tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post116042337254016784..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: ID and open-mindednessVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14858762200702928892014-08-23T16:30:42.943-07:002014-08-23T16:30:42.943-07:00B.Prokop: "A while ago I came across the very...<b>B.Prokop:</b> "<i>A while ago I came across the very useful concept of the monad, which is defined as the smallest possible part of something which retains all the properties of the whole. For instance, I can slice off a serving of butter, and the small piece I have separated is every much butter as the larger portion left behind. The monad for butter is at the molecular level.<br /><br />Can't do that with an automobile, however. Remove any part (doesn't matter which one), and it is no longer an automobile, but rather a carburetor, or a wheel, or whatever - but not a car. The automobile is its own monad.</i>"<br /><br /><b>niwad at UD</b> <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/synthesis-versus-analysis/" rel="nofollow">Synthesis versus Analysis</a> -- "<i>A “whole” (or “all” or “total”) can be a “true whole” or a “false whole”. A “true whole” (or “unit”) is anterior and independent from the consideration of parts, is not obtained from their sum, it doesn’t presuppose them. A “false whole” (or “set”) is the mere sum of parts, is logically posterior to them, and is a fictitious “one” only because we consider it so. While a simple set is artificially composed bottom-up by its parts, a real unit overarches top-down any part.</i>"Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63271047635744487402014-08-23T16:24:32.866-07:002014-08-23T16:24:32.866-07:00Dan Gillson: "That's [the branching patte...<b>Dan Gillson:</b> "<i>That's [the branching patter of a tree] complexity that isn't attached to a function, unlike a bike or a mousetrap, the complexities of which are related to their functions.</i>"<br /><br />Ahem ... the <i>function</i> of the branching pattern of a tree is to efficiently gather sunlight so as to power the metabolism of the tree. It's a function, it's just not an androcentric function.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68732316450308322272014-07-08T16:24:50.329-07:002014-07-08T16:24:50.329-07:00"The only way I can respond to your posting i...<i>"The only way I can respond to your posting is with the following: <b>Thank God for the Catholic Church, which has taught us to abhor such practices, and to condemn them utterly whenever and wherever they appear today."</b></i><br /><br />Then why is the catholic church [Vatican] steadfastly refusing to provide documents and information to the Australian Royal Commission on all they know about such 'abhorrent practices' and put its money where its mouth is in 'condemning [such practices] them utterly wherever wherever they appear' if they truly believed that? Methinks this is forked-tongue cheap words with no credibility.<br /><br /><i>"And as for evil men existing within the Christian community, they have sorrowfully always been with us. Heck, even St. Paul spoke of such (e.g., in his letters to the Corinthians)."</i><br /><br />If religion cannot restrain evil in it cannot claim effective power for good. The clerical transfers parachuting abusing priests into unsuspecting communities, deliberate cover up and extraordinary levels of secrecy and clandestine operations by the leaders of that very same church, is only just becoming known. We are only at the very starting point of exposing the long sad history of a church whose complicit corrupt, debauched and sullied involvement enabled its privileged clergy to hide from the law and subvert the course of justice n every country where it operates.<br /><br />I wouldn't be touting its 'good' character too loudly.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32977270367339821942014-07-06T07:23:45.512-07:002014-07-06T07:23:45.512-07:00Interesting attempt to change the subject there.
...Interesting attempt to change the subject there.<br /><br />As to the unquestionably despicable crimes of child molestation, the only way we even know these things to be the evil acts that they are is by acceptance of the Catholic doctrine that declares them to be so. They certainly weren't considered to be such in the enlightened world of pre-Christian humanistic Classical Greece and Rome, where such appalling behavior was a societal norm. Even less palatable were the commonplace sacrifices of first born children to Baal and other pagan idols, rightly condemned by the Hebrew prophets.<br /><br />The only way I can respond to your posting is with the following: <b>Thank God for the Catholic Church, which has taught us to abhor such practices, and to condemn them utterly whenever and wherever they appear today.</b><br /><br />And as for evil men existing within the Christian community, they have sorrowfully always been with us. Heck, even St. Paul spoke of such (e.g., in his letters to the Corinthians).B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42887120829016491692014-07-06T06:42:32.959-07:002014-07-06T06:42:32.959-07:00Bob, your belief in gods and devils is as esoteric...Bob, your belief in gods and devils is as esoteric as Jesus allowing pedophile catholic priests to molest countless little children all over the world and then permit <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-05/vatican-wont-give-all-child-abuse-documents-royal-commission/5574192" rel="nofollow">the Vatican to deny them justice and restitution they so deserve</a>. What possible reason could they give that would trump fairness and equity and justice for the victims of such heinous crimes?<br /><br />Where is the conscience of your jesus-god when christians at the highest echelons of the Vatican cannot bring themselves to not only right a grievous moral and ethical wrong but contravene every catholic tenet about living a christian life that they bang on about and give so much lip service to? <br /><br />This is hypocrisy on a monumental scale befitting a moral monster that people are belatedly beginning to understand what the Christian god is. If Catholicism cannot restrain evil then it cannot claim effective power for good. I think people are just now dawning to the reality of the Jeckyll and Hyde persona of the Mother Church. If there is a devil incarnate then it is surely the bastard child of the Catholic Church.<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /> Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13614623359171179832014-07-05T20:49:33.128-07:002014-07-05T20:49:33.128-07:00"simply an assertion on your part"
Don&..."<i>simply an assertion on your part</i>"<br /><br />Don't read too much in my casual word choice here. I didn't mean anything special by it. <br /><br />To make myself clear, I truly believe in a literal, real devil (in the plural) with "thoughts, deeds, wants, motives, and needs". I do not believe he is an abstraction, symbol, allegory, image, or myth. I believe this to the same degree as my belief in the table I am sitting at.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46448618625756803292014-07-05T15:54:47.749-07:002014-07-05T15:54:47.749-07:00Bob, I did answer your query in that as belief in ...Bob, I did answer your query in that as belief in devils and gods is unnecessary in explaining reality the comparison of whether belief in the devil as being "less rational" or "sillier" than a belief in God, or all the same, is moot. I guess your question hinges on how one defines 'rational'. <br /><br />If rational' means 'sensible', 'cogent', 'commonsensical', 'down-to-earth', then no; belief in gods and devils are equally 'less rational'. <br />If by 'rational' you mean 'sane, compos mentis, in one's right min, normal, balanced, grounded, lucid, then no, a belief in gods and devils is not a helpful indicator. Because many sane people hold all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas without them being true or factual.<br />If by 'rational' you mean 'logical', 'analytical', 'scholarly'; then no, a belief in devils and gods are not rational. Such beliefs are driven by emotions, feelings, sensations, and impressions, while real in themselves do not define reality.<br /><br />As for my reaction? What's unique about it? It's more a surprise that you actually claimed the devil as a real entity with thoughts, deeds, wants, motives, needs, and not an abstraction. But then, you clarified your position by stating that your belief in the devil [and god] was simply an assertion on your part. That I can understand. It comes back to my noting earlier that many sane people hold and assert all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas without them being true or factual.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69571827490864964672014-07-05T08:11:30.299-07:002014-07-05T08:11:30.299-07:00Linton,
First of all, appreciate the response. Bu...Linton,<br /><br />First of all, appreciate the response. But...<br /><br />Unless I missed it, you didn't answer my question(s). Namely, do you regard belief in the devil as being "less rational" or "sillier" than a belief in God? Or is it all the same to you? And if the latter, then why the unique reaction to my assertion that I regard the devil as an actual being and not an abstraction?B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20923127203862630462014-07-05T07:02:39.379-07:002014-07-05T07:02:39.379-07:00Thanks for the serious questions, Bob. I do apprec...Thanks for the serious questions, Bob. I do appreciate your inquiry. <br />There really is nothing profound or intrinsically impenetrable to what I believe is reality. For me simplicity is the key to finding a meaning in life. A belief in supernaturalism is complex, a added layer of rationale resulting from our first attempts in providing an answer to all the inexplicable things around us put down during humanity's primitive past in the absence of knowledge and understanding. Theology was our first attempt at cutting the Gordian Knot. A belief in supernaturalism seems to possess all the hallmarks of explanation, but supernaturalism per se is not an explanation of reality. It is an explanatory surrogate, a proxy while our understanding about us, the environment, the world, the universe was forming and developing into a corpus of knowledge sufficient to intrinsically offer not an alternative explanation to theology but a proper, empirical, falsifiable and epistemologically robust explanation, one on which we as a species can build upon to improve the human condition. <br /><br />For me belief in the supernatural, in devils and gods, is irrelevant to understanding reality. However we might eventually define 'reality', knowledge of gods and devils and their curious antics are unnecessary and are the vestigial remainders of an earlier conceptual paradigm around which we based our social practices, laws, governance, community cohesion etc etc. <br /><br />Gods, angels, devils, nephilim, seraphim, etc etc are theological conceptual constructs, characters that have a role to play in theology but are inessential, extraneous, and completely redundant in a genuine, bona fide explanatory paradigm. Today, at this time in our history humankind has a body of knowledge with which it is now untying the Gordian knot, diligently, meticulously and painstakingly undoing each strand of that knot.<br /><br />I subscribe to and advocate Humanism as epistemologically properly basic. It obviates the need for allegiance to any one of the countless disparate, antithetical and competing religious or theological belief systems claiming for themselves 'the one true and only' title. It positively chooses to enhance and celebrate the universal and common attributes, needs and wants we all share with our fellow humans rather than dwell on the things that divide us. Humanism seeks to improve the human condition.<br /><br />I don't see much in the way of demonic possession in holding such a view. But then I have found that a belief in christianity does not seem to mitigate holding such perverse views by its adherents. And from personal experiences over three decades of following the christian 'way' I too once believed in such perverse sentiments in claiming a fellow human as captive to demonic possession. <br /><br />Belief in such clichéd ideas is just .... plain..... wrong .... and unhelpful in the 21stC. <br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72059541309056291802014-07-05T06:55:59.347-07:002014-07-05T06:55:59.347-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80075510180710066562014-07-04T14:18:46.143-07:002014-07-04T14:18:46.143-07:00Serious questions here, Linton.
You characterize m...Serious questions here, Linton.<br />You characterize my belief in the devil as a bizarre pathological delusion. Fair enough - you probably (secretly) think the same about belief in God. But it leads me to wonder - do you have a hierarchy (?lowerarchy?) of beliefs that you consider pathological? For instance, do you regard belief in the devil as more strange or unreasonable than belief in God? And if so, how about angels? Do you think them less strange than the devil, or equally so?<br /><br />Trust me here, I'm not trying to be flippant. I am sincerely interested in your answer(s).<br /><br />And if you answer, "I regard them all as equally unreasonable", then why the special contempt shown for a belief in the devil? Your recent comments lead me to believe that you do look at them differently.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9327031979411298732014-07-04T04:40:39.876-07:002014-07-04T04:40:39.876-07:00"Bob, I don't think you understand or eve..."<i>Bob, I don't think you understand or even appreciate how ludicrously droll you admission is.</i>"<br /><br />I'm looking around for somebody who cares... nope, couldn't find him.<br /><br />Actually, Linton, what's really amusing is how ludicrously <i>ignorant</i> your comment makes you sound. This mystifies me, since you normally don't make such egregious errors. God and Satan are not a <i>duo</i>. They're not in any ways partners, nor are they evenly-matched foes. There is no level playing field. This is very much asymmetric warfare.<br /><br /><i>El Diablo</i> is not God's counterpart, not His evil twin, not His "opposite". Heck, he's not even the opposite of an angel (unless you're in the habit of calling a rotten apple the opposite of an apple). The devil is a <i>creature</i> (a created being). A creature who freely fell. Your characterization of "good cop/bad cop" is so far off the mark that you might has well have been talking about some other subject entirely.<br /><br />Look, I'm in a good mood today. I'll call a "let" on that serve and let you try again.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44467493561304570282014-07-04T04:38:48.424-07:002014-07-04T04:38:48.424-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66932515808970964382014-07-04T04:06:50.729-07:002014-07-04T04:06:50.729-07:00"Have you ever seen a high-rise steel framed ..."<i>Have you ever seen a high-rise steel framed building collapse symmetrically that wasn't a controlled demolition?</i>"<br /><br />Yes - once. The bldg was WTC7. Actually... that's the <i>only</i> "high-rise steel framed building collapse" that I've ever seen.<br /><br />How else is it supposed to fall? Stuff's going to go straight down, just like the larger WTC towers. In the movies (like <i>2014</i>), you see skyscrapers falling over like trees, but buildings aren't single objects like a tree is, as well as being far, far larger and heavier. They're only going to fall in on themselves, and not topple over.<br /><br />Besides, <b>and here's the really important point</b>. Assuming (for the sake of argument only) that the building collapse was the result of some sort of conspiracy, don't you think that "they" would have so engineered it so that it didn't appear to be artificial? Duh! The mere fact that it looks so symmetrical is probably the best proof of all that it <i>isn't</i> contrived.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27754713726745065712014-07-03T22:42:53.900-07:002014-07-03T22:42:53.900-07:00Bilbo, we'll have to agree to disagree on ID. ...Bilbo, we'll have to agree to disagree on ID. I will side with these people who don't debate it anymore; good advice, indirectly.<br /><br />Good night, happy 4th of July! World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5511638727750395932014-07-03T22:25:15.539-07:002014-07-03T22:25:15.539-07:00Hi Hugo,
I'll get to your comments about 9/1...Hi Hugo, <br /><br />I'll get to your comments about 9/11 tomorrow. I need some sleep. Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86611819111984752542014-07-03T22:23:59.074-07:002014-07-03T22:23:59.074-07:00Hi Hugo,
You wrote,
Yes I know that, and I wil...Hi Hugo, <br /><br />You wrote, <br /><br /><i>Yes I know that, and I will repeat my answer: no, it is not hotly debated. I am really sorry that you refuse to live in the reality of 2014 but ID is not a scientific topic that biologists discuss. Period. Call me 'not skeptical enough' if you want, but I would say the same to someone telling me that the moon landing was a hoax. And yes, they replied, and that's why I made a sarcastic comment about 'oh well if they replied they must be right!'</i><br /><br />There has been debate in the past on ID. Non-IDists state the reasons they think it is wrong. ID proponents offer refutations of those arguments. Non-IDists may offer rebuttals. Then ID proponents have offered replies to those. At some point the issues have been rather thoroughly thrashed out. Have they been resolved? It depends upon whom you ask. From my reading there are many unresolved issued in the ID debate. So just because non-IDists have stopped debating the issues does not mean that the debate no longer exists. It is just waiting for further data to be discovered.<br /><br /><i>What a joke. The main problem Behe et al. have with evolution, or anyone that reject the Theory I would say, is precisely because it does not explain the origin of life. It always comes back to that. People who don't understand evolution think that because it fails at explaining life's origin it is somehow 'incomplete'.</i><br /><br />Behe has made it very clear that he thinks his arguments against neo-Darwinism stand on their own, regardless of the problem of the origin of life. <br /><br /><i> It's example like saying that our understanding of gravity is 'incomplete' because we don't know with 100% certainty what causes gravity to exist in the first place. In both cases, yes, there are some part of mystery, we wouldn’t have science research at all otherwise, but the 'incompleteness' in biology is not at all where ID would like it to be.</i><br /><br />From my reading of the evidence there is quite a bit of "incompleteness" from the origin of life onwards. <br /><br /><i>My bad, I did not notice that you specified 'narrow-band' signal. Yes, that's what SETI is looking for because natural objects send radio signal in a much more chaotic and larger band usually.<br />See what I just did here? I fixed a mistake. I improve my understanding of something... You on the other hand, obviously, did not notice that I removed the words 'narrow-band' from my response so you did not really get why I made a mistake...</i><br /><br />I noticed that you removed them. I put them back in. But even though you admit your mistake, you haven't gotten the point I was trying to make. SETI depends upon a "gap" in order to make a design inference. The gap: We don't know any other way to make narrow-band radio signals except by intelligent design. The inference: If we were to discover narrow-band radio signals from outer space, it would be reasonable to conclude that they were intelligently designed. <br /><br />My point is that the same sort of "gap" can be used to make a design inference regarding the origin of life. Other than cells, we don't know any other way to make proteins and nucleotides except by intelligent design. The inference: Before cells existed it would be reasonable to conclude that proteins and nucleotides were intelligently designed. Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16163282056704292462014-07-03T22:18:11.395-07:002014-07-03T22:18:11.395-07:00Belief in demon possession?"
Bob: "No ...<i>Belief in demon possession?"</i><br /><br />Bob: <i>"No apologies. Yes, I do. Do I believe in a literal Devil? I most certainly do. Is he to be taken lightly? One does so on peril of his soul! Do I think a lot about him? As little as possible. I don't think it's healthy to do so. Remember Saruman's fate in The Lord of the Rings."</i><br /><br />Well! Blow me over with a feather, The Jesus and Devil Show, the good cop/bad cop routine, the Laurel and Hardy of Christianity, the Abbott and Costello duo of the theological netherworld, the Cheech and Chong of the fundamentalist. <br /><br />Bob, I don't think you understand or even appreciate how ludicrously droll you admission is. Here is another <a href="http://www.jesusandmo.net/" rel="nofollow">duo act</a> that has them people rolling in the aisles. <br /><br />I have to say, you are a very funny guy. A literal devil!, an anthropomorphic 'him'. Priceless.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80957966565351277342014-07-03T22:00:03.057-07:002014-07-03T22:00:03.057-07:00Hi Bob,
You asked, Well, I watched it. Other th...Hi Bob, <br /><br />You asked, <i> Well, I watched it. Other than being rather repetitive, what was I supposed to take away from that?</i><br /><br />Have you ever seen a high-rise steel framed building collapse symmetrically that wasn't a controlled demolition? Dutch controlled demolition expert, <a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tAasMwE7o5s" rel="nofollow">Danny Jowenko</a> looked at the same video and declared that it was absolutely a controlled demolition. Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14352411294900897722014-07-03T18:46:57.898-07:002014-07-03T18:46:57.898-07:00" Yes, I think WTC7 was brought down by contr..."<i> Yes, I think WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, along with over 2,200 Architects and Engineers.</i>"<br /><br />First of all, having people sign a list to show that they agree with you is not a very strong argument. It's hilarious how the Intelligent Design movement did exactly the same with their dissent from Darwin letter. Did you see the response from NCSE on that point? Thery created a list of people named 'Steve' who accept the Theory of Evolution; hilarious! Looks like there is a common point here; people who are not able to rationnaly defend their position fall back on creating lists of people who agree with them. Oh the age of the Internet... it did not bring only good thing...<br /><br />Next, I could go on and on about the 9/11 truther movement. I flirted with it several years back. I even concede that I bought it for maybe 2-3 days, I was really really convinced that I had found something fascinating and that the truthers were on to something. The movie 'Loose change' if I recall the name correctly was particularly convincing... until I started to read both sides and find more tech-savy papers that explained what happen. I remember 1 in particular that included all the differential equations needed to compute the fall of the 2 main towers; the 2 being completely different since the angle the plane hit was different. And we reviewed the event in 1 of my engineering class, quite interesting.<br /><br />But WTC7 is probably the easiest to explain. The problem is that truther always ignore some really important facts; the building burnt for hours, the front, which we rarely see in footage, was much more damaged than the other sides, the mezzanine started to fall much sooner than the rest, yet truther don't always count the time required correctly and there was a gas tank that was alimenting the fire for quite a long time. Never in the history of steel building did a building have to sustain fire for so long, well guess what, that one fell...<br /><br />I would ask you, if you have just 15 minutes, to watch these 3 videos by a guy who realized his error and changed his mind about the truther movement. Perhaps you'll identify with him somehow... And I would add this: it's true that there were a lot of shaddy things, the money could not be traced properly, some people flew mysteriously, etc... but the mechanical part of it is not in doubt: planes hit the 2 main towers and caused them to fall, including WTC7 that was indirectly hit, and the Pentagon really did have a plane crash into it.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UULUQfEQFuU" rel="nofollow">I Was A Deluded 9/11 Truther</a><br /><a href="" rel="nofollow"></a><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI" rel="nofollow">Building 7 Explained</a><br /><a href="" rel="nofollow"></a><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM" rel="nofollow"> They Fell For My Hoax 9/11 Video</a><br /><a href="" rel="nofollow"></a><br /><br />CheersWorld of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24985687221547461112014-07-03T18:46:39.805-07:002014-07-03T18:46:39.805-07:00Bilbo said...
"My original point was that ID ...Bilbo said...<br />"<i>My original point was that ID is hotly debated. Both Michael Behe and Mike Gene have responded to all their major critics.</i>"<br /><br />Yes I know that, and I will repeat my answer: no, it is not hotly debated. I am really sorry that you refuse to live in the reality of 2014 but ID is not a scientific topic that biologists discuss. Period. Call me 'not skeptical enough' if you want, but I would say the same to someone telling me that the moon landing was a hoax. And yes, they replied, and that's why I made a sarcastic comment about 'oh well if they replied they must be right!'<br /><br />"<i>Behe isn't involved in the origin of life debate. Origin of life researchers haven't found a way for proteins or nucleotides to evolve naturally.</i>"<br /><br />What a joke. The main problem Behe et al. have with evolution, or anyone that reject the Theory I would say, is precisely because it does not explain the origin of life. It always comes back to that. People who don't understand evolution think that because it fails at explaining life's origin it is somehow 'incomplete'. It's example like saying that our understanding of gravity is 'incomplete' because we don't know with 100% certainty what causes gravity to exist in the first place. In both cases, yes, there are some part of mystery, we wouldn’t have science research at all otherwise, but the 'incompleteness' in biology is not at all where ID would like it to be.<br /><br />"<i>Narrow-band radio signals are not produced naturally. The only way they are known to be produced is by intelligent designers, such as us. That's why SETI is looking for them.</i>"<br /><br />My bad, I did not notice that you specified 'narrow-band' signal. Yes, that's what SETI is looking for because natural objects send radio signal in a much more chaotic and larger band usually.<br />See what I just did here? I fixed a mistake. I improve my understanding of something... You on the other hand, obviously, did not notice that I removed the words 'narrow-band' from my response so you did not really get why I made a mistake...<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75568767679149889812014-07-03T16:33:39.497-07:002014-07-03T16:33:39.497-07:00"I think you have watched too many repeats of..."<i>I think you have watched too many repeats of 'The Exorcist'.</i>"<br /><br />Actually, I've never seen <i>The Exorcist</i>.<br /><br />"<i>Tim Lahaye's 'Left Behind' is also fiction</i>"<br /><br />100% agreement there - the so-called "rapture" is a Protestant misreading of Scripture.<br /><br /><i>Belief in demon possession?</i>"<br /><br />No apologies. Yes, I do. Do I believe in a literal Devil? I most certainly do. Is he to be taken lightly? One does so on peril of his soul! Do I think a lot about him? As little as possible. I don't think it's healthy to do so. Remember Saruman's fate in <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37781085071918339282014-07-03T15:59:33.542-07:002014-07-03T15:59:33.542-07:00Cont
A belief in demon possession is a pathologica...Cont<br />A belief in demon possession is a pathological delusion, formed by a process of habituation when the reason and logic circuits in the brain are circumvented through exposure to extensive inculcation, the instilling of an attitude, idea, or habit by persistent long-term instruction. <br /><br />It is quite amazing that the brain is capable of holding two fundamentally disparate and countervailing concepts simultaneously. It is a subject of real interest among neuro-scientists and we are coming closer to understanding why Bob, who for all intents and purposes, is deemed a rational, sane person, can hold such antithetical and wonderfully bizarre ideas. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40410309809490435922014-07-03T15:33:18.680-07:002014-07-03T15:33:18.680-07:00"The real story here is Linton's instinct...<i>"The real story here is Linton's instinctive fear of Holy Scripture or anything sacred. Thus his usage of disparaging terms for the Resurrection, the Eucharist, or the Ascension, etc., and his knee jerk reaction to having to read anything from The Bible. And people wonder why I openly speculate that Linton may be a victim of demon possession. (Yes, I do believe that such things happen.) "</i><br /><br />Oh Dear. Bob invokes the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077394/" rel="nofollow">Damien Omen II</a> defense. I think you have watched too many repeats of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iS59iV2Ffs" rel="nofollow">'The Exorcist'</a>. <br /><br />I know it'll come as a bit of a shock, but ..... pssst, come closer, because I am only going to whisper it, ... Bob, these are not historical accounts. Also, I know you won't believe it, but Tim Lahaye's 'Left Behind' is also fiction based on a myth. Just thought I'd let you know. <br /><br />Psst. I'll let you in on another secret; this is the 21stC. Demon Possession has an actual psychiatrical name. It is a mental disease called <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/demonomania" rel="nofollow">demonomania</a> or demonopathy, a <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/monomania" rel="nofollow">monomania</a> in which people of generally sound mind have a delusory pathological fixation on one [or a number of closely related] particular idea, concept or subject. <br /><br />Belief in demon possession? Credibility? Zero on both counts.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61357472511906854622014-07-03T12:41:05.339-07:002014-07-03T12:41:05.339-07:00Well, I watched it. Other than being rather repeti...Well, I watched it. Other than being rather repetitive, what was I supposed to take away from that?B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.com