Looking for friends

[i blame blame]

I recognize four kinds of liars: malicious (e.g. Bernie Madoff), cowardly (Tiger Woods), white (global warming scientists), and naive (Madoff's customers who told their friends to invest with him).

Do you mean that all global "warming scientists" who state that global warming exists or do you mean a very few specific ones who did in fact distort facts?

[i blame blame]

As a naturalist, I work from models like the rabies virus, that "inceives" a fear of water into its victims. Water, as we all know, works against the virus and for the host.

What evidence is there that rabies cause a fear of water and that water "works against the virus" once the symptoms are already ocurring?

[i blame blame]

The wisest person you know personally

That person would be a weak atheist/strong agnostic.

One example: If precautions, such as the faith-filled prayer, Deliver us from the evil one. are not taken, invisible demonic beings will confuse, deceive, seduce, or otherwise interfere with your experiments, observations, interpretations, and conclusions.

Are you saying that so far, most scientific discoveries are wrong, because most scientists don't pray during their experimenting?
If that is so, then how come all these theories accurately predict phenomena? Does "the evil one" confuse us into believing we are seeing the predicted phenomena?
If this is so, why does our technology that is based on scientific principles work so well?
Are we being fooled into believing that it's working?
How is it possible that you are using a computer and communicate with me on the internet? Am I being confused into believing that you exist?
What evidence is there that it's not in fact prayer that is somehow confusing you into believing that your conclusions are correct?

Many scientific discoveries are spiritually neutral. of no interest to Satan. Others he positively encourages as they open the way for more mayhem. Learning how to pray effectively against these beings is quite analogous to Semmelweis' researches into chlorite solutions as a form of antisepsis.

Which scientific discoveries were distorted by Satan? Which discoveries were made during prayer and found out to be correct? Did they advance technology in any way?

theomatics, bible code studies, especially those presented by the Isaac Newton Bible Codes Review, Frank Loehr's little book, are good examples.

So, just more books.

I read these posts and found no report of any replication, except confirming studies with mice, confirming that these animals either have no souls, of very small ones. We wish Nahum well, but he hasn't gotten the funding yet.

Ok. Get back to me on that when he's received the funding he needs and has performed the experiment.

Like dark matter, we know something is out there but we do not know what. Indeed, the theological hypothesis, that there is some higher being, like us only more so, of very complex nature, but a person with all of our positive personal traits greatly magnified, indicates that our

Unlike dark matter though, we don't know that there is a "higher being" out there, which is more like us than we are. Nor have you provided any evidence to support this.

[groktruth]

I recognize four kinds of liars: malicious (e.g. Bernie Madoff), cowardly (Tiger Woods), white (global warming scientists), and naive (Madoff's customers who told their friends to invest with him).

Do you mean that all global "warming scientists" who state that global warming exists or do you mean a very few specific ones who did in fact distort facts?

Ahh, global warming! I was refering to the few who made the news. Most, though are in the naive category, telling others that science supports their recomendation for humans to try and reduce their co2 production. Science does support carbon sequestration, in case the co2 matters, but is from more volcanos, or is from humans who can not be influenced culturally to change. Carbon sequestration, if done through enhanced plant production, especially oceanic fertilization, is scientifically wise because the enhanced plant production is of value even if co2 has nothing to do with global warming.

True scientists separate warming trends (certainly occuring), consequences (specifically uncertain, but sure to be bad), causes (lots of room for plausibility enhancement), and cures. As I read the papers, the phoney scientists happily blend all these. Confusion is fusing together things that need analysis, not synthesis.

But the well meaning dishonesty didn't help.

[groktruth]

The wisest person you know personally

That person would be a weak atheist/strong agnostic.
As long as the topic is the rules for knowing what is true, it doesn't matter.

One example: If precautions, such as the faith-filled prayer, Deliver us from the evil one. are not taken, invisible demonic beings will confuse, deceive, seduce, or otherwise interfere with your experiments, observations, interpretations, and conclusions.

Are you saying that so far, most scientific discoveries are wrong, because most scientists don't pray during their experimenting?
If that is so, then how come all these theories accurately predict phenomena? Does "the evil one" confuse us into believing we are seeing the predicted phenomena? The devil has his own agenda, and supports science that furthers it.
If this is so, why does our technology that is based on scientific principles work so well?
Are we being fooled into believing that it's working?
How is it possible that you are using a computer and communicate with me on the internet? Am I being confused into believing that you exist?
God's agenda is to overcome evil with good, to make everything work to the good for those who love Him, keep His commandments, and serve Him. I agreed to these terms to use the computer, which as best I can tell, was invented by the devil to promote pornography, increase foolish gambling, and spoil relationships.
What evidence is there that it's not in fact prayer that is somehow confusing you into believing that your conclusions are correct?
External answers to prayer. When I began this study, I made sure that I was getting data that was beyond my capacity (quite substantial!) for self deception. For example, I with some others prayed that the California Condor would be saved from its imminent extinction. Around 1980. We asked specifically, experimentally, that if this prayer were answered, successful nestings of the species would occur and be found, something we had not heard of for years. Weeks after our day of prayer, two active nests were reported. Later, an accident by the investigators destroyed one of the nests. We "heard" in this that we were to pray for the investigators. So, we did, and rest is history. Note that the biblical wisdom is to pray for leaders, to be peaceable. The problem up to that point was great controversy within the ranks of the authorities assigned to save Condors. This was resolved after we prayed. We got a lesson and increased confidence that God was out there, and, many years later, I got to see a Condor. Of course, this was just one of hundreds of experiments I have conducted, with results consistent to my requests, and totally out of my direct control. The example can and will be explained away by God-haters. That's what they do. But, in combination with other experiences of the same sort, I got faith that "God" whoever, whatever He is, is out there.

Many scientific discoveries are spiritually neutral. of no interest to Satan. Others he positively encourages as they open the way for more mayhem. Learning how to pray effectively against these beings is quite analogous to Semmelweis' researches into chlorite solutions as a form of antisepsis.

Which scientific discoveries were distorted by Satan? Which discoveries were made during prayer and found out to be correct? Did they advance technology in any way?
Darwin's theory of evolution was distorted by the devil. He was supposed to have discovered the origin of species by means of artificial selection, modifying the lying church's blasphemy about the way and timing of God's work in creation. "Natural selection," a sort of null hypothesis, postulating no influence from God (presumed at that time to be around by most people) on the course of life diversification. Now, Darwin had ton's of examples of artificial selection, and knew about induction, the scientific argument that what is observed already is a likely explanation for what is now going on. He had to throw out the immutable species nonsense, but he threw out the interventionist God with it. But, he was already on the outs with God, and if he prayed at all, it didn't help. The devil got him to leave the straightforward explanation, that since we create biological diversity through artificial selection, that's probably how God works, too. The devil effectively mixed up the three issues in the theory: adaptation, time involved, and how is the selection happening. The devil then used his work to inspire the Nazis to carry out their horrors.

Tolkien's theologically inspired work implies that the devil is behind most technological science.

theomatics, bible code studies, especially those presented by the Isaac Newton Bible Codes Review, Frank Loehr's little book, are good examples.

So, just more books.
"just" in the sense of justice.

I read these posts and found no report of any replication, except confirming studies with mice, confirming that these animals either have no souls, of very small ones. We wish Nahum well, but he hasn't gotten the funding yet.

Ok. Get back to me on that when he's received the funding he needs and has performed the experiment.

Like dark matter, we know something is out there but we do not know what. Indeed, the theological hypothesis, that there is some higher being, like us only more so, of very complex nature, but a person with all of our positive personal traits greatly magnified, indicates that our

Unlike dark matter though, we don't know that there is a "higher being" out there, which is more like us than we are. Nor have you provided any evidence to support this.

I believe I have, but let everyone decide for themselves.

[groktruth]

As a naturalist, I work from models like the rabies virus, that "inceives" a fear of water into its victims. Water, as we all know, works against the virus and for the host.

What evidence is there that rabies cause a fear of water and that water "works against the virus" once the symptoms are already ocurring?

the disease is named hyprophobia. and Why else would doctors tell those afflicted with viral infestions to drink lots of fluids?

[Godfree]

Top

i blame blame Post subject: Re: Atheists vrs SkepticsPosted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:02 am



Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:26 am
Posts: 763
Location: One hour into the future groktruth wrote:
i blame blame,

Good handle!

As to getting the scientific evidence that makes the idea of God very plausible, I recommend that one get a mentor, and explore the rules for knowing what is true with that person.
What sort of mentor would that be?

The wisest person you know personally


groktruth wrote:
Do the following mind experiment with me. A professor looking for good students devises the following test. He wants a particular stone weighed. But the stone is suspected of having a peculiar radioactivity that immediately confuses and befuddles anyone exposed to it. A lead shield prevents this. The prespective student is given this information, then asked to weigh the stone. Students who try to weigh the stone without a lead shield are rejected, as being unteachable.

The orthodox theological hypothesis contains many epistemological predictions, so that if it is true, that truth can only be discovered by taking these predictions into account. The precautions will not confuse the research if the hypothesis is untrue, but predict that ambiguous results will be obtained if they are not taken and the hypothesis is true. (Weighing the stone with tools from behind a lead shield will not bias the weight measurement, but is a hassle.)
What does the hypothesis predict?
One example: If precautions, such as the faith-filled prayer, Deliver us from the evil one. are not taken, invisible demonic beings will confuse, deceive, seduce, or otherwise interfere with your experiments, observations, interpretations, and conclusions.
Why can the truth only be discovered by taking these predictions into account? Many scientific discoveries were made without the new phenoma having been predicted. Of course knowing the predictions might help us falsify or support the hypothesis more effectively. What precautions must one take for testing the orthodox theological hypothesis?
Many scientific discoveries are spiritually neutral. of no interest to Satan. Others he positively encourages as they open the way for more mayhem. Learning how to pray effectively against these beings is quite analogous to Semmelweis' researches into chlorite solutions as a form of antisepsis.


groktruth wrote:
I gave a list of studies that can be searched out that are encourageing. But I suspect that you may not be all that up on orthodox scientific methodology, and should study that first. Bayesian methods are important. R.A.R. Tricker's little book on The Assessment of Scientific Speculation is good.
Thanks but it would save me a great deal of time if you could answer my questions.
theomatics, bible code studies, especially those presented by the Isaac Newton Bible Codes Review, Frank Loehr's little book, are good examples.

groktruth wrote:
A good example of naive science is in the notion of "discrediting" a piece of research. In orthodox science, the only proper response to a published experiment is to replicate it.
This is routinely done in modern science.


groktruth wrote:
The whole point of there being a "scientific method" is the historical problem of the subjective "explaining away" of data people don't want to believe. How many people died because Semmelweis' data on antisepsis was "discredited" and not replicated! We have this problem today with MacDougal's study weighing souls.
Errors do of course occur in science, and after Semmelweis' death, the method was accepted.

Actually, the soul weighing experiment was replicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Nahum

Also, MacDougall was being somewhat sloppy when performing his experiments:

"The research did not follow the scientific method, showed wide variance in results (21 grams is an arbitrary figure; MacDougall's actual results showed no reliable mean), and were widely dismissed by the scientific community, even at the time. No attempts to duplicate MacDougall's findings have been successful."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams#Title
http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

I read these posts and found no report of any replication, except confirming studies with mice, confirming that these animals either have no souls, of very small ones. We wish Nahum well, but he hasn't gotten the funding yet.


groktruth wrote:
The theological hypothesis says that if you invest in the search for evidence confirming theological truth "with all your might," that is, as hard as anything you have ever done, you will find the evidence.
What is this theological truth?
Like dark matter, we know something is out there but we do not know what. Indeed, the theological hypothesis, that there is some higher being, like us only more so, of very complex nature, but a person with all of our positive personal traits greatly magnified, indicates that our search ought to be quite open-ended. But in my experience the most successful follow-ups to James call for a "scientific theology" have sought to confirm that there is a Person as self-described in the authorized scriptures, known as the bible.
"with all your might" gives me no information on how to set up an experiment to falsify or support it.
The details of the experiments are in the scriptures. It is recommended there that one begin with the experiment of titheing to "God's Storehouse." Or maybe, "Seeking the Lord with all one's heart." This last requires one to seek out methods of seeking (waiting on the Lord, prayer, fasting, etc.) We all have in our minds and experience a protocol for effective "seeking" involving reading, talking to authorities, going around visiting places where you hope to find what you are looking for. "With all your might" implies that you do your best with whatever protocols you normally use. I was a bird watcher and scientist when I began searching, so I looked for God the same way I looked for a rare bird that I heard was to be found somewhere.

I'd like to see Gallup survey people for their reports of conducting the titheing experiment. Anecdotally, I have heard many reports confirming that experiment, and, well, none where it failed. But I can't claim a good sampling scheme.


groktruth wrote:
Again, naive science whines that if you have a subjective intent to find confirming evidence, you will find such evidence even when none is really there.
"Naive science", or real science, as I'd like to call it, does not say this. There is however the risk that data that can be explained by other hypotheses is claimed to be confirmation of the "pet hypothesis" while data that contradicts it is swept aside.


groktruth wrote:
This idea has a little scientific basis, but the whole point of maturing the scientific method is to prevent this effect. Usually, replication with failed confirmation, followed by a joint effort at confirmation by scientists who got differing results solves the problem.
Indeed.


groktruth wrote:
Orthodox usually means "by the book." Now orthodox theology is based on a critical reading of the Bible, often incorrectly called "the word of God." Being under-critical, called hypocrisy, is, according to the scriptures, a fatal flaw. But diligently applying the rules of scholarship to this book leads to a clear understanding of what it claims. Then those claims can be tested; together, they constitute orthodox theology. Note that it is unorthodox to capitalize (make a name of, institutionalize) orthodox.
So what do these scholars claim what the Bible claims?

Most agree that the Bible is "inspired" by God, which means actually dictated by Him to human writers. That the book contains wisdom, a plan or recipe or pathway that always works, if everything is done decently and in order. Such plans must have an identifiable, even measurable objective, and must include something called faith, as defined in the scriptures, and recognition or acknowledgment of the role Jesus as Messiah or Christ is playing, and has played. Then they are guarenteed to work. For example, Pascal noted that the biblical wisdom for knowing "for sure" about the truth of God's nature required pursuing an actual encounter with God. It was a good bet, in any case, but but to be really sure, you had to get race to face with the Person themselves. He did the "seeking," had the experience, and was transformed by it."


groktruth wrote:
The diligent scholar begins by finding and reading the preface of any book, to see what sort of book they are reading. The scriptures basically assert that they are a coded manual for establishing contact with certain "higher" beings, called Gods. Reading Carl Sagan's Contact will give a pretty good mental image of this notion.
So we can contact the gods by putting a person into a capsule at the center of a spinning gimbal? (I've not read the book, but have seen the movie).
To you, I suggest Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
If there were a preface to Sagan's Covtact, it would say that the work is science fiction. A model for an idea, not the real thing. Naturally, since I am persuaded that science is the faith that is an essential ingredient to all scriptural wisdom, I would find other Sagan writings useful, and will seek them out.What I have read suggests that he threw the theological baby out with the bathwater, was deceived by the religious misrepresentation of the bible.


groktruth wrote:
Only the key to the code for deciphering most of what is written can be taken literally. This includes the warning that to ignore this key guarentees delusion and confusion. Well, we see plenty of that, and all by people who read the book as if it can be taken literally as written.
Where/what is this key?

The key is the set of scriptural verses that refer to the scriptures themselves, coupled with verses that are stated to be "beginning" points, sin qua non's of wisdom pathways. Faith, for example, rightly dividing words of truth, humilty, avoiding hypocrisy. The first "key" verse is "It's the glory of God to conceal a matter, and the glory of kings to search out a matter." I can only usefully say so much about these keys. Others will only find glory if they themselves search the keys out out.


groktruth wrote:
So, find the preface, work out the key, and then apply the key to the rest of the book. This produces orthodox theology. One of the most important parts of the key is the simple assertion about "true" and false religion (Book of James). Any group with a name is false, and the theology they present unorthodox.
How do you know this assertion is correct?

I attribute a high plausibiliy to this assertion because there are scriptural indicators that they are true, and my application of the keys to these verses confirms and amplifies these conclusions. Meanwhile, I have made as effort over four decades to teat the reliability of the claims of scripture, and found them most reliable. In my experience, if you do what scripture "says," the way it "says" to do it, you get what it promises. So, I trust my application of the keys.

Note, by the way, that the prophetic, or actually "hearing" God's voice is an essential key, and origin of faith, which "comes from hearing" God speak. So, I could say, truly, that I have confidence in the truth of this assertion, because I "heard" God tell me it was true. But most people have a bad or discourteous reaction to such remarks, able to wierdly think that an all-powerful, loving God, who refers to Himself as a father, would not speak to His children so that they knew He was the one talking. That any believer who claims to "hear" God speak, has crossed some line of kookiness, instead of actually dealing with theology as common sense would dictate. Of course, given the insane reaction from most others, truly wise believers who hear God speak exercise much discretion, and are careful who they tell.
groktruth wrote:
This is probably enough for a sensible cost benefit analysis of any decision you may have before you.

Not yet.
Your questions constitute persistence in the search for truth, a sign that you love it. This is a sin qua non of you getting there, by biblical wisdom.

,,,,duh

[Godfree]

typist,

Good balancing point. The act of letting go implies a grasping, but I think you meant "shed" as much as "let go." That is, we have lots of thoughts in our minds, some grasped and others clinging on their own. The best meditation must take all "captive" and then let them all go, as we move on to another.

But many are "deep." And then a period of utter quietness and waiting is needed for the thought to float to the surface. Any consideration of any thought swirls the waters of our minds and drives such thoughts deeper into the well. If they are rotten, their stink fouls the water, but whither the foul taste? We don't know, and won't until we quiet down and wait.

Good too to consider the various forms of matter: light, dark, and non-local. We love with our eyes open, in the light matter world. We meditate in the dark matter world, with our eyes closed. Thus we only "see" dark matter, undistracted by light. We meditate deeply by closing the part of our minds that "sees" space-time. Thus we become more conscious of the non-local stuff going on, becoming, as the Zen masters put it, "one with everything." Takes practise. But the effect is a curious mixture of seeing everything while grasping nothing. Or, what is good, having nothing clinging. And what is best. shaping all by our consciousness of it.

So, consider everything, then release it. Gently pick the clinging thoughts off, and release them as well. Wait quietly for deep stuff to come to the surface, dip it out and release it too. Then close your mind to space-time, and consider it all at once, shaping it all as you might hope and choose. Open you eyes and watch the world around you shift closer to your vision.

yawn

[Godfree]

"Every statement reveals something usufully true."

Even if someone states a lie ?
You can often hear a lie by the tone of the voice and the circumstances.
But a written lie is much more difficult to detect.

At least the fact that someone makes a certain assertion is true.
Even if you do not know whether the speaker is convinced of the truth of the assertion or not.

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Groktruth.
I hope you will find some kindred spirits here. I am not going to make any suggestions, however, since I am not the match-maker of the forum.

Most lies contain some truth, and then the lie part reveals much about the liar. Since liars tend to listen to each other, you can get a social trend. But, as you note, you have to learn discernment, detecting BS and other lies. That's a useful skill, and ought to be taught more in philosophy courses. There's a little book by a Princeton philosopher title "On B*******" that's a good start.

I recognize four kinds of liars: malicious (e.g. Bernie Madoff), cowardly (Tiger Woods), white (global warming scientists), and naive (Madoff's customers who told their friends to invest with him). Most are in the last category, believing what they want to hear from malicious liars and passing it on. As I say, it's a useful study.

"Grok" is a word invented by Robert Heinlein (Stranger in a Strange Land), which recovers the original sense of the work "know" (As in "Adam knew his wife.") but preserving the broader implications. "Know" versus "know about." Know through intimate experience together. I sandwich reason between in my face experience, before I think of it as true.

,,,,duh

[i blame blame]

The devil has his own agenda, and supports science that furthers it.

Which agenda would that be and how do you know he has it and exists?

God's agenda is to overcome evil with good, to make everything work to the good for those who love Him, keep His commandments, and serve Him. I agreed to these terms to use the computer, which as best I can tell, was invented by the devil to promote pornography, increase foolish gambling, and spoil relationships.

I suppose you read this in the bible, using the preface that you created by taking a biblical verse and sticking it to the beginning. Have relationships been spoiled by computers? So you don't deny that scientific principles, whose discovery were influenced by the devil can result in technology that works? How is he confusing scientists if they still come up with accurate conclusions that improve our understanding of the universe?

External answers to prayer. When I began this study, I made sure that I was getting data that was beyond my capacity (quite substantial!) for self deception. For example, I with some others prayed that the California Condor would be saved from its imminent extinction. Around 1980. We asked specifically, experimentally, that if this prayer were answered, successful nestings of the species would occur and be found, something we had not heard of for years. Weeks after our day of prayer, two active nests were reported. Later, an accident by the investigators destroyed one of the nests. We "heard" in this that we were to pray for the investigators. So, we did, and rest is history. Note that the biblical wisdom is to pray for leaders, to be peaceable. The problem up to that point was great controversy within the ranks of the authorities assigned to save Condors. This was resolved after we prayed. We got a lesson and increased confidence that God was out there, and, many years later, I got to see a Condor.

Why ain't you praying for world peace and an end to hunger?

Of course, this was just one of hundreds of experiments I have conducted, with results consistent to my requests, and totally out of my direct control. The example can and will be explained away by God-haters. That's what they do. But, in combination with other experiences of the same sort, I got faith that "God" whoever, whatever He is, is out there.

For evidence to be conclusive, you need to repeat an experiment many times, with and without prayer. If you pray all the time, there's a good chance that good things will happen to you eventually. When you perform a rain dance long enough, it will eventually rain.

Darwin's theory of evolution was distorted by the devil. He was supposed to have discovered the origin of species by means of artificial selection, modifying the lying church's blasphemy about the way and timing of God's work in creation. "Natural selection," a sort of null hypothesis, postulating no influence from God (presumed at that time to be around by most people) on the course of life diversification. Now, Darwin had ton's of examples of artificial selection, and knew about induction, the scientific argument that what is observed already is a likely explanation for what is now going on. He had to throw out the immutable species nonsense, but he threw out the interventionist God with it.

Because he saw no evidence for an interventionist god. A single archeological find, like a dog in a geological layer in which only dinosaurs are found, could prove the evolutionary hypothesis wrong. To date, none has been made.

But, he was already on the outs with God, and if he prayed at all, it didn't help.

He became an atheist as he worked on his theory.

The devil got him to leave the straightforward explanation, that since we create biological diversity through artificial selection, that's probably how God works, too.

In artificial selection, individuals with undesired traits are killed or otherwise kept from procreating. There is no evidence that animals or plants with certain properties were kept from procreating by some supernatural power.

The devil effectively mixed up the three issues in the theory: adaptation, time involved, and how is the selection happening.

In what would you mix them up?

The devil then used his work to inspire the Nazis to carry out their horrors.

How so? Hitler was likely a creationist:
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution

Tolkien's theologically inspired work implies that the devil is behind most technological science.

So if all these technologies work, how can the scientific discoveries behind them be erroneous due to manipulation by the devil?

"just" in the sense of justice.

No, just in the sense of "merely".

I believe I have, but let everyone decide for themselves.

Please quote the parts of your posts in which you have done so.

As a naturalist, I work from models like the rabies virus, that "inceives" a fear of water into its victims. Water, as we all know, works against the virus and for the host.

What evidence is there that rabies cause a fear of water and that water "works against the virus" once the symptoms are already ocurring?

the disease is named hyprophobia. and Why else would doctors tell those afflicted with viral infestions to drink lots of fluids?

I did'nt know rabies caused hydrophobia. Thanks for that insight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies

The production of large quantities of saliva and tears coupled with an inability to speak or swallow are typical during the later stages of the disease; this can result in hydrophobia, in which the patient has difficulty swallowing because the throat and jaw become slowly paralyzed, shows panic when presented with liquids to drink, and cannot quench his or her thirst.

Treatment after exposure, known as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), is highly successful in preventing the disease if administered promptly, generally within ten days of infection.[1] Thoroughly washing the wound as soon as possible with soap and water for approximately five minutes is very effective at reducing the number of viral particles. “If available, a virucidal antiseptic such as povidone-iodine, iodine tincture, aqueous iodine solution or alcohol (ethanol) should be applied after washing...Exposed mucous membranes such as eyes, nose or mouth should be flushed well with water.”[20]

So water does not chemically react with the virus in a destructive way, it just flushes it off the wound. Drinking water will not help.

[groktruth]

The devil has his own agenda, and supports science that furthers it.

Which agenda would that be and how do you know he has it and exists?

Please remember that, in order to properly evaluate an idea or hypothesis, I make every effort to understand it, and "believe" it for the sake of argument, as we say, or making predictions that can be tested. Since all truth is reasonable, when a claim against an idea is made, that it is unreasonable, the counter is to show that within the assumptions of the system, the "unreasonable" statement is actually consistent.

The system is, there is in our ecosystem what is found in the ecosystem of every other species we know of, other living forms that are epistemologically more sophisticated. More senses, bigger brain, more intellectual possibilities, greater vocabulary. One of these beings has an ethological interest in us, and has devised a means of communication with us. He has sent us a "book" like our other books, but in this case a guide book to this means of communication. This means involves "prophecy" wherein we ask for and receive a "gift" of "ears" that hear His voice and understand what He says. These pieces of "equipment" are made of something like dark matter, but work fine, in the proper locations and settings. (Have to be "plugged in.")

Now, the devil is one of these more sophisticated beings, and those proceeding through the "gifting" and training to communicate process are told to address the topic of watching out for this devil, because he is an enemy of God, and a threat to God's friends. "know your enemy" sort of wisdom. The first thing I heard was that the devil is out to make a fool out of all humans, because humans are made in the image of God, look loke God, and when that image is defiled, God is dishonored. The second thing had to do with who is in charge of earth. The devil likes to be in charge of the earth, to cause it to be ugly, because it belongs to God, who "loves" the world. Like putting trash on someone's yard. Humans like to make things beautiful, at times. So, Making humans dysfunctional in earth stewardship is a big agenda item. There are many others, but you get the point, and if you trully want to know, you'll take up the necessary study to find out for yourself.

Of course, I don't "know" this, since a primary preface rule is that "if anyone thinks that he knows something, he knows nothing as he ought to." It's my presently most plausible working hypothesis, and what I bet my life on, when push comes to shove. But, listening as best I knew how, and going into the place of hearing as well prepared as I had been taught to be, that's what I believe I heard. I would very much like to hear what you hear, because I also heard that I was only getting part of the picture. You had the other parts. Preface rule: We prophecy in part.

I find this plausible because I did many experiments with the prayer, "Deliver us from the evil one." and watched many situations change. Even blind studies. These experiments with their confirmations make the idea quite plausible to me. But you'll have to do your own studies to achieve the same confidence.

More later, if you like.

[groktruth]

quote="groktruth"]God's agenda is to overcome evil with good, to make everything work to the good for those who love Him, keep His commandments, and serve Him. I agreed to these terms to use the computer, which as best I can tell, was invented by the devil to promote pornography, increase foolish gambling, and spoil relationships.[/quote]I suppose you read this in the bible, using the preface that you created by taking a biblical verse and sticking it to the beginning. Have relationships been spoiled by computers? So you don't deny that scientific principles, whose discovery were influenced by the devil can result in technology that works? How is he confusing scientists if they still come up with accurate conclusions that improve our understanding of the universe?

Did you get what I said about what the devil is up to? Why would guys like Faust sell their souls to the devil, if something "useful" (to a foolish purpose) weren't reliably offered as a reward? "Give the devil his due." goes the proverb. The confusion is limited to purpose and priority. Treasure on earth, not heaven. Success on worldly objectives, to the total neglect of what God thinks or feels about it. Can you get a lover to more horribly betray the beloved, then by getting them to ignore the feelings of the beloved? Can you break God's heart any more terribly, then by getting "His" scientists to work on nontheistic "technology" instead of His plan to solve problems?

External answers to prayer. When I began this study, I made sure that I was getting data that was beyond my capacity (quite substantial!) for self deception. For example, I with some others prayed that the California Condor would be saved from its imminent extinction. Around 1980. We asked specifically, experimentally, that if this prayer were answered, successful nestings of the species would occur and be found, something we had not heard of for years. Weeks after our day of prayer, two active nests were reported. Later, an accident by the investigators destroyed one of the nests. We "heard" in this that we were to pray for the investigators. So, we did, and rest is history. Note that the biblical wisdom is to pray for leaders, to be peaceable. The problem up to that point was great controversy within the ranks of the authorities assigned to save Condors. This was resolved after we prayed. We got a lesson and increased confidence that God was out there, and, many years later, I got to see a Condor.

Why ain't you praying for world peace and an end to hunger?

Of course, I am, with all the faith that, so I suspect I hear, has been granted to me. But you and everyone else has a similar "vocation," and most of the strife and starvation in the world is due to the failure of most people (and me, for much of my life) to "pray" (His meaning, not the Christian lie) as we were supposed to. So, I get local answers, here and there. The only way I can get the power to pray effectively for the problems that were originally assigned to you, for example, is for God to forsake you utterly, and give me your assignment. So far, both I and the starving children you care about hope you'll "get it" in time.

Of course, this was just one of hundreds of experiments I have conducted, with results consistent to my requests, and totally out of my direct control. The example can and will be explained away by God-haters. That's what they do. But, in combination with other experiences of the same sort, I got faith that "God" whoever, whatever He is, is out there.

For evidence to be conclusive, you need to repeat an experiment many times, with and without prayer. If you pray all the time, there's a good chance that good things will happen to you eventually. When you perform a rain dance long enough, it will eventually rain.

"Pray without ceasing" is a command everyone refers to when we consider the observation that we all are in sin. Haven't gotten even close. No. all of my answered experimental prayers were limited enough in time that there was a meaningful coincidence to amaze me.

Darwin's theory of evolution was distorted by the devil. He was supposed to have discovered the origin of species by means of artificial selection, modifying the lying church's blasphemy about the way and timing of God's work in creation. "Natural selection," a sort of null hypothesis, postulating no influence from God (presumed at that time to be around by most people) on the course of life diversification. Now, Darwin had ton's of examples of artificial selection, and knew about induction, the scientific argument that what is observed already is a likely explanation for what is now going on. He had to throw out the immutable species nonsense, but he threw out the interventionist God with it.

Because he saw no evidence for an interventionist god. A single archeological find, like a dog in a geological layer in which only dinosaurs are found, could prove the evolutionary hypothesis wrong. To date, none has been made.

Like Einstein saw no evidence for relativity and forgot the theory. Or, oh yes, he saw an atomic bomb blast, and said, "Now I see it! E=MC**2!" C'mon blame, you know how it works! You imagine something as weird as, "Oh my God, Newton was wrong!" and predict where stars will be in an eclipse. That Condors will fly at Palisades National Park. and then you see it, and believe. Darwin broke the rules for scientific theory, by invoking an assumption that was new to science, and unprovable, while neglecting what he and others were seeing all the time. If he (and modern evolutionists) were honest scientists, they would predict and look for evidence that God artificially selected the existing species to create them. But they hate God, and science, and you, and want only to be left alone with their head in the sand. (Not that creationists are any improvement. Talk about a narrow gate! Don't agree with me, if you are hoping for more than one friend!)

But, he was already on the outs with God, and if he prayed at all, it didn't help.

He became an atheist as he worked on his theory.

The devil got him to leave the straightforward explanation, that since we create biological diversity through artificial selection, that's probably how God works, too.

In artificial selection, individuals with undesired traits are killed or otherwise kept from procreating. There is no evidence that animals or plants with certain properties were kept from procreating by some supernatural power.

You've seen all the evidence? Your examination of evidence has been so thorough that you can claim, against all philosophical counsel, that there is none that reflects God intervention, in existence, in the whole world and all of history? I bow before you!

The devil effectively mixed up the three issues in the theory: adaptation, time involved, and how is the selection happening.

In what would you mix them up?

I don't work for the devil, so I analyze adaptation, time patterns, and the "selection" process as distinct problems. Yep, adaptation is a useful concept for understanding why organisms are shaped the way there are. yep, there's been a while since the "beginning." But natural selection? How would you ever know? The mathematicians have told us that it is impossible to know. The null hypothesis is never actually proven. Can't actually be true. But people can choose stupidity. Free will is out there.

The devil then used his work to inspire the Nazis to carry out their horrors.

How so? Hitler was likely a creationist:

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution

Hitler seemed very confused. Maybe he was a creationist at 8, 10, and 12 every day, and an evolutionist whenever he had to make decisions about eliminating Jews. I have no hope that he was ever consistent.

Tolkien's theologically inspired work implies that the devil is behind most technological science.

So if all these technologies work, how can the scientific discoveries behind them be erroneous due to manipulation by the devil?

You think the devil is stupid? He is smarter than you. and well able to combine truth and deception. Have you never seen something "work" until it cornered and destroyed you? Read Tolkien. And think about what technology has done to make human life richer. Not less miserable. Richer. "It's only the good times you remember."

"just" in the sense of justice.

No, just in the sense of "merely".
Oh.

I believe I have, but let everyone decide for themselves.

Please quote the parts of your posts in which you have done so.
theomatics. Look it up.

As a naturalist, I work from models like the rabies virus, that "inceives" a fear of water into its victims. Water, as we all know, works against the virus and for the host.

What evidence is there that rabies cause a fear of water and that water "works against the virus" once the symptoms are already ocurring?

the disease is named hydrophobia. and Why else would doctors tell those afflicted with viral infestions to drink lots of fluids?

I did'nt know rabies caused hydrophobia. Thanks for that insight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabies
You are welcome.

The production of large quantities of saliva and tears coupled with an inability to speak or swallow are typical during the later stages of the disease; this can result in hydrophobia, in which the patient has difficulty swallowing because the throat and jaw become slowly paralyzed, shows panic when presented with liquids to drink, and cannot quench his or her thirst.

Treatment after exposure, known as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), is highly successful in preventing the disease if administered promptly, generally within ten days of infection.[1] Thoroughly washing the wound as soon as possible with soap and water for approximately five minutes is very effective at reducing the number of viral particles. “If available, a virucidal antiseptic such as povidone-iodine, iodine tincture, aqueous iodine solution or alcohol (ethanol) should be applied after washing...Exposed mucous membranes such as eyes, nose or mouth should be flushed well with water.”[20]

So water does not chemically react with the virus in a destructive way, it just flushes it off the wound. Drinking water will not help.[/quote]

Well, drinking water would eliminate the virus reproductives in the host's mouth, so that when they bit others, there would be fewer viruses to spread. You seem to have agreed that more virus is worst for the new host.
And my health authorities remind me that a virus infection produces lots of destroyed cell parts, that need lots of water for excretion.
Remember, there are few honest men or women, according to Diogenes. Lots of liars who will tell you what you want to hear. They charge you on the 1-900- numbers, but lots of liars are free.
Anyone who wants them will find them. Your choice.

[i blame blame]

Ahh, global warming! I was refering to the few who made the news. Most, though are in the naive category, telling others that science supports their recomendation for humans to try and reduce their co2 production. Science does support carbon sequestration, in case the co2 matters, but is from more volcanos, or is from humans who can not be influenced culturally to change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dio ... on_dioxide

Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are natural. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. In 1997, Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[9][10][11] Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year,[12] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities.[13]

Cultures change over time, as their environment, including other cultures, influence them.

Carbon sequestration, if done through enhanced plant production, especially oceanic fertilization, is scientifically wise because the enhanced plant production is of value even if co2 has nothing to do with global warming.

The wisdom of oceanic fertilization is disputed:

Debate


This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2009)
While many advocates of ocean iron fertilization see it as modern society's last best hope to slow global warming, a number of critics have also arisen including some academics, deep greens and proponents of competing technologies who cite a variety of concerns.
[edit]Precautionary principle
Main article: Precautionary principle
Critics apply the precautionary principle: the possible side effects of large-scale iron fertilization are not yet known; and that sufficient research has not yet been done. Significant, unknown, unforeseen, and unforeseeable risks may be involved. Creating blooms in naturally iron-poor areas of the ocean is like watering the desert: it is, in effect, completely changing one type of ecosystem into another. Critics argue that the risk of iron fertilization on the scale needed to affect global CO2 levels or animal populations is not an acceptable one.
An analogy can be drawn from this argument to systems theory which clearly indicates that there are always risks borne when any inexperienced "user" of a complex system goes "superuser", so to speak, and manipulates privileged channels without experience and knowledge of manipulation of such channels in a "production environment". The biosphere is a perfect example of this sort of system - it is incredibly complex, insufficiently documented, and absolutely vital. In the event that iron fertilization - or any manipulation of privileged channels in the biosphere through large scale geoengineering measures - results in unintended consequences, there may be no methods of reversal.
While advocates argue that iron addition would help to reverse a supposed decline in phytoplankton, this decline may not be real. One study (Gregg and Conkright, 2002) reported a decline in ocean productivity between the period 1979–1986 and 1997–2000[37], but another study (Antoine et al.., 2005) found a 22% increase between 1979–1986 and 1998–2002. Gregg et al.. 2005 also reported a recent increase in phytoplankton.


Satellite image of a large, natural, coccolithophore bloom in the Bering Sea in 1998.
Fertilization advocates respond that similar algal blooms have occurred naturally for millions of years with no observed ill effects. The Azolla event occurred around 49 million years ago and accomplished what fertilization is intended to achieve (but on a larger scale). Not even trying to remedy industrial impacts is far more irresponsible considering the known pace of increasing harm.
[edit]Inadequacies
According to certain ocean iron fertilization trial reports, this approach may actually sequester very little carbon per bloom, with most of the plankton being eaten rather than deposited on the ocean floor, and thus require too many seeding voyages to be practical.[14][38]
The counter-argument to this is that the low sequestration estimates that emerged from some ocean trials are largely due to three factors:[citation needed]
Timing: none of the ocean trials had enough boat time to monitor their blooms for more than 27 days, and all their measurements are confined to those early weeks. Blooms generally last 60–90 days with the heaviest precipitation occurring during the last two months.
Scale: most trials used less than 1000 kg of iron and thus created small blooms that were quickly devoured by opportunistic zooplankton, krill, and fish that swarmed into the seeded region.
Academic conservatism: having an obviously limited data set and unique sequestration criteria (see Sequestration Definitions below), many peer-reviewed ocean researchers are understandably reluctant to project or speculate upon the results their experiments might have actually achieved during the full course of a bloom.
Some ocean trials did indeed report remarkable results. According to IronEx II reports, their thousand kilogram iron contribution to the equatorial Pacific generated a carbonaceous biomass equivalent to one hundred full-grown redwoods within the first two weeks. Researchers on Wegener Institute's 2004 Eifex experiment recorded carbon dioxide to iron fixation ratios of nearly 300,000 to 1.
Current estimates of the amount of iron required to restore all the lost plankton and sequester 3 gigatons/year of CO2 range widely, from approximately two hundred thousand tons/year to over 4 million tons/year. Even in the latter worst case scenario, this only represents about 16 supertanker loads of iron and a projected cost of less than €20 billion ($27 Billion). Considering EU penalties for Kyoto non-compliance will reach €100/ton CO2e ($135/ton CO2e) in 2010 and the annual value of the global carbon credit market is projected to exceed €1 trillion by 2012, even the most conservative estimate still portrays a very feasible and inexpensive strategy to offset half of all industrial emissions.[citation needed]
[edit]Sequestration definitions
Critics note that in ocean science, carbon is not considered removed from the system unless it settles to the ocean floor where it is truly sequestered for eons. Most of the carbon that sinks beneath plankton blooms is dissolved and remineralized at well above the seafloor and will eventually be re-released to the atmosphere, negating the original effect.
Advocates argue that even though ocean science does traditionally define "sequestration" in terms of sea floor sediment, modern climate scientists and Kyoto Protocol policy makers define sequestration in much shorter time frames. For example, they recognize trees and grasslands as important carbon sinks. Forest biomass only sequesters carbon for decades, but carbon that sinks below the marine thermocline (100–200 meters) is effectively removed from the atmosphere for hundreds of years, whether it is remineralized or not. Since deep ocean currents take so long to resurface, their carbon content is effectively "sequestered" by any terrestrial criterion in use today.
[edit]Ecological issues
[edit]Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB)
Main article: Harmful algal bloom


A "red tide" off the coast of La Jolla, San Diego, California.
Critics are concerned that fertilization will create a harmful algal bloom. It is not known what kind of plankton will bloom after fertilization. Some plankton species cause red tides and other toxic phenomena. What will prevent toxic species from poisoning lagoons, tide pools and other sensitive costal ecosystems? Once a HAB gets started, no one knows how to end it. Despite the unfavorable cold water, the red tide in Maine over the last three years is evidence of this. In addition, even when harmless species of plankton die they decompose. This creates a situation like the giant (and growing) dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.[citation needed]
Fertilization advocates claim that most species of phytoplankton are entirely harmless, and indeed beneficial. Red tides and other harmful algal blooms are largely coastal phenomena which primarily affect creatures that eat contaminated coastal shellfish. Iron stimulated plankton blooms are only relevant in the deep oceans where iron deficiency is the problem. Most coastal waters are replete with iron and adding more has no useful effect. Since phytoplankton blooms in the open ocean last only 90–120 days, fertilized patches of any species will dissipate long before reaching costal waters.[citation needed]
[edit]Deep water oxygen depletion
When organic bloom detritus sinks into the abyss, a significant fraction will be devoured by bacteria, other microorganisms and deep sea animals which also consume oxygen. Critics are concerned that a large bloom could, therefore, render certain regions of the sea deep beneath it anoxic and threaten other benthic species.[citation needed]
However, advocates argue that the largest plankton replenishment projects now being proposed are less than 10% the size of most natural wind-fed blooms. In the wake of major dust storms, many extremely vast natural blooms have been studied since the beginning of the 20th century and no such deep water dieoffs have ever been reported.[citation needed]
[edit]Ecosystem alterations
Depending upon the composition and timing of delivery, critics argue that these iron infusions could preferentially favor certain species and alter surface ecosystems to unknown effect. Population explosions of jellyfish, disturbance of the food chain with a huge impact on whale populations or fisheries are cited as potential dangers.[citation needed] A 2010 study shows that iron enrichment stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low-chlorophyll areas [1], which, the authors argue, raises "serious concerns over the net benefit and sustainability of large-scale iron fertilizations".
Advocates argue that CO2-induced surface water heating and rising carbonic acidity are already shifting population distributions for phytoplankton, zooplankton and many other creatures on a massive scale.[citation needed]
If certain infusions or space/time coordinates do show asymmetrical selective impacts in certain regions, the effect is inherently constrained by the limited size and 90-day lifespan of each bloom. Only larger scale research will show if this is really a problem, what factors alter the ecosystem, and whether this issue can be effectively addressed.
[edit]Conclusion and further research
Advocates say that using this technique to restore ocean plankton to recent known levels of health would help solve half the climate change problem, revive major fisheries and cetacean populations, and alleviate several other urgent ocean crises.[citation needed] Critics say global warming must be solved at the source, large scale iron fertilization experiments have never been attempted, the effects could be inadequate, and too little is known to press ahead.[citation needed]
Critics and advocates generally agree that most outstanding questions on the impact, safety and efficacy of ocean iron fertilization can only be answered by much larger studies. One pilot project planned by a U.S. company called Planktos[39] was cancelled in 2008 after it was unable to secure funding, a situation that the company blamed environmental organisations for.[40][41]
A 2009 Indo-German team of scientists examined the potential of the south-western Atlantic to sequester significant amounts of carbon dioxide, but found few positive results.[42]

I actually travelled on the ship that performed this experiment a few months later.

True scientists separate warming trends (certainly occuring), consequences (specifically uncertain, but sure to be bad), causes (lots of room for plausibility enhancement), and cures. As I read the papers, the phoney scientists happily blend all these. Confusion is fusing together things that need analysis, not synthesis.

But the well meaning dishonesty didn't help.

Why should the separate these phenomena, which are deeply connected to one another?

Please remember that, in order to properly evaluate an idea or hypothesis, I make every effort to understand it, and "believe" it for the sake of argument, as we say, or making predictions that can be tested. Since all truth is reasonable, when a claim against an idea is made, that it is unreasonable, the counter is to show that within the assumptions of the system, the "unreasonable" statement is actually consistent.

The system is, there is in our ecosystem what is found in the ecosystem of every other species we know of, other living forms that are epistemologically more sophisticated. More senses, bigger brain, more intellectual possibilities, greater vocabulary. One of these beings has an ethological interest in us, and has devised a means of communication with us. He has sent us a "book" like our other books, but in this case a guide book to this means of communication.

Are you saying that there are many species with more sophisticated brains, intellects etc. than others, there must be one with a superior intellect etc than us?
Must there not therefore be a species or entity more powerful than god and the devil, and another one more powerful than it etc? Why stop the chain of more powerful entities one step above us?

This means involves "prophecy" wherein we ask for and receive a "gift" of "ears" that hear His voice and understand what He says.

How many prophesies have come true?

These pieces of "equipment" are made of something like dark matter, but work fine, in the proper locations and settings. (Have to be "plugged in.")

How can you distinguish this from delusion?

Now, the devil is one of these more sophisticated beings, and those proceeding through the "gifting" and training to communicate process are told to address the topic of watching out for this devil, because he is an enemy of God, and a threat to God's friends. "know your enemy" sort of wisdom. The first thing I heard was that the devil is out to make a fool out of all humans, because humans are made in the image of God, look loke God, and when that image is defiled, God is dishonored. The second thing had to do with who is in charge of earth. The devil likes to be in charge of the earth, to cause it to be ugly, because it belongs to God, who "loves" the world. Like putting trash on someone's yard. Humans like to make things beautiful, at times. So, Making humans dysfunctional in earth stewardship is a big agenda item. There are many others, but you get the point, and if you trully want to know, you'll take up the necessary study to find out for yourself.

If god cares so much about humans and the earth, why does he reveal his instructions and warnings only in ways that are indistinguishable from people making up this god for their own purposes or because they are schizophrenic? What kind of defilements of the image of god do you have in mind?

Of course, I don't "know" this, since a primary preface rule is that "if anyone thinks that he knows something, he knows nothing as he ought to."

The preface being made from your interpretation of bible quotes you selected?

It's my presently most plausible working hypothesis, and what I bet my life on, when push comes to shove. But, listening as best I knew how, and going into the place of hearing as well prepared as I had been taught to be, that's what I believe I heard. I would very much like to hear what you hear, because I also heard that I was only getting part of the picture. You had the other parts. Preface rule: We prophecy in part.

I find this plausible because I did many experiments with the prayer, "Deliver us from the evil one." and watched many situations change.

Most situations change without prayer too.

Even blind studies. These experiments with their confirmations make the idea quite plausible to me. But you'll have to do your own studies to achieve the same confidence.

More later, if you like.

There were two groups of people wanting some event to occur, one of which prayed, while the other one didn't, and you asked people whether the event occurred, noting down the results, without knowing whether they had prayed or not?

[groktruth]

I am here in hopes of finding kindred spirits, others who at every level of reflection have come to bet their life, their hours and minutes, on the premise that searching for the truth is profitable. Profitable for, over-all, joy, even hilarity. Happiness, which as a scientist studying birds selecting habitats, I came to believe is an actual emotion built into decisive organisms to tell them when they have made the best (most adaptive, most fit) choice. But the human niche is assessing useful truth about "fitness" using various strategies, and I hope this "habitat" contains the social interactions effective for this search. Starting with solutions to the Diogenes problem, widespread disinformation in certain social settings.
.


Been at this awhile, am willing to consider quite exotic thoughts for their truth content (every statement reveals something usefully true, which is good), think humor and truth are friends, am grieved and angered by many current events, believe philosophy without hypocrisy or cowardice plays a critical role (necessary if not sufficient) in fixing what is wrong.

Garfield said the the truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable. Let's seek comfort in that misery, going after uncomfortable, even unbearable truths. Told "slant" of course.

nice to meet you, we can make friend ok ?

Yes we can.

I have been looking at rules for knowing how true any given statement is. One such rule is to ask, " Is the person presenting this idea a trustworthy authority?" (In everyday speaking, we can ask, "Oh, yeah? Who says?") But, I am not sure what this means.

So, do you have any rules for knowing what is true? Do you ask, "Who says?" If so, what sort of answer are you looking for?

Cheers.

[groktruth]

Ahh, global warming! I was referring to the few who made the news. Most, though are in the naive category, telling others that science supports their recommendation for humans to try and reduce their co2 production. Science does support carbon sequestration, in case the co2 matters, but is from more volcanos, or is from humans who can not be influenced culturally to change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dio ... on_dioxide

Over 95% of total CO2 emissions are natural. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. In 1997, Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[9][10][11] Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year,[12] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities.[13]

Cultures change over time, as their environment, including other cultures, influence them.

The history of cultural change is not, though, promising, in the face of the sorts of problems global warming presents.

Carbon sequestration, if done through enhanced plant production, especially oceanic fertilization, is scientifically wise because the enhanced plant production is of value even if co2 has nothing to do with global warming.

The wisdom of oceanic fertilization is disputed:

Debate


This article does not cite any references or sources. (since it is printed above, I will delete it here)

This is a very good summary. I hope that the possibly feasible approach will get the research it needs. What we want is an approach that can aim at the production of increased biomass of marine organisms that build carbonate shells, in sea regions known to be experiencing warming, acidification, or reduced productivity. Either isolated from humans, or close enough that any increase in useful production might increase harvests. I would recommend including calcium and trace minerals with the iron.

My hope, and prayer, is for rock dust (Azomite? Mining by-products?) to be touted as a "grass-roots" (Ha, ha. But truly tree roots.) solution, that all can invest in in a micro level way. In this scheme, everyone with trees on their property buys a bag of rock dust for each tree, and tills it into the soil around those trees. This (we need more research to be sure!) ought to about double the carbon sequestration of that tree. Maybe each such tree, and those adopted in parks or forests, can be discreetly labelled honoring the caretaker. Sort of an adopt-a-tree program. This, I hope, would stimulate the political energy for a larger scale public effort.

The rock dust idea, researched now for 50 years, I believe is about due to become, like Semmelweis' anti-sepsis, an idea whose time has come.

But, thank you for the article. Very helpful. Where did you find it? where are the citations?
I actually travelled on the ship that performed this experiment a few months later.

True scientists separate warming trends (certainly occurring), consequences (specifically uncertain, but sure to be bad), causes (lots of room for plausibility enhancement), and cures. As I read the papers, the phony scientists happily blend all these. Confusion is fusing together things that need analysis, not synthesis.

But the well meaning dishonesty didn't help.

Why should the separate these phenomena, which are deeply connected to one another?

I have read many discussions where the debaters were clearly, to me at least, talking about different parts of the problem.

Please remember that, in order to properly evaluate an idea or hypothesis, I make every effort to understand it, and "believe" it for the sake of argument, as we say, or making predictions that can be tested. Since all truth is reasonable, when a claim against an idea is made, that it is unreasonable, the counter is to show that within the assumptions of the system, the "unreasonable" statement is actually consistent.

The system is, there is in our ecosystem what is found in the ecosystem of every other species we know of, other living forms that are epistemologically more sophisticated. More senses, bigger brain, more intellectual possibilities, greater vocabulary. One of these beings has an ethological interest in us, and has devised a means of communication with us. He has sent us a "book" like our other books, but in this case a guide book to this means of communication.

Are you saying that there are many species with more sophisticated brains, intellects etc. than others, there must be one with a superior intellect etc than us?

Must? No, not "must." But inductive reasoning makes it plausible.
Must there not therefore be a species or entity more powerful than god and the devil, and another one more powerful than it etc? Why stop the chain of more powerful entities one step above us?

Biblically based theology (read, the inquiry into the nature of beings that are more epistemologically sophisticated than us) actually supposes several layers of these "gods." Of course, as with "top predators" we suppose there is a "top god" in such hierarchies. By induction. But "must" is outside the argument.

This means involves "prophecy" wherein we ask for and receive a "gift" of "ears" that hear His voice and understand what He says.

How many prophesies have come true?

The question seems based on a deceptive twisting of the meaning of the word, "prophesies." If God says that if X, then Y, and we respond by stopping X. Then, Y does not happen. Read the book of Jonah in the bible. In the process of finding God, we test for the validity of certain proposed experiments, like tithing. As I have collected evidence, 100% of those who tithed as commanded have prospered, as prophesied. 100% of those that have sought God with all their might have had an experience that was persuasive to them that they had found Him. As prophesied. But, God had "prophesied" that nuclear wars would happen, unless we prayed effectively against them, which we tried to do. No evidence here, really. But no nuclear wars, either, which in no way could be regarded as something that wouldn't have happened anyway.

These pieces of "equipment" are made of something like dark matter, but work fine, in the proper locations and settings. (Have to be "plugged in.")

How can you distinguish this from delusion?

When the instructions heard over the "earphones" propose strange experiments, that work, the idea that we are in communication with a more sophisticated collaborator. For example, in talking with God about the Dickcissel, a bird that had been declining in population for as long as the Fish and Wildlife Service had been collecting data, about 13 years. I heard that if I forsook my tenured position as a university professor, and my hope of being internationally known for my Dickcissel research, He would save the species. My research had at this point led me to predict publically that the species was doomed. Anyway, I made the decision around 1979, and retired at the end of 1980. The Dickcissel population, by my multi-variate analysis, stopped declining that very year, The f&W say it bottomed out around 1978. We both were getting these numbers in the mid-80's, as the raw data became available.

Anyway, the coincidence of events was improbable. Combined with results from the Condor prayers (remember, prayer means two-way conversation) and others, I found the "delusion" hypothesis less and less probable.

Now, the devil is one of these more sophisticated beings, and those proceeding through the "gifting" and training to communicate process are told to address the topic of watching out for this devil, because he is an enemy of God, and a threat to God's friends. "know your enemy" sort of wisdom. The first thing I heard was that the devil is out to make a fool out of all humans, because humans are made in the image of God, look like God, and when that image is defiled, God is dishonored. The second thing had to do with who is in charge of earth. The devil likes to be in charge of the earth, to cause it to be ugly, because it belongs to God, who "loves" the world. Like putting trash on some-one's yard. Humans like to make things beautiful, at times. So, Making humans dysfunctional in earth stewardship is a big agenda item. There are many others, but you get the point, and if you truly want to know, you'll take up the necessary study to find out for yourself.

If god cares so much about humans and the earth, why does he reveal his instructions and warnings only in ways that are indistinguishable from people making up this god for their own purposes or because they are schizophrenic?

First, they are not indistinquisable. Second, they are a threat to the devil, who would therefore go to great lengths to make counterfeits that are as indistinquisable as possible. Here's a study I'd like to see done. Individuals who have had what they report is an encounter with God, make great changes in their lives. Bill W. of AA fame is a well known example. Now, I have heard that hypnotic therapy, which readily, according to James, produces "religious" experiences indistinquisable from those reported by saints, are often used to cure smoking of drinking habits. But where are the success stories? I mean, if hypnotism were able to stop people from drinking as effectively as God coming into your room, you'd think there would be more reports.
What kind of defilements of the image of god do you have in mind?

People who smoke cigarettes. People who lie to their spouses about an inclination or opportunity to commit adultery. People who abuse their children. Religious people who openly practise hypocrisy.

Of course, I don't "know" this, since a primary preface rule is that "if anyone thinks that he knows something, he knows nothing as he ought to."

The preface being made from your interpretation of bible quotes you selected?

Yes.

It's my presently most plausible working hypothesis, and what I bet my life on, when push comes to shove. But, listening as best I knew how, and going into the place of hearing as well prepared as I had been taught to be, that's what I believe I heard. I would very much like to hear what you hear, because I also heard that I was only getting part of the picture. You had the other parts. Preface rule: We prophecy in part.

I find this plausible because I did many experiments with the prayer, "Deliver us from the evil one." and watched many situations change.

Most situations change without prayer too.

In this case, I had exhausted all the ways I has ever heard of to make these changes happen. But they were not changing, and didn't, untiL I did the experiment.

Even blind studies. These experiments with their confirmations make the idea quite plausible to me. But you'll have to do your own studies to achieve the same confidence.

More later, if you like.

There were two groups of people wanting some event to occur, one of which prayed, while the other one didn't, and you asked people whether the event occurred, noting down the results, without knowing whether they had prayed or not?

More, I would pray, or not pray, for my daughters when they fell to quarreling. Then note how long it took till they made up. All this without moving from my desk or calling out to them. Many other similar such studies.