religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence

[Jollybear]

Perhaps you can source one or two studies rather than some book with long winded reviews about Jesus and God lol, blog archives and a whole website. I found some of the sites you linked really difficult to read, as if they want to give people a headache.
I don't mind critiquing this kind of material but in small quantities and there needs to be something specific in mind or a specific goal. You mentioned, "Jeffrey's long list of 9 evidences." If it's in the scientific literature, I can examine it.

What kind of source do you want me to give you? Im giving you evidence. I dont know what you want.

From the one site, i read 600 NDEs myself. The site has over 6 thousand or so on it. When you say IF its in the science liturature, what does that even mean?

It almost sounds like you want me to give you a source that agrees with your point of view or something. Or a source that agrees with me, but is on a site that you respect but disagrees with the source or agrees with it. I dont get it? I gave you evidence, its presented in those three articles.

There are independent NDE researchers that have come to the same conclusions. Thats how science is done, right?

You did say youd like to deal with it in bits, ok, well, would you like to discuss ONE NDE experience? If so, i can get a veridical one, pull it up and we discuss it if you want? Let me know.

If you want a peer reviewed paper, heres one i found, i have not read it, but i found it. Journal of Near-Death Studies

Illusion does not necessarily mean not exist, but it can also mean deceptive appearance.

So, design does not exist then? See, just samantics. Dawkins and shermer, two active atheists admit the appearence or illusion of design but then reject ACTUAL design.

If we got the appearence of it, well thats EVIDENCE right there, isnt it? Its not proof because proof would require no inference of actual design. See, inference makes that leep from appearence of design to actual design. But atheists have also there own inference. Just different from theists. They infer design is illusion or not there.

One could argue that the appearance of the object does not exist. However, saying does not exist does not mean illusion. My point before was that an atheist may not necessarily consider ID as an illusion, because they may not notice/comprehend/consider something complex/intelligent outside real examples as ID.

Mike shermer, an atheist said "things look designed, youd have to be raving mad to not see design in the world, but its designed from the bottom up, not from the top down by any intelligence."

He said that and hes a militent atheist.

This proves atleast some atheists see the appearence of design. Complexity exists, information exists. It just does. I dont need to argue that, it simply does exist.

They may also see it as just incorrect and not consider how other people see it.
I'll give an example. When I went to Giant's Causeway, I did not know there was a story behind it nor did I in any way think there was an ID element or intelligence. Only after going there did I learn about the myth. I did not think these hexagonal stones had some kind of intelligent design to begin with but other people did, especially in the past. Therefore, for them, it gives an illusory appearance of intelligence.

Point taken. I get it. But, theres two kinds of design, what ill call organic design and human or animal design. The giants causeway may not have been made by human giant's or alien giants or animals or whatever, but they are still designed by God who made the laws of the entire universe, hence organic design.

So, ummm, that research article was not peer reviewed nor does it seem to be written by Jessica Utts. It seems as if she was in the review panel and, yes, I'm sure she thinks it's real and it looks like she argued with the other reviewer.

Wait a second, you said its not peer reviewed, then you say jessica argued with the other REVIEWER?

Also, there was 3 scientists, thats more that DID review jessicas and hymans conclusions and statements. They just concluded against jessicca. I disagree with them. But, it is peer reviewed.

Please define peer review for me.

I checked Web of Science - Please Sign In to Access Web of Science and it doesn't exist. You can check a free research search engine like Home - PubMed - NCBI but it's not there either. It doesn't have a DOI number, so it's certainly not peer reviewed. Btw, I noticed a spelling mistake, I think they wrote it in haste: they said meat-analysis I wouldn't put much faith into that piece of literature and it seems as if it was written for the CIA, I dunno. I don't know why you posted this if you wanted to show support for remote viewing. In fact, the whole article concludes time and time again that parapsychology is a waste of resources. I'm curious if you see the confirmation bias here? You gave me a link that shows how pointless remote viewing is, and it seems as if you didn't read it but thought it sounded as if it supported your case.

I did read it, a while back, before our discussion and i knew those scientists disagreed with jessicca. But i gave it because jessiccas views wer in it and they respected her work.

But, why does something have to be on "webofscience" in order to be respectable work?

they conclude in chapter 5 -

"In summary, two clear-out conclusion emerge from our examination of the operational component of the current program. First, as stated above, evidence for the operational value of remote viewing is not available, even after a decade of attempts. Second, it is unlikely that remote viewing—as currently understood—even if existence can be unequivocally demonstrated, will prove of any use in intelligence gathering due to the conditions and constraints applying in intelligence operations and the suspected characteristics of the phenomenon. We conclude that: Chapter Five: Conclusions American Institutes for Research 5-5 · Continued support for the operational component of the current program is not justified."

Yea, im aware of that and i disagree with them, i agree with jessica. I think there biased against clear evidence.

Plus, let me make a logical point here. The program over the years came under different names and alltogether lasted 20 years under the name stargate, and even longer then that under the other names.

If there was nothing too it, do you really think it would have lasted that long? Come on now. If you think that youve got to be gullible.

I think this is what's really going on and why you're convinced. Sure.

I can be wrong. For all I know any god(s) exist and an afterlife exists.

What I found interesting about your answer is that you needed to defend your original belief, as if just saying it will be detrimental for you.

Its easy to defend though because theres too much evidence.

Can you actually just say, "yes, I can be wrong," without immediately returning and defending your belief?

No, i cant because i know about the overwhelming evidence, including my own experiences.

 

[Jollybear]

I've seen no sign that you understand evolution.

I see no sign that you inderstand intelligent design.

Also one more, lol

People who understand intelligent design tend to accept intelligent design.

People who reject intelligent design generally either have a false idea of what intelligent design is or have been misled about the state of the evidence.

 

[Jollybear]

There is some dim entertainment value in
watching someone claim they understand
ToE, get all huffy about being told they do
not, and then proceeding to show they
are exactly what they say they are not.
Clueless,

Some may be smart, but intellectually
honest? Impossible.

Lets press the reset button.

Tell me your anylasis of kurt wise explanation of the radiometric dating methods from this video >

Mind you, as i said, you may or may not tip me over to your view. Ill have more questions for you.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=#&ved=0ahUKEwiV58LZiY3hAhXJt1kKHQZBBu0Qxa8BCCYwAA&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov

 

[Jollybear]

No, it really isn't.



Convince me, then. In your own words, explain evolution by natural selection.

Evolution is the adaptation of a organism. It adapts to its environment. Some die off because they wernt suited to the environment. The ones suited are the most fit, so they survive.

Anything else?

 

[Jollybear]

If you doubt it, you would be wrong. Let's look at the options that I have entertained...

A god that has existed for eternity did nothing for most of eternity and then created this universe, this earth, a bunch of kinds of animals, and two people. Then, some years later, he got mad and killed almost all of them by causing a global flood. Two thousand years ago he sent a part of himself to impregnate a virgin who, in turn, gave birth to a third part of himself.

We are all part of a massive computer simulation as shown in the movie The Matrix.

A god created this universe Last Thursday.

I give each of these as much credence as I give to any creation myth:
Creation Myths




See, you need to twist and turn and make up concepts and interpretations in order to make the straight forward stories of Genesis make sense in the modern world.



I do understand that GodDidIt is by far a more simplified way of looking at things than then intricacies of atoms becoming molecules becoming amino acids becoming, eventually, humans.

The problem is that you cannot accept these complexities.


The sentence I bolded makes no sense.



CLICK- Loud and clear.
If science explains how the universe is built that's not saying God did not build it.
If science explains how the universe is built that's not saying psychic snowflakes did not build it.
If science explains how the universe is built that's not saying a leprechaun did not build it Last Thursday.

What's your point? Ancient man created thousands of creation myths. You believe in one of the currently popular ones.



Why would you make that comment? I didn't use the term slave.

RE: Naturalism...


His "work"? Are his degrees in biology of geology or paleontology or in any branch of science? No, he has degree in philosophy.

Why would anyone accept the comments of David Berlinski, who is known for his criticism of the theory of evolution and is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture





No, science has not shown or proven an unnatural cause for everything in reality. No it simply has not.

What's your point?







First, you confuse subservience with slavery and now you confuse assumptions with dogma. You do know that there are online dictionaries, don't you?


Outside of mathematics, what has been proven?



DOGMA

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.​

Once again you are having a problem understanding and using words correctly.

• There is no evidence that the universe came about naturally.
• There is no evidence that the universe was created by a god.
• There is abundant evidence that humans are descended from single-celled entities.
• There is abundant evidence that biblical events like a global flood never occurred.
• There is abundant evidence that gods are the creations of man's imagining.

In other words, there is much more evidence for naturalism than there is for supernaturalism.


Your comment is certainly true of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Christianity has been controlled by central agencies since its inception. Those in power chose what was or was not "truth" based on their personal agendas. A group of men decided what "books" were God's words and what "books" were heresies. If you don't know who Marcion was, you should. If you don't know what happened at the Council of Nicaea, you should.


On the other hand, your comment is not true in terms of science. Science is not controlled by central agencies. Scientific knowledge changes and advances constantly. Often these changes are an embarrassment to the people who held previous notions.

ecco:
People on both sides of the argument, who have made the effort to ask questions, have found more and more reason to accept scientific findings and less and less reason to accept religious concepts and explanations.​

As knowledge advances, more and more of the nature of reality ties together. As knowledge advances, we see more and more obvious untruths in scripture.

The only reason that you are "undecided on how long a day was in Genesis" is because there is some tidbit of science-based knowledge in your brain telling you that the idea of a six thousand year earth is ridiculous.

Im gonna save myself alot of time on your posts.

Pretty much EVERYTHING you say is absolutely rediculious, wrong, red herring, strawman and ad hom.

That about sums it up nicely. Saved me a good bit of time too.

 

[charlie sc]

What kind of source do you want me to give you? Im giving you evidence. I dont know what you want.

From the one site, i read 600 NDEs myself. The site has over 6 thousand or so on it. When you say IF its in the science liturature, what does that even mean?

It almost sounds like you want me to give you a source that agrees with your point of view or something. Or a source that agrees with me, but is on a site that you respect but disagrees with the source or agrees with it. I dont get it? I gave you evidence, its presented in those three articles.

There are independent NDE researchers that have come to the same conclusions. Thats how science is done, right?

You did say youd like to deal with it in bits, ok, well, would you like to discuss ONE NDE experience? If so, i can get a veridical one, pull it up and we discuss it if you want? Let me know.

If you want a peer reviewed paper, heres one i found, i have not read it, but i found it. Journal of Near-Death Studies

Evidence, in terms of using scientific method, is not just a collection of anecdotal evidence. Statistics, methodologies, predictions, hypothesis and structured writing(E.G APA writing style), logical progression to assume a hypothesis and an objective interpretation of the data contributes to the scientific method. Scientific studies can take different shapes like various empirical studies, clinical case studies, meta-analysis, and so on.
I'm worried that I need to explain this and you're linking scientific studies to me and proclaiming you understand them. Anyway, the link you gave is fine and it's NOT a study or a paper. Their institution and, journal section of it, has a Peer review - Wikipedia process that's subscribed to web of science and they appear to do other stuff as well. Scientific journals will have a peer review process for submission. Websites such as webofscience, pubmed, sciencedirect and psycinfo are massive databases that house these articles from respected journals and they usually require some subscription from other institutions and individuals for people to access them.

I wouldn't pick a study for us to examine because I don't know what your research question is. NDE studies may ask many questions some of them even medical, because NDE is a medical phenomenon. Not all, as you assume, are trying to prove god or anything of the like. I'd need you to choose one even if you're bias about it. They have many studies on the subject.

So, design does not exist then? See, just samantics. Dawkins and shermer, two active atheists admit the appearence or illusion of design but then reject ACTUAL design.

If we got the appearence of it, well thats EVIDENCE right there, isnt it? Its not proof because proof would require no inference of actual design. See, inference makes that leep from appearence of design to actual design. But atheists have also there own inference. Just different from theists. They infer design is illusion or not there.

Mike shermer, an atheist said "things look designed, youd have to be raving mad to not see design in the world, but its designed from the bottom up, not from the top down by any intelligence."

He said that and hes a militent atheist.

This proves atleast some atheists see the appearence of design. Complexity exists, information exists. It just does. I dont need to argue that, it simply does exist.

My original reply was just pointing out that some atheists may not claim an illusion exists because they don't notice it or consider it. There was nothing added on to that, but you seem to have taken what I said the wrong way.
Anyway. I assume your argument is saying that something looks like design means it must be designed. This is a deductive argument, which not grounded because it must be necessarily so. Even if the theory of evolution didn't exist, I don't see the logical inference between appearance of design to actual design. All one needs is one counter example to show the deductive argument incorrect.

but they are still designed by God who made the laws of the entire universe, hence organic design.

This is just an assertion.

Wait a second, you said its not peer reviewed, then you say jessica argued with the other REVIEWER?

Also, there was 3 scientists, thats more that DID review jessicas and hymans conclusions and statements. They just concluded against jessicca. I disagree with them. But, it is peer reviewed.

Yea, im aware of that and i disagree with them, i agree with jessica. I think there biased against clear evidence.
Please define peer review for me.

It's not peer reviewed because it's not in any scientific journals that I can see. Therefore, it did not go through the Peer review - Wikipedia process. If I have to take a guess, it may be because it's format is not standardised and maybe because the CIA own the data.

It appears that paper was written for the CIA to determine the usefulness of psi. Two experts were called in: your beloved Jessica and Hyman. They were on the review panel to give advice, and review all the accumulated psi research. The three scientists took the experts opinions into consideration and came to a conclusion.
They consistently and continuously concluded that psi is a useless endeavour and has no practical value for the CIA. This study used the review panel as a resource - it was not about Jessica. Confirmation bias is obviously going on here with you. You picked a study that wholly dismisses the usefulness of psi, but you want to only look at the 1 person from the review pane. When you picked it, you seemed to only think it was about the 2 reviewers. It does not seem odd to me that you chose a study that finds psi useless, because you thought it was in favour of psi. So, now you're calling all the others involved biased even though you chose it. Not only that but considering how much you know on the study and how much I've corrected you, I have to assume that you haven't read it or don't understand it. Therefore, I see very little reason to continue, especially because you seem to take arrogance in your ignorance. I don't expect people to read that whole thing, but I expect people to get the general gist of it if they link it to me.

Its easy to defend though because theres too much evidence.

No, i cant because i know about the overwhelming evidence, including my own experiences.

And I find no evidence for the existence of god(s). However, I am able to claim uncertainty. If you are absolutely certain then there's no point discussing it anything further.

I'm sorry but I find this whole conversation pointless. I'll only reply if you read and cite peer-reviewed studies; you can choose any from Journal of Near-Death Studies.

 

[Audie]

. Confirmation bias is obviously going on here with you. You picked a study that wholly dismisses the usefulness of psi, but you want to only look at the 1 person from the review pane. When you picked it, you seemed to only think it was about the 2 reviewers. It does not seem odd to me that you chose a study that finds psi useless, because you thought it was in favour of psi. So, now you're calling all the others involved biased even though you chose it.
.

It is called intellectual dishonesty.

Except the last line, that refers to psychological projection.

 

[Jollybear]

It is called intellectual dishonesty.

Except the last line, that refers to psychological projection.

At this point i think your intellectualy dishonest.

 

[Looncall]

Lets press the reset button.

Tell me your anylasis of kurt wise explanation of the radiometric dating methods from this video >

Mind you, as i said, you may or may not tip me over to your view. Ill have more questions for you.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=#&ved=0ahUKEwiV58LZiY3hAhXJt1kKHQZBBu0Qxa8BCCYwAA&usg=AOvVaw0VTJzWxrN8ZFOD4xbU2nov

That video will not load for me.

I suggest you google Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective by Roger Wien's. As a professional radiochemist I assure you that that is a solid account.

Wise is a creationist who has admitted publically that he privileges scripture over reality.

I found that video finally. It's religious BS. Flood geology,, what a laugh.

 

[Audie]

That video will not load for me.

I suggest you google Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective by Roger Wien's. As a professional radiochemist I assure you that that is a solid account.

Wise is a creationist who has admitted publically that he privileges scripture over reality.

I found that video finally. It's religious BS. Flood geology,, what a laugh.

Every creationist who I have asked about this
finds him to be quite admirable for his honesty.

Do we have a psychologist handy, who can
explain this?

 

[ecco]

Im gonna save myself alot of time on your posts.

Pretty much EVERYTHING you say is absolutely rediculious, wrong, red herring, strawman and ad hom.

So you say. Yet you cannot dispute any of them. Instead, you just try to brush them off.

eg. You stated I didn't consider alternatives and then I showed you alternatives I have considered.

A god that has existed for eternity did nothing for most of eternity and then created this universe, this earth, a bunch of kinds of animals, and two people. Then, some years later, he got mad and killed almost all of them by causing a global flood. Two thousand years ago he sent a part of himself to impregnate a virgin who, in turn, gave birth to a third part of himself.

We are all part of a massive computer simulation as shown in the movie The Matrix.

A god created this universe Last Thursday.


As I said...
I give each of these as much credence as I give to any creation myth:
Creation Myths​

You only give credence to the first one, but you can provide absolutely no rational reason for your selection.

 

[Jollybear]

That video will not load for me.

I suggest you google Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective by Roger Wien's. As a professional radiochemist I assure you that that is a solid account.

Wise is a creationist who has admitted publically that he privileges scripture over reality.

I found that video finally. It's religious BS. Flood geology,, what a laugh.

Ok, you found the video on kurt wise explaining his view on radiometric dating?

Well, whats your refutation of his explanation?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BMAF6BAgJEAo&usg=AOvVaw2bbeq9YFp6zqQZUV3Mx3qW

 

[Jollybear]

Every creationist who I have asked about this
finds him to be quite admirable for his honesty.

Do we have a psychologist handy, who can
explain this?

Audie, im not even a young earth creationist and i dont see any dishonesty in kurt.

That should tell you something. It should make you think.

 

[Jollybear]

Evidence, in terms of using scientific method, is not just a collection of anecdotal evidence.

Let me put it like this: when a scientist does a test using the scientific method and then publishes his results, you have to trust him, right? Right. Now, when other scientists replicate it by doing the same test and get the same results, you have to trust them too right? Right. Then when a third, a fourth and on and on multiple scientists keep replicating and getting the same results, you at this point have to keep trusting them right? WRONG. At this point you gotta say to yourself that the results are true and not fudged.

Likewise, theres multiple near death experience and out of body and remote viewing researchers and the results are replicated and are the same what they find. The NDE is in literally millions. Theres a point we have got to say its not fudged, something real is happening.

Statistics, methodologies, predictions, hypothesis and structured writing(E.G APA writing style), logical progression to assume a hypothesis and an objective interpretation of the data contributes to the scientific method.

Yea and those methods are applied to the research of NDEs, OBEs and ESP.

Jessica utts was a statistics scientist by the way and her statistics results concluded hits above chance. Hyman could not deny, so he whitewashed it by calling it an anomaly.

Scientific studies can take different shapes like various empirical studies, clinical case studies, meta-analysis, and so on.
I'm worried that I need to explain this and you're linking scientific studies to me and proclaiming you understand them. Anyway, the link you gave is fine and it's NOT a study or a paper. Their institution and, journal section of it, has a Peer review - Wikipedia process that's subscribed to web of science and they appear to do other stuff as well. Scientific journals will have a peer review process for submission. Websites such as webofscience, pubmed, sciencedirect and psycinfo are massive databases that house these articles from respected journals and they usually require some subscription from other institutions and individuals for people to access them.

Its funny you want a peer review of the evidence of conciousness of the NDE, yet you give me wikipideas words saying jessica is biased.

Wikipedia is not peer reviewed by your "science standard" and any peer review it does have is just as much as the articles i gave you.

Wikipedia even admits on its website that its not reliable.

I wouldn't pick a study for us to examine because I don't know what your research question is. NDE studies may ask many questions some of them even medical, because NDE is a medical phenomenon. Not all, as you assume, are trying to prove god or anything of the like. I'd need you to choose one even if you're bias about it. They have many studies on the subject.

The NDEs that im most interested to discuss with you are classed as "veridical NDEs". There all interesting , dont get me wrong, but the veridical ones are the smoking gun for me and are the best that can be offered to you for evidence.

My original reply was just pointing out that some atheists may not claim an illusion exists because they don't notice it or consider it.

If they cant see the illusion then mike shermer, an atheist has called them raving mad, lol.

There was nothing added on to that, but you seem to have taken what I said the wrong way.
Anyway. I assume your argument is saying that something looks like design means it must be designed. This is a deductive argument, which not grounded because it must be necessarily so. Even if the theory of evolution didn't exist, I don't see the logical inference between appearance of design to actual design. All one needs is one counter example to show the deductive argument incorrect.

But, thats my point, theres not one counter example. Your giant causeway is not an example. Remember my point about organic design verses man/alian/animal design?

This is just an assertion.

Exactly, it is, or a logical inference. And the ulternative, that chance+time+unguided energy did it is ALSO YOUR assertion or inference.

It's not peer reviewed because it's not in any scientific journals that I can see. Therefore, it did not go through the Peer review - Wikipedia process. If I have to take a guess, it may be because it's format is not standardised and maybe because the CIA own the data.

Peer review Wikipedia process? What is that?

Also, who cares if its written for the CIA or a science community. WHO its written for and WHO its written by does not determine if the content is true or false.

Again, define peer review please?

It appears that paper was written for the CIA to determine the usefulness of psi. Two experts were called in: your beloved Jessica and Hyman.

Ahem......just jessica is beloved, hyman is not.

They were on the review panel to give advice, and review all the accumulated psi research.

"Review" panel and "review" all the research.

Let me ask you something: this "reviewing" that went on, wer they NOT PEERING through it as they wer reviewing it? Im not trying to be a smart a s s here, but seriously, what is peer review to you?

The three scientists took the experts opinions into consideration and came to a conclusion.
They consistently and continuously concluded that psi is a useless endeavour and has no practical value for the CIA. This study used the review panel as a resource - it was not about Jessica. Confirmation bias is obviously going on here with you. You picked a study that wholly dismisses the usefulness of psi, but you want to only look at the 1 person from the review pane. When you picked it, you seemed to only think it was about the 2 reviewers. It does not seem odd to me that you chose a study that finds psi useless, because you thought it was in favour of psi.

No you did not read my posts carefully. I knew hyman concluded different then jessica and i knew the institute of American scientists concluded different. I simpky, like jessica disagree with them. Per the video of her i gave you, she still disagrees with them, you know that yes?

So, now you're calling all the others involved biased even though you chose it

Yes, correct.

Not only that but considering how much you know on the study and how much I've corrected you, I have to assume that you haven't read it or don't understand it.

And youd assume wrong and i told you in the prior post i had read it. In fact i read it way before you made this thread. I also read a book years ago on remote viewing from one of the leaders involved.

Therefore, I see very little reason to continue, especially because you seem to take arrogance in your ignorance.

Let me correct you now. Im not ignorent. Nor am i arrogant for i dont claim proof, i claim evidence. Also, im very confident in my views, thats not arrogant.

I don't expect people to read that whole thing, but I expect people to get the general gist of it if they link it to me.

You dont have to read the whole thing if you dont want too, but i did, months ago around.

And I find no evidence for the existence of god(s). However, I am able to claim uncertainty. If you are absolutely certain then there's no point discussing it anything further.

Theres no certainty. However theres ALMOST certainty, thats how powerful the evidence is from what i have seen.

I'm sorry but I find this whole conversation pointless.

Oh i can definately agree with that.

I'll only reply if you read and cite peer-reviewed studies; you can choose any from Journal of Near-Death Studies.

Define peer review?

And ok, ill look for a specific one in there and ill get back to you with another post.

May take me a week or so to read through those "peer review" NDE papers. Im reading one now and even though its saying stuff that i agree with, its written in such a dam dry way, its driving me crazy.

 

[ecco]

Im gonna save myself alot of time on your posts.

Pretty much EVERYTHING you say is absolutely rediculious, wrong, red herring, strawman and ad hom.

That about sums it up nicely. Saved me a good bit of time too.

You should look up david berlinski. Hes agnostic and his work has dealt with having zero tolerence for what he calls the pretentions of science. No, science has not shown or proven a natural cause for everything in reality. No it simply has not.

Golly gee. I took the time to do as you asked - I looked up david berlinski.

I showed you what I found.

His "work"? Are his degrees in biology of geology or paleontology or in any branch of science? No, he has a degree in philosophy.

Why would anyone accept the comments of David Berlinski, who is known for his criticism of the theory of evolution and is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture

How can you say my comments are "absolutely rediculious(sic), wrong, red herring, strawman and ad hom" when they are based on easily researched and verified information? Were you under the mistaken impression that he had any valid degrees? Didn't you do any research on him before you linked to him? For shame.

 

[ecco]

i dont see any dishonesty in kurt.

That should tell you something. It should make you think.

It just confirms what most of us already knew.

 

[ecco]

The NDE is in literally millions. Theres a point we have got to say its not fudged, something real is happening.

A simple test is to put a magazine on a bookshelf high enough that no one standing could see it. If the patients did have OBE and "float", they would be able to report what they saw. A pro-NDE research Group AWARE set up such a test.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/aware-results-finally-published-no-evidence-of-nde/
AWARE Results Finally Published – No Evidence of NDE
Conclusion

The much anticipated AWARE study, designed to be the first large rigorous study of NDEs with objective outcomes that could potentially differentiate between the two major hypotheses, is essentially a bust. The study, for the main outcome measure for which it was designed, did not return as much data as was hoped, but the data it did return was entirely negative.
...
Spinning of this study in the popular press as evidence of life after death is not justified.



jollybear said...
Theres a point we have got to say its not fudged, something real is happening.

The study found...
Theres a point we have got to say oops, there is nothing really happening.

​

 

[Looncall]

Ok, you found the video on kurt wise explaining his view on radiometric dating?

Well, whats your refutation of his explanation?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BMAF6BAgJEAo&usg=AOvVaw2bbeq9YFp6zqQZUV3Mx3qW

He bases his account on Noah's flood and his idiot "flood geology", both of which are fatuous nonsense.

His guff about variable decay rates is nonsense. Ancient decay rates have been checked in various ways and have been found to be consistent with the present.

It enrages me to see my scientific specialty perverted as Wise does.

You insult everyone on this forum by citing the Discovery Institute. They are a bunch of notorious liars bilking gullible folks.

Again, I recommend you look over Roger Wiens' account.

 

[Looncall]

Audie, im not even a young earth creationist and i dont see any dishonesty in kurt.

That should tell you something. It should make you think.

He has publically admitted that, although he understood the validity of an old earth, he chose to reject it and promote creationist nonsense.

 

[Looncall]

Every creationist who I have asked about this
finds him to be quite admirable for his honesty.

Do we have a psychologist handy, who can
explain this?

Of course they do. He tells them what they want to hear.