Interesting thing is, few seem to recall that it was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

No battle here, biz is a failed nyc injury lawyer that the owner of www.1leads.com laughed at in a pm from my account

Biz thought his lousy 100K was a big deal and the guy that has access to my account since he is a partner in some other projects with me told him, you need 200K a month to really penetrate google for sem/seo

Now he's criticizing me as the owner of www.1leads.com and I'm not

But I sure will admit to having a piece of www.1Player.com

We specialize in high stakes tables, biz doesn't like our site

boo hoo

fuck biz

he's a broke ass jew lawyer that won't even admit to being a jew from nyc

note the usage of MEH in his posts, it's a yiddish term, so he won't even admit he's a jewboy wearing a beanine from nyc

haha

Thanks for your encouragement, BitChick. So far, in this forum, it is really fun to be able to show people the truth. They are basically nice people. Just look at the things S.Boxx has to say. His (her?) encouragement and concern are wonderful, even if he/she is a little backward in the way he says it.

I am happy for your successes in India. I haven't had the opportunity to do something like that... travel with an outreach or medical group. Maybe I simply haven't made my opportunity.

Lots of churches say that you can't receive Jesus without hearing God's Word. Personally, I am coming to believe more and more that it is in the heart through nature that you first hear Jesus... not the Bible. What I mean is this.

If God hadn't held back the destruction when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, everything would have collapsed back then.
We don't know what it would have been like to have children in a sinless state, because it never happened.
Even though little children and fetuses have sin in them (they are physically flawed in their DNA), it is the power of Jesus that they are living in from their start.
In other words, all people hear Jesus throughout their fetal life, and for the first few years as children, even though they are gradually being corrupted by sin, and the hearing is becoming dull.
The point is that ALL hear Jesus, not only those to whom the Bible is read (although most reject who have not heard the Bible because they haven't received the confirmation of God working through His Word, and they have become deaf to their original fetus and little-child training from nature).

I know that I have opened up a lot of folks in this forum to alternative ideas. It's evident from the way some of them pick on me. Oh well. They are the ones that have to live with themselves.

Thanks, again. And blessings on YOUR work.

So far, in this forum, it is really fun to be able to show people the truth.

Just look at the things S.Boxx has to say. His (her?) encouragement and concern are wonderful, even if he/she is a little backward in the way he says it.

Maybe I simply haven't made my opportunity.

I know that I have opened up a lot of folks in this forum to alternative ideas. It's evident from the way some of them pick on me. Oh well. They are the ones that have to live with themselves.

That is a nice watch, and I do appreciate it.. but sadly I only collect watches that hold their value..

Movado is in the same league as tissot.... mass produced watches for the average guy.....

I'm looking for something a little more high end... but maybe this thread will help you sell that movado...

thanks for sharing...

Seeing oneness in the words god and universe is trapping me?

Is this still the joint from a couple years ago?

If you hold awareness and are able to conclude that you exist, you can also conclude that the universe exists.  If you can conclude through your awareness of your existence that the universe exists, you can conclude that the universe is aware.

Is god not an omnipresent form of consciousness?  Ie, the aware universe your awareness concluded to exist?

Analysis paralysis or paralysis of analysis is an anti-pattern, the state of over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation so that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome. A decision can be treated as over-complicated, with too many detailed options, so that a choice is never made, rather than try something and change if a major problem arises. A person might be seeking the optimal or "perfect" solution upfront, and fear making any decision which could lead to erroneous results, when on the way to a better solution.

The phrase describes a situation where the opportunity cost of decision analysis exceeds the benefits that could be gained by enacting some decision, or an informal or non-deterministic situation where the sheer quantity of analysis overwhelms the decision-making process itself, thus preventing a decision. The phrase applies to any situation where analysis may be applied to help make a decision and may be a dysfunctional element of organizational behavior. This is often phrased as paralysis by analysis, in contrast to extinct by instinct (making a fatal decision based on hasty judgment or a gut-reaction).

Seeing oneness in the words god and universe is trapping me?

Is this still the joint from a couple years ago?

If you hold awareness and are able to conclude that you exist, you can also conclude that the universe exists.  If you can conclude through your awareness of your existence that the universe exists, you can conclude that the universe is aware.

Is god not an omnipresent form of consciousness?  Ie, the aware universe your awareness concluded to exist?

God = all.  Universe = all.

Does the universe exist?

Are you aware?

Now, children. I know it hurts a little when you find out that there isn't much (if any) substance to the things that you believe. But YOU ARE ALIVE! You have the opportunity to shake your childishness off, and to move ahead in the direction of REAL TRUTH.

Don't fail me now. I have pointed you in the direction where you can find TRUE life, and love, and fulfillment. Grab hold of the things I have shown you. Run with them. LIVE!

There were those in this forum who told me it was useless to try to save you. Others suggested that I was only casting my pearls before the swine. But rather than simply accept their words, I pressed on, in the hopes that I could somehow show some of you the way. And I have succeeded with some.

Don't fail yourselves, now... now that you are so close to finding out the truths of the Bible. Jesus would love to have you with Him in His kingdom. Throw off the foolishness of your childish ways, and grow up into eternal life!

The idea is to get people to be saved, even atheists, even new agers. Jesus suffered a lot on the cross that day. He did it for me. He did it for you. He did it for everyone. He doesn't want anyone to be lost.

How does one respond with the truth while, at the same time, not alienate? bl4kjaguar might be lost, but the fact that he is still answering shows that there is hope. Notice that his answers don't have much of a thread of logic to them. But he still tries. There is still hope.

Notice that his answers don't have much of a thread of logic to them.

Does somebody pay you to write this stuff?   

In one incident, a seal attempted to copulate with a penguin, then ate it.

Try telling that to all the kids in grade school, high school, college, medical school, etc., who are virtually forced to study evolution as though it were some kind of logical process, if not the absolute truth behind all life.





1)  Evolution is misunderstood if it's proposed as a cause for life itself.  No teacher or professor or scientist has any business associating evolution with the cause for life.

2)  The scientific method isn't a religion, it's a theory about knowledge acquisition, i.e. it is a specific method used to acquire certain types of knowledge.  Religion is not a method of anything, but instead is a belief system. 

3)  What point am I evading?  I'd like to know so I can respond to it directly.

looks like it is very interesting reading material.  sadly, I don't have a membership. if you would be so kind to PM me a copy and paste, it would be read and appreciated.     I won't tell if you don't.

Hypotheses? Forget About It!

So says our philosophical science correspondent Massimo Pigliucci.

Newton famously said “hypotheses non fingo,” meaning, “I frame no hypotheses” – a rather startling position for a scientist to advocate. Isn’t science precisely the activity of constructing and testing hypotheses about the natural world? Certainly this has been the view of influential philosophers of science such as Karl Popper. Popper said that scientific hypotheses can never be proven correct, but they can be falsified, that is proven wrong. For Popper, science progresses through the successive elimination of wrong hypotheses. Many scientists proudly ignore philosophy, but Popperian falsification is one of the only two philosophical concepts you are likely to find in an introductory science textbook. (The other is Thomas Kuhn’s idea of paradigms. This is rather strange, since Kuhn was a fierce critic of Popper.)

I came across a delightful paper by David Glass and Ned Hall – the first a biomedical researcher, the second a philosopher – published in a rather unlikely place, the journal Cell (August 8, 2008). As its title states, the main point of the paper is to provide readers with ‘A Brief History of the Hypothesis’. This makes it a must-read for young (and perhaps not so young) scientists. But what caught my attention in the paper is Glass and Hall’s suggestion that, contrary to Popper’s conception of science, scientists would be better off replacing hypotheses with two other guides to their research: questions and models.

Let me explain. Half of the problem with hypotheses was mentioned above: there is no way to conclusively prove a hypothesis correct, because there is always the possibility that a new set of observations will disprove it. The bad news is that, unbeknownst to most scientists, philosophers have also made a very compelling argument that hypotheses cannot be decisively disproved either. Falsification doesn’t work, because one can always tweak the hypothesis enough to accommodate the initially discordant data, or question some of the ancillary hypotheses, or even question the accuracy of the data itself. (This is not as far fetched as it may seem given the complexity of the machinery used nowadays to produce scientific data, from particle colliders to genomic sequencers.)

What now? Glass and Hall advise us to go back to the basics. Science is really about asking questions, they suggest: “it would seem that a question is the appropriate tool because the question, as opposed to a hypothesis, properly identifies the scientist as being in a state of ignorance when data are absent.” Right! I became a scientist because science has the power to answer questions about nature. Questions can be formulated in either open-ended or very specific ways, and both ways can provide guidance for fruitful empirical research. Besides, as Glass and Hall also note, in many fields of modern science one would not even know how to begin to formulate sensible hypotheses. For instance, in the field of genomics, it’s easy to ask questions: how many genes are there in the human genome? How much does the human genome differ from that of other primates, and in what ways? But what sort of hypotheses could one possibly formulate to replace such questions?

Genomic research is highly explorative, so it is natural to base it on well-thought-out questions. Even when research is more advanced and less explorative, Glass and Hall contend that hypotheses still will not do, as they can’t be proven and they can’t be disproven. Instead, here we need models of the phenomena under study.

Unlike a hypothesis, a model is constructed after some of the data is in, and then the model is used to predict new data. A model can be statistical or directly causal in nature, mathematical or verbal, but its predictions are probabilistic and always subject to refinement.

It is the very dynamism of models which makes them powerful intellectual tools in the scientific quest for knowledge. Glass and Hall write: “eliminate the ‘hypothesis’ term and substitute the ‘question’ for settings where experiments are performed before sufficient data exist, and the ‘model’ for situations where the scientist is working with sufficient data to produce a construct that can be tested for inductive [predictive] power.”

In fields which rely heavily on statistical analysis, such as biology and the social sciences, some scientists have already moved away from hypothesis testing to model comparisons. It used to be that statistical tests were rigidly set up to pit a simple (some would say simplistic) ‘null hypothesis’ (nothing’s happening) against an alternative, catch-all hypothesis (there’s something going on here…). Slowly but surely, people have figured out that this is not particularly productive, and recent years have seen a steady increase in the use of statistical software that can pit several alternative models against each other, with analytical methods that can tell which ones are more likely, given the available data.

The funny thing about all this is that a few years ago the US National Science Foundation made a ‘philosophical’ move in their guidelines for grant proposals. They explicitly asked scientists to do away with questions (the traditional way to frame grants) and to replace them instead with the more ‘solid’ concept of hypothesis. So now a prospective grant applicant can be seriously penalized if she does not put her proposal in a way clearly contradictory to Newton’s dictum (I venture to say that citing Newton as a reference will not help). But this is what happens when scientists pay so little attention to philosophy that they are a few decades out of date with the philosophy of science literature. Maybe we should mandate Philosophy of Science 101 for all graduate students in the sciences.

© Dr Massimo Pigliucci 2009

Massimo Pigliucci is Chair of the Philosophy Department at City University of New York, Lehman College, and is the author of several books, including Making Sense of Evolution: The Conceptual Foundations Of Evolutionary Biology (Chicago Press, 2006). His philosophical musings can be found at www.platofootnote.org.

Yes, I find this to be very true.

When I practice yoga, it's like "going home" - getting back to my roots, in a sense.
Some also describe that as "being grounded".

These responses are exactly the thing that I am talking about. Point them in the other direction. Point them at evolution, big bang, and old-age universe.

Let me pick on evolution. Evolution suggests that things have gone from a very simple state to an extremely complex state over a long period of time. What do we see in the universe and nature around us? Let's list some of them. We see:
1. Extremely great complexity;
2. Cause and Effect in everything;
3. Continual entropy;
4. No evident method for evolution to be happening;
5. A fossil record that shows that in the past there were more than 3 x the number of species than we see alive today;
6. A fossil record that doesn't conclusively show evolution.

Putting all these things together as simply stated above doesn't prove God. Yet these things are part of the reason that men of science have to twist math and nature in laboratories just to get something that they can suggest might appear to be evolution.

That's human laboratories, not nature's "laboratory." They aren't the same. Men need to make very controlled "situations" to get what they want. Nature shows what exists.

The 6 things mentioned above make two very apparent points:
A. We simply don't know for a scientific fact about how things came into being. We are still at base one;
B. Of all the things that we can logically surmise about where we come from, God in all strong probability holds the top position.

Although nature may not prove God from the things listed above in the simplistic form they are listed, they point to God more than any other popular idea, and maybe more than any other idea whatsoever. It's self evident.

Putting all these things together as simply stated above doesn't prove God. Yet these things are part of the reason that men of science have to twist math and nature in laboratories just to get something that they can suggest might appear to be evolution.

The 6 things mentioned above make two very apparent points:
A. We simply don't know for a scientific fact about how things came into being. We are still at base one;
B. Of all the things that we can logically surmise about where we come from, God in all strong probability holds the top position.

Oh come man. Have some faith. (pun intended) New branches and disciplines of science are regularly being created as time goes by.  And also lots and lots of theories are postulated in science not by what we can see, but by what we can't see.  If I remember for a long time that was the case with dark energy and dark matter, thus the "dark" in their name.  Just because it isn't directly observable doesn't mean science can't dabble around the subject and rule out other reasonable possibilities one by one.    

This whole debate is stupid.

1. Human science is soooooo premature that humans don't even know how big the universe is, how does gravity and electromagnetism work and many other very very simple and basic parts of physics.  If science can't even understand the physical world that is observable, it really has no business commenting on the unobservable (yet), and anybody trying to use it to prove or disprove God's existence probably doesn't realize how silly they look.  Like a monkey trying to understand the complex grammar of a Shakespearean play when all it knows is sign language signs for simple verbs and simple nouns.  

2. Science at this early stage is inevitably usually wrong about most things that have been "proven".  Scientist are always right in their own mind until 10 or 50 or 100 years later another scientist comes along and shows that were magnificently wrong in a few assumptions.  

I am not arguing that there is or isn't a God here.  What I am trying to say is using today's science to discuss this topic is about as stupid as using first century astronomy and mathematics knowledge to explain why the Earth is bigger than the sun, why the Earth is flat, and just how far away the sun is as it rotates around the Earth.

Anybody can go look up what a dictionary says. What's the point? Words are constantly changing in meaning based on common usage. That's why we don't use a dictionary from the time of King James. That's why we have legal dictionaries that remain much in the meaning of the dictionaries at the time of the formation of the country, while popular dictionaries have words that look the same but often have a completely different meaning.

Why do you think that I attack science? How paranoid can you get? Science itself (yes, the science of your dictionary definitions) has determined over and over again that many formerly held "beliefs" about Evolution are, indeed false. Many of the things of Evolution were even proven to be fraudulent. Sound familiar? Sounds like religion and government and politics in a lot of ways.

You seem to need to learn that strict science is YOUR friend. It is pointing you away from the foolish falsehoods of political "scientific" scammers, to the truth of the Bible, but by deductive reasoning. Soon there won't be any scientific methods left to test for Evolution scientifically. They will ALL have proven that Evolution is scientifically impossible. Ever notice how the attempted scientific proofs for Evolution have been getting more and more abstract lately?

Soon there won't be any scientific methods left to test for Evolution scientifically.

Ever notice how the attempted scientific proofs for Evolution have been getting more and more abstract lately?

Science itself (yes, the science of your dictionary definitions) has determined over and over again that many formerly held "beliefs" about Evolution are, indeed false.