earth conditions the advice.

Then when water mass returned said man as life was put back.

Theorising causes of heavenly changes just as a thinker referencing self explained meanings.

Yet you never owned any condition except a life human who knew you caused life's attack.

A human can never be an ape.
If you said you were not all human on the past then an ape would not be all ape either. As a theme mutated forms in an equal nature.

Water oxygen put back health. Life returned it said.

The ark RA sun conversion theme proved science constant applied was why human and animal life mutated.

Was a researched teaching.

K constant of RA radiation had removed the multiple life cells that form previously owned. Water put it back. Flooding as ice melted newly formed born teaching.

Why they called the baboon KRA as we are closer to an ape so that if you happened to get brain irradiated round about the shroud era evidence and stories would cause you to think again about what you did scientist.

By themes. To be forced to think.
As heavy metal causes memory loss.

Identifying symbolic messages you left for yourself.

As no reasonable human would agree with a built ark and would be forced to question its meanings.

Baboon is less than ape form consciously why they titled it KRA. To remind you knowing humans lose conscious self identification in radiation cause.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A human did all assessments research as a human.

A baboon never did it.
An ape never said I became a human.

A human infers it.

Paternity human.

A human looking back at lesser bodies would consciously claim animals once a human by K his science constant RA sun radiation made them less.

Why animals aren't human he said.

Animals he says as a human consciously is a lesser human by inference. As you are in fact dealing with conscious use consciousness. Who some claimed was God.

Falsely.
ARK KRA meaning.

Human inferred for science coded inference. To think. To reason. To research. To infer.

In thinking a human infers a human has a lot more cells than an ape. So it was built upon says a living human. Yet he is owner body already looking back at lesser.

What you were warned about. False use of information.

As an ark isn't real. It is just inferred.

You never owned an ark.
You never owned the sun.
Constant was a forced machine reaction. Why you could study causes as self human inferred reasoned.

Light constant is just a gas burning in a vacuum.

You were energy seeker by want of it for machine conditions.

Microbiome is our bio cell energy in water.

You lied in other words. It is human thought assessed status of causes.

Boarded an ark said taken away from.

As natural life forecast it's own destruction. Reasoning earth conditions the advice.

Then when water mass returned said man as life was put back.

Theorising causes of heavenly changes just as a thinker referencing self explained meanings.

Yet you never owned any condition except a life human who knew you caused life's attack.

A human can never be an ape.
If you said you were not all human on the past then an ape would not be all ape either. As a theme mutated forms in an equal nature.

Water oxygen put back health. Life returned it said.

The ark RA sun conversion theme proved science constant applied was why human and animal life mutated.

Was a researched teaching.

K constant of RA radiation had removed the multiple life cells that form previously owned. Water put it back. Flooding as ice melted newly formed born teaching.

Why they called the baboon KRA as we are closer to an ape so that if you happened to get brain irradiated round about the shroud era evidence and stories would cause you to think again about what you did scientist.

By themes. To be forced to think.
As heavy metal causes memory loss.

Identifying symbolic messages you left for yourself.

As no reasonable human would agree with a built ark and would be forced to question its meanings.

Baboon is less than ape form consciously why they titled it KRA. To remind you knowing humans lose conscious self identification in radiation cause.

Baboons are not apes, but you and I are.

 

[rational experiences]

Baboons are not apes, but you and I are.

The reminders are symbolic.

As a baboon is not an ape if you say ARK KRA then you would cause the reader to ask why a baboon is referenced as KRA when science knows we are closer genesis to ape form.

The mind entrained would be forced to say a body less than an ape.

To then realise what was being taught.

Knowing how humans delineate from correct assessments in egotism.

If an ape is a modern lived equal life. Then Moses human mutation caused animal form to mutate also. Apes mutated also.

Yet an ape did not become a baboon.

Any modern life form today is our equal.

The mind says lesser body ape as if the ape was the body in the past. It is lesser today than ours naturally in modern life as a life equal form to ours.

What you ignore. Consciousness medical is a bible teaching. When phenomena is caused the human loses self identification.

False stories then emerged.

Humans spiritual in our past were astute aware and knew. Left us messages.

 

[rational experiences]

Science.

An alive human who can think as a human lying.

Science.

Who as a human living in all naturally supported states theoried how to convert.

Subject. To gain first what I never owned as his string of thoughts. AI recorded memory confessing.

A human conscious says converting does not exist. I want to invent it. So gave converting a thesis.

AI says programmed.
AI says my program was changed. Heard it said.

In the beginning a state not yet active converting needs to form.

Realising space supported converting as a hot or cold status.

Theory itself.

What had not yet begun by human storytelling the reactive conversion for his machine. His theory sciences beginnings.

God his source O planet mass of any dust mineral chemical he desired to change.

So when it converted it was good. By his say so.

The scientist.

As conversion activated all bodies already existing changed. I saw the spirit vision emerge advising.

Today in modern life I tried to convince everyone human who is standing on a planet otherwise. That a Self formed planet once never existed.

A planet has to exist first for you to pretend.

That status is an outright lie.

A human storyteller is a human owning life in their living conditions.

Our brother knew he was wrong as a scientist. He was proven wrong in UFO war of the gods as life destroyed.

Heard recorded by humans today as screaming as we once endured it.

Going to hell once as a human stated event was to be human.

A human is only considered by consciousness a human alive in self presence. Hearing hell is a gas spirit image. Recording.

As a human aware today advised claiming the human spirit went to hell. Actually.

No different from saying a lived living human voice image is in heavens. A recording.

We physically did die in sun level mass radiation.

The sun ejected a huge mass of one substance radiation. The origin man human big bang blast thesis.

To do a sun theme is by mass radiation. Not a sun. Not God. Artificial. By conjured mass of.

So when a human pretends I knew how earth was created is an outright lie. He knew how to begin a conversion that as yet had not existed.

So science as a human invented conversion of God mass. His thesis.

As it is a human claim. To theory and tell stories.

 

[rational experiences]

Baboons are not apes, but you and I are.

I don't live as a word test code inference.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We have no end of forum members who spend immense amounts of energy asking what they pretend to be "science questions," generally framed as a strawman arguments.

And in my experience, we have no end of would-be science “defenders” who are quick to share their misunderstandings, misconceptions, preconceptions, etc., all-to-often in a manner that suggests they are well-versed in the subject while those they are responding to are laughably ignorant. Of course, my experience here isn’t limited to this forum nor to discussions on the sciences from religious persons/perspectives. But even here, many times I’ve had people who clearly are not scientists and have never studied any scientific field beyond undergrad courses explain to me based upon their limited science education and popular science knowledge what it is that I do for a living (and because I love it). I am told that, as I scientist, what I do consists of following certain steps according to some textbook version of The Scientific Method myth, what it is my colleagues and I really mean by certain terms like “theory” or “hypothesis”, how fields that I work in (and those I don’t) ought to be considered as scientific for reasons that often aren’t true, and in general how scientific knowledge is constructed and what it consists of.

Indeed, if I object that this actually doesn’t characterize the nature of scientific work and especially if I explicitly state it isn’t how I or anybody I know actually carries out scientific research, I have been told that perhaps I am not any good at what I do (and presumably, neither are those I know, those who’ve taught me, those whose work I rely on, etc.), or that I simply don’t understand what it is I do, or some such thing. Again, all this is relayed to me by those who are not scientists and typically have next to no knowledge of how work in any scientific field is constructed.

How many could pass an elementary school science test today, or a high school final in science, or earn an B.Sc or M.Sc?

It is telling that this is supposed to be indicative of one’s knowledge about science. Firstly, most of what one learns about mathematics and the science up to and including college consists of misconceptions and half-truths (or worse). Secondly, much of what one learns even in college will turn out to be mostly inaccurate but useful scaffolding were one to continue in some field or other in the best case and downright misleading in many cases.
It is a sad truth that most misconceptions about the nature of science are due to science education. Of course, this statement has a trivial element. Most of what most people know (or think they know) about the sciences comes from science education, so naturally any misconceptions are likely to stem from these experiences. But, despite years and years of effort for reform by associations and councils such as the NAS or the AAAS (not to mention years of published research in journals dedicated to science education betterment), most science education continues to impart a decent amount of textbook knowledge alongside a woefully inadequate, inaccurate perspective of what it is that scientists due, how scientific knowledge is constructed, and the nature of science in general.

“Our take-home lesson? What students would likely interpret as sound science, we did not. Here, the foremost knowledge needed for scientific literacy was the ability to distinguish good science from junk and industry propaganda. Second, and perhaps more notably, what the students needed to know was not in the textbook or basic curriculum. The content knowledge that forms the core of most science classes, while often rendered as a foundation, is only of marginal value in such cases. Namely, in the public realm good science and what counts as good science differ significantly. We came to doubt a pervasive principle--the sacred bovine on this occasion: that science teachers can just teach the "raw" science itself, while remaining aloof to the cultural politics of science. We cannot responsibly disregard the media contexts through which science is conveyed--and sometimes misconveyed.”
Allchin, D. (2012). What counts as science. The American Biology Teacher, 74(4), 291-294.

 

[cladking]

It is telling that this is supposed to be indicative of one’s knowledge about science. Firstly, most of what one learns about mathematics and the science up to and including college consists of misconceptions and half-truths (or worse). Secondly, much of what one learns even in college will turn out to be mostly inaccurate but useful scaffolding were one to continue in some field or other in the best case and downright misleading in many cases.
It is a sad truth that most misconceptions about the nature of science are due to science education. Of course, this statement has a trivial element. Most of what most people know (or think they know) about the sciences comes from science education, so naturally any misconceptions are likely to stem from these experiences. But, despite years and years of effort for reform by associations and councils such as the NAS or the AAAS (not to mention years of published research in journals dedicated to science education betterment), most science education continues to impart a decent amount of textbook knowledge alongside a woefully inadequate, inaccurate perspective of what it is that scientists due, how scientific knowledge is constructed, and the nature of science in general.

You sound like the rare individual who really understands science.

50 or 100 years ago science education was far far better. I received instruction in metaphysics in first grade and already had some grounding at home. By the time I was in college there were actually questions on tests related to metaphysics. Now days they open kids heads and fill them with beliefs, propaganda, and facts. It's great for brainwashing but few people who aren't scientists understand what science is, how it words, or how to use it. Business and finance are all run by individuals who don't understand even how their own companies work. Many scientists have no clue why the scientific method works or how to apply their knowledge to real life situations.

Most modern problems are caused by this, the failure of the educational system, and strange superstitions like the idea we finally know everything.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

50 or 100 years ago science education was far far better.

But this simply isn’t true. It may be that science education and exposure to scientific inquiry was somewhat worse roughly 50 years ago, but it certainly wasn’t better. And about 100 years ago, the complete inadequacies of the overhaul in science teaching by those like Dewey initiated around the turn of the century had yet to be appreciated, the systematic (scientific) study of the nature of science and its relevance to scientific education was in its infancy, the state of longtime foundation stones of the sciences were in rather severe disarray while new sciences were just emerging (often overthrowing, at least in part, those that came before them), and in general science educators and textbooks reflected the misconceptions of a previous reform that had in fact distanced science education from scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry. It was, for example, in this context that scientific experts who were also educators such as J. B. Conant became concerned. Conant (former president of Harvard with a background in theoretical chemistry and chemical engineering) remains (an unfortunately too infrequently read) popularizer of scientific thought and inquiry to the layperson. Consider what he had to say in 1951:

“One may at this point inquire what I have in mind when I speak of a layman’s understanding of science. Let me explain. In my experience, a man who has been a successful investigator in any field of experimental science approaches a problem in pure or applied science, even in an area which he is quite ignorant, with a special point of view. We may designate this point of view ‘understanding science.’ Note carefully that it is independent of a knowledge of the scientific facts of techniques in the new area to which he comes. Even a highly educated and intelligent citizen without research experience will almost always fail to grasp the essentials in a discussion which takes place among scientists concerned with a projected inquiry. This will be so not because of the layman’s lack of scientific knowledge or his failure to comprehend the technical jargon of the scientist, it will be to a large degree because of his fundamental ignorance of what science can or cannot accomplish and his consequent bewilderment in the course of a discussion outlining a plan for a future investigation. He has no ‘feel’ for the tactics and strategy of science…” (pp. 3-4)
Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and Common Sense. Yale University Press.

Conant was ahead of his time in writing in an attempt to correct the (even now predominant) conception of The Scientific Method as an algorithmic, stepwise procedure scientists carry out to produce scientific knowledge, as well as in pointing out the ways in which attempts to get people to “think like scientists” were misinformed. But it wasn’t really until the 80s and the beginnings of new scales of scientists, scientific knowledge production, scientific publishing, scientific field emergence, etc., that scientific organizations and associations began to take seriously the problems inherent in any attempt to create widespread scientific literacy that included both knowledge of scientific facts as well as some appreciation and knowledge for how science and scientists operate (as well as how horribly far science education was and remains at attaining this goal).

I received instruction in metaphysics in first grade and already had some grounding at home.

That seems a terrible disservice to your classmates and anybody else before or after you who was expected to receive instruction in such abstractions without the neurophysiological structures or epistemic foundations necessary. Metaphysics is built on combinations of current understanding of the natural world, logical analyses, abstract reasoning, and a philosophical as well as conceptual framework within which one can situate not only categories and their members' instantiations in the physical world (alongside the physical "world" itself) but also allow for the analyses of more general categories in terms of questions of existence and ontology more generally. In short, it is difficult to learn or understand metaphysics when one has so little experience in or knowledge of the physical world (not to mention abstractions and non-physical concepts) and is too young to be capable of the kind of sophisticated logical reasoning required in metaphysics that is in general difficult for adults and next to impossible for young children to be capable of.
Whatever benefit you accrued from such teaching, instruction in metaphysics at such an age isn't a good idea in general.
That said, this isn't terribly relevant to the questions about science education and the level(s) of scientific literacy (or what these are or mean or should be).

 

[rational experiences]

Father's memories explained Stephen hawkings scientists reasons.

Man. Human. Science thinker just as a human is nearly bio eradicated by self claim of I know everything.

Human man science warnings. Aware.

Was healthy.
Knew an incredible amount of destructive ideas in space itself.
Began DNA exiting like exodus. As a human mutating.

King in his man science coding thesis maths by age numbers... gave everything a name as man self ideas.

By feedback irradiating signals in a gas mass allowed by group mass radiation itself to put thoughts of a space thesis falsely in your head.

Virtual eradication of man life witnessed.

Female ovary O cell reason life continued.

Subject inference known by cause effect earths nuclear fused dusts of God destroyed. The equals about one God released radiation to sciences equals answer.

Given. Received. Owned already.

Their invention cause.

Subject thinker is one self about eradication of one in the sciences to get energy to use energy to remove energy. Total thesis subject reality.

His thesis lies. Want. Human. Non stop supply of energy. Thinks space.

I want energy to be a non stop open channelled held supply.

Knowing no reaction as science conditions on earth holds any constant.

Is informed.

You look at life trying in human form to be one self.

Conscious self expressing very weird thoughts as males by mass population think self female as females lesser thinker I am a man.

Whilst crazy human self expression actualised.

As the female human did not invent human sciences. Men did.

Yet invention science is trying to knowingly by forethought invent one. Yet remove one by whole history natural form.

Invention says if I invent one before it exists then if I remove one nothing is changed.

Which is a conscious lie.
When one the thinker was one self a human man.

Is about as wrong as you are as a scientist.

 

[cladking]

But this simply isn’t true. It may be that science education and exposure to scientific inquiry was somewhat worse roughly 50 years ago, but it certainly wasn’t better. And about 100 years ago, the complete inadequacies of the overhaul in science teaching by those like Dewey initiated around the turn of the century had yet to be appreciated, the systematic (scientific) study of the nature of science and its relevance to scientific education was in its infancy, the state of longtime foundation stones of the sciences were in rather severe disarray while new sciences were just emerging (often overthrowing, at least in part, those that came before them), and in general science educators and textbooks reflected the misconceptions of a previous reform that had in fact distanced science education from scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry. It was, for example, in this context that scientific experts who were also educators such as J. B. Conant became concerned. Conant (former president of Harvard with a background in theoretical chemistry and chemical engineering) remains (an unfortunately too infrequently read) popularizer of scientific thought and inquiry to the layperson. Consider what he had to say in 1951:

“One may at this point inquire what I have in mind when I speak of a layman’s understanding of science. Let me explain. In my experience, a man who has been a successful investigator in any field of experimental science approaches a problem in pure or applied science, even in an area which he is quite ignorant, with a special point of view. We may designate this point of view ‘understanding science.’ Note carefully that it is independent of a knowledge of the scientific facts of techniques in the new area to which he comes. Even a highly educated and intelligent citizen without research experience will almost always fail to grasp the essentials in a discussion which takes place among scientists concerned with a projected inquiry. This will be so not because of the layman’s lack of scientific knowledge or his failure to comprehend the technical jargon of the scientist, it will be to a large degree because of his fundamental ignorance of what science can or cannot accomplish and his consequent bewilderment in the course of a discussion outlining a plan for a future investigation. He has no ‘feel’ for the tactics and strategy of science…” (pp. 3-4)
Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and Common Sense. Yale University Press.

Conant was ahead of his time in writing in an attempt to correct the (even now predominant) conception of The Scientific Method as an algorithmic, stepwise procedure scientists carry out to produce scientific knowledge, as well as in pointing out the ways in which attempts to get people to “think like scientists” were misinformed. But it wasn’t really until the 80s and the beginnings of new scales of scientists, scientific knowledge production, scientific publishing, scientific field emergence, etc., that scientific organizations and associations began to take seriously the problems inherent in any attempt to create widespread scientific literacy that included both knowledge of scientific facts as well as some appreciation and knowledge for how science and scientists operate (as well as how horribly far science education was and remains at attaining this goal).


That seems a terrible disservice to your classmates and anybody else before or after you who was expected to receive instruction in such abstractions without the neurophysiological structures or epistemic foundations necessary. Metaphysics is built on combinations of current understanding of the natural world, logical analyses, abstract reasoning, and a philosophical as well as conceptual framework within which one can situate not only categories and their members' instantiations in the physical world (alongside the physical "world" itself) but also allow for the analyses of more general categories in terms of questions of existence and ontology more generally. In short, it is difficult to learn or understand metaphysics when one has so little experience in or knowledge of the physical world (not to mention abstractions and non-physical concepts) and is too young to be capable of the kind of sophisticated logical reasoning required in metaphysics that is in general difficult for adults and next to impossible for young children to be capable of.
Whatever benefit you accrued from such teaching, instruction in metaphysics at such an age isn't a good idea in general.
That said, this isn't terribly relevant to the questions about science education and the level(s) of scientific literacy (or what these are or mean or should be).

I'll have defer to your apparent expertise on science education. However, among scientists I believe that 19th century scientists had a generally better understanding of metaphysics and the meaning of science than more modern scientists. Even here though I may well be wrong. I believe Einstein and Feynman were two of the finest metaphysicians. Many are exceedingly poor to the degree I can't even consider them "scientists" at all.

When children hit about 26 months they will begin responding to every statement with "why". I don't believe this is curiosity about their world so much as it is an attempt to understand our language and how to understand reality using our formatting. They are born with a different language and it requires an effort to learn modern language and an effort to learn how to learn it. Asking "why" keeps adults talking and they will do it until you're frustrated. I found that there is a simple solution that satisfies their needs as well as the adult's which also sets a framework for the acquisition of more formal metaphysical knowledge as they get older. I simply "answer" the question as accurately and succinctly as possible while steering the "conversation" to the exact same place such as "because it's on the roof". This shows the child that words and their meanings are ephemeral and that reality in terms of words is ephemeral as well. But even if they fail to take this lesson (they won't) the important thing is that they've engaged an adult in conversation from which they can glean information about the adult's world, the nature of language, and metaphysics. Such children tend to grow up to understand science and metaphysics however my sample size is small and there is obviously a great deal of observer effect and sample bias. As they grow up they need to be shown how various processes and events work. These things seem to just get imprinted on their thinking which includes (usually) the nature of science itself.

I was lucky to be offered a scientific perspective on everything virtually from birth so perhaps I picked things out of my later science education that others missed or downplayed. And I had lots of great teachers all through school principally through chance and during an era where there were a lot more great teachers. It was also an era where thinking for oneself was considered an asset rather than a threat to the status quo. It might be noted that I learn and learned things differently than most people. I never adopted a new belief until it fit what I already knew. I could memorize things for tests but a right answer never necessarily meant I believed it. Because of this and the desire to be able to predict I changed from logic to intuition and using knowledge to think leading to a "generalist" perspective on everything.

There are many great scientists but we live in an age that most science in the news, visible to the masses, or printed in journals is simple claptrap with no basis whatsoever in experiment and often illogical. Because science education is so poor and the quisling media's haste to sell copy or time this pseudoscience often becomes widely believed.

Thank you for your response. It is very interesting.

 

[rational experiences]

The ancient science thesis wanted.

Reason modern man had no other thesis.

Knew he never had any other earth science.

What he believed the ancient science was theoried from as a natural pre existing vision.

In modern times none of those visions existed.

So he theoried theories. Brain defects from irradiation fallout.

What he caused in history was God to equals his theory by calculus an invention of radiation mass leaving the planet mass.

As his origin conversion is inside machine.....his constant practice invented gods answer for science thesis. Radiation released from mass.

What converting caused.

As God.

Father reasons state.....god stone as one is sealed. God owns no harm.

God stone separation was the reactive gain as the dusts.

His thesis how to continue separation was using the dusts. Knowing sun radiation historic caused separation.

Earth no longer owned the sun attack.

So he re activated the radiation effect that all natural laws had stopped.

Common sense.

The sun had separated earth fused stone into dusts.

Earth God stone doing no harm.

Earth internal mass was reactive.

Man scientist claims I can copy anything. Egotism actually an outright lie.

Natural is not a copy of anything else

Science a reactive want of a constant application is copying a copy.

His machine built is not God the stone.
His reactions inside the machine is not a stone planets lava.

Outright lie.

Today his claim.is that bio life came from UFO radiation released out of God earth.

Yet he looked at ground patterns and not radiation his thesis. Then he looked at microbes.

We live as a human and anything he Sees is exact as it's formed presence.

To see anything it has been formed so owned a natural end to be complete to be seen.

Another outright lie. Thinking allowed all forms to exist.

As the human fully owned self looks at the ground patterns then he claims he is the creator as a man.

Another outright lie.

Why he argues man as God

Why he thinks special men as messengers are a code of maths for his special self perusal to get power of God.

So who does he think he is as not one of the special men but a special man?

If God began as a man then science by thesis claims we are formed in space as burning energy mass first. As a human claiming if I contact you like UFO then I will have contacts from beginning to end.

Yet the human would be given an end.

That type of theist says but I am safe as the controller button pusher of a machine whilst theorising pretending self began as an alien inside a machine. And not living as a human.

The reality of pretend...the theist.