Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Clockwork_Spirit

Intelligent Design: Evolution 2.0

2,739 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

XenoFish
3 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

So what? So they dont belong to any established discipline. This is the trouble with people like you, narrow-minded, ignorant, "know-it-alls", who do you think you are, trying to set the parameters of what can, and cannot be assessed, trying to impose your close mindedness, restricting thought and action. Your attitude is disgusting. 

No affiliation to any major university, but they have many Drs associated with many different universities.

What you have actually just said is, if they don't agree with established ideas, then they arnt worth anything. What a stupid, ignorant, attitude. Thank God our ancestors didnt have this pathetic, close-mindedness.

This attitude. Its why I don't like you. It is a fine example of a pompous self righteous temperament that seems so prevalent in overzealous spiritual individuals. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
40 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

You are kidding, right?

 

About what exactly?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
56 minutes ago, Mystic Crusader said:

And you guy's judge and condemn wolves and their pack mentality.

No, thats what phyche101 was doing.

They (Sheldrake &Co) are not following the established (pack) ideas and disciplines, so therefore they shouldn't even be considered.

This is like fascism 101, you tow the party line or else...

Edited by Crazy Horse
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
11 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

This attitude. Its why I don't like you. It is a fine example of a pompous self righteous temperament that seems so prevalent in overzealous spiritual individuals. 

 I could not care less what you think of me.

Pyhche101 is trying to impose his, and the establishment view that only materialistic science is worth considering.

That is, ignorant, pathetic, narrow-minded, stupid, and detrimental to society. Whether you like it or not..

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

I didn't see this. You beat me to it. :P

 

Hi Will

Yeah but he forgot the no:lol:

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellapennella

I meant to post at another thread, oops. 

Edited by Ellapennella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, Ellapennella said:

The point is this, things have meaning,almost like hidden in plain sight, even in nursery rhymes. The only way to learn and recognize things  is organically. 

Are we still in Hollyweird or having a CERN moment?

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellapennella
1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Are we still in Hollyweird or having a CERN moment?

jmccr8

yeah. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
3 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

They (Sheldrake &Co) are not follows the established (pack) ideas, therefore they shouldn't even be considered.

The 'established idea' is following the scientific method, if you've got a better option, name it.  They've been considered already:  criticisms have been offered, holes in his 'experiment' methodology have been pointed out, and most importantly other scientists have trouble reproducing some of Sheldrake's results.  What more do you want?  What specifically do you want considered?  The non-material?  Based on what, what do you want scientists to doPropose the experiment you want them to perform, all these complaints just amount to so much hand-waving until that is done.

And I wish the believers would pick a horse and ride it.  "Science" is horribly biased against ideas like Sheldrake's because of methodological materialism yet simultaneously we supposedly have a whole list of esteemed scientists affiliated with the above journal who are not.  So what then have these journal scientists demonstrated?  I requested the best evidence for the mind being non-material and got the run-around; 'maybe' there's a transmitter and receiver and a refusal to even define the mind barely gets us to step 2 in the scientific method.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
3 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

and most importantly other scientists have trouble reproducing some of Sheldrake's results.

You mean they are able to reproduce some results too, or they haven't tried to do so?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
3 hours ago, Crazy Horse said:

What a stupid, ignorant, attitude. Thank God our ancestors didnt have this pathetic, close-mindedness.

 

23 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

About what exactly?

We come from a long line of pathetic close-minded ancestors with stupid ignorant attitudes.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
Just now, Liquid Gardens said:

The 'established idea' is following the scientific method, if you've got a better option, name it.  They've been considered already:  criticisms have been offered, holes in his 'experiment' methodology have been pointed out, and most importantly other scientists have trouble reproducing some of Sheldrake's results.  What more do you want?  What specifically do you want considered?  The non-material?  Based on what, what do you want scientists to doPropose the experiment you want them to perform, all these complaints just amount to so much hand-waving until that is done.

And I wish the believers would pick a horse and ride it.  "Science" is horribly biased against ideas like Sheldrake's because of methodological materialism yet simultaneously we supposedly have a whole list of esteemed scientists affiliated with the above journal who are not.  So what then have these journal scientists demonstrated?  I requested the best evidence for the mind being non-material and got the run-around; 'maybe' there's a transmitter and receiver and a refusal to even define the mind barely gets us to step 2 in the scientific method.

These scientists have a hypothesis, they test them, and then they have the results peer reviewed.

Just because Sheldrake regards something that is not considered an established discipline, he gets called a pseudo-scientists. This is utterly unfair.. He's just a scientist doing work outside the established fields of inquiry. 

The best evidence for the mind being non-physical is the lack of any physical matter that we can call mind.

If you can show me something called mind, either in a bottle or under a micro-scope then fine. But I will just wait for the useral run-around instead.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
22 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

 

We come from a long line of pathetic close-minded ancestors with stupid ignorant attitudes.

Er, no, try reading that again...

I meant that if our ancestors didnt question the already established ideas and "facts" then we would be in trouble.

Try reading without bias, it will serve you well.

Edit: did I actually say that we come from a long line of idiots? 

Edited by Crazy Horse
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
8 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

 I could not care less what you think of me.

Pyhche101 is trying to impose his, and the establishment view that only materialistic science is worth considering.

That is, ignorant, pathetic, narrow-minded, stupid, and detrimental to society. Whether you like it or not..

 

There is always more than one side on a debate otherwise it's called a monologue. Psyche is expressing a reasoned position and you are expressing an opinion. Just because you can't accept that there are codes of conduct and regimen does not mean that they go against the common good. They don't put lead in paints, use asbestos in furniture and curtains anymore, look at the problems the had with thalidomide so if we went with every fruitcake idea without proper adhesion to a standard you would be crying about a s##tload of other problems.

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

There is always more than one side on a debate otherwise it's called a monologue. Psyche is expressing a reasoned position and you are expressing an opinion

Excuse me but ths is utterly funny.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
Just now, Illyrius said:

Excuse me but ths is utterly funny.

Hi Illyrius

Why, it is a discussion forum what would be the point of having one boxer in the ring. This is a place to learn and I see a lot of people come to argue not understanding the material they argue against. Study you opponent understand the material and argue the material.

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

This is a place to learn

 

Oh we're learning alright. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Illyrius

Why, it is a discussion forum what would be the point of having one boxer in the ring. This is a place to learn and I see a lot of people come to argue not understanding the material they argue against. Study you opponent understand the material and argue the material.

jmccr8

Hi Jay.

I will only say why i find CH much more reasonable than Psyche101. What Psyche101 does is called "quote mining" he dissects the text and negates it step by step by offering very little arguments and very much biased opinions edging on the border of insults. When clearly faced with truth, like when i proved that Rupert Sheldrake is a scientist - he negates a fact.

I don't see almost anything objective or reasonable in his posts. So i prefer to consider other more balanced and objective posters more seriously, and CH is certainly one of this posters.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
8 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

Just because Sheldrake regards something that is not considered an established discipline, he gets called a pseudo-scientists. This is utterly unfair.. He's just a scientist doing work outside the established fields of inquiry. 

He gets called a pseudo-scientist because he trumpets that he's found something that, if true, is absolutely ground-breaking, nobel prize level stuff, but when other scientists look at his work they can point out legitimate problems with his supposed experimental process.  And again, when other scientists try to reproduce his results, which are usually published in popular books, they can't.  There's nothing unfair about any of that, you are again assuming what you should be demonstrating. 

And for all the psychological projection onto scientists being unfair or biased or blinded by materialism or whatever, why is the line of skepticism turned off when pointed at people you believe in?  Sheldrake is an author, gee, I wonder if he has any interest in actually selling his books and if that may be corrupting his methodology and leading to him vastly overstating what he's supposedly found?

14 minutes ago, Crazy Horse said:

The best evidence for the mind being non-physical is the lack of any physical matter that we can call mind.

If you can show me something called mind, either in a bottle or under a micro-scope then fine. But I will just wait for the useral run-around instead.

I already asked you to provide some definition of the mind, I even tried to go along with your transmitter/receiver hypothesis to see if I could get some actual meaningful detail to have a discussion.  You replied that mind can't easily be defined, yet then (and now) you continue to go on referring to this mind that you won't define?  I can't show you something called the mind when you won't define it.  There isn't a lack of physical matter we call mind, again, why are thoughts and feelings so related to very physical parts of the brain? 

On the material side of explanations for the 'mind' you have neurons, hormones, and essentially the whole discipline of neurology, a lot if it established to exist.  On the immaterial side you have 'maybe' some entirely unevidenced scenario so far.  I'm pretty content then with this supposed run-around I'm giving you.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellapennella
On 2/8/2018 at 1:12 AM, Clockwork_Spirit said:

513vx3.jpg

I recently came across this excellent book by Perry Marshall. It pretty much bridge the gap between neo-darwinism and intelligent design, giving birth to what should be named Evolution 2.0. It's the theory of intelligent Design on steroids - evolutionary creation of the Universe - giving us a picture that makes a lot more sense than a cosmos driven by random, blind processes.

 

It's time to reopen the debate once more.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
1 minute ago, Ellapennella said:

 

Second video looks interesting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellapennella
Just now, Illyrius said:

Second video looks interesting.

He's a funny guy, Kent Hovind. I came across him one day searching about this topic.

Just sharing the shorter length  videos not in their entirety.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
21 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Oh we're learning alright. 

 

 

Hi Will

That's a good think

 

No?

Or Know?:D

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Will

That's a good think

 

No?

Or Know?:D

jmccr8

Devil made you do this post, admit it! :D

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crazy Horse
6 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

He gets called a pseudo-scientist because he trumpets that he's found something that, if true, is absolutely ground-breaking, nobel prize level stuff, but when other scientists look at his work they can point out legitimate problems with his supposed experimental process.  And again, when other scientists try to reproduce his results, which are usually published in popular books, they can't.  There's nothing unfair about any of that, you are again assuming what you should be demonstrating. 

And for all the psychological projection onto scientists being unfair or biased or blinded by materialism or whatever, why is the line of skepticism turned off when pointed at people you believe in?  Sheldrake is an author, gee, I wonder if he has any interest in actually selling his books and if that may be corrupting his methodology and leading to him vastly overstating what he's supposedly found?

I already asked you to provide some definition of the mind, I even tried to go along with your transmitter/receiver hypothesis to see if I could get some actual meaningful detail to have a discussion.  You replied that mind can't easily be defined, yet then (and now) you continue to go on referring to this mind that you won't define?  I can't show you something called the mind when you won't define it.  There isn't a lack of physical matter we call mind, again, why are thoughts and feelings so related to very physical parts of the brain? 

On the material side of explanations for the 'mind' you have neurons, hormones, and essentially the whole discipline of neurology, a lot if it established to exist.  On the immaterial side you have 'maybe' some entirely unevidenced scenario so far.  I'm pretty content then with this supposed run-around I'm giving you.

Mind, self awareness, consciousness, perception, that which we think with... 

Neurons are not mind, hormones neither. The fact that some of the folk who experience NDEs are clinically dead, sometimes for hours, no electrical signal, no blood flow to the brain, "scientifically" dead, yet they still experience consciousness, this demonstrates that mind isn't in the brain.

And as for Sheldrake, he gets called a pseudo-scientists because he looks at things outside established disciplines. He is a scientist because scientists have hypothesis, they test them, and then they get these findings published in peer reviewed journals, ergo, Sheldrake is a scientist and not a pseudo-scientist.

If mind is physical then show me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.