A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why are you giggling Vivisectus, and why are you so vindictive? He was extremely perceptive, more than the average person. Why do you resent him for this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ermmm... we DID confirm the numbers. By hitting the damn planet. All the time.

YOU may not be able to make anything of those calculations because you do not understand them. But the fact remains we shoot things the place where a planet would be if sight is delayed dye to the speed of light.

So not only do we hit it where we do not see it... we hit it exactly where it would be if it was lightspeed that determined the delay.

But because you do not understand the math, this is just "circumstantial evidence"??

No, obviously if they are landing on the planet it's not circumstantial, but there could be another explanation. You're talking about millions of miles away and the circumference of a planet is huge. To say we'd miss the planet altogether without these calculations is questionable. You are assuming that this proves your case, but I don't because there are inconsistencies that go against this theory, and until further empirical testing is done, there is no conclusive proof as much as you want to believe there is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And to this day, these remain completely undetectable, so it must be true!

Undetectable? What are you talking about?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And you believe this for no reason. And when faced with huge amounts of obvious evidence from multiple places saying he's wrong, you still believe him. For no reason.

Rational people change their minds when confronted with evidence. They don't ignore it and cling to believes they hold for no reason.

My mind is quite rational Dragar. I'm so curious if you even looked at the pdf when it was online? Did you read anything or did you just come here trying to establish my rationality from this debate, which is one-sided. I can't give you the entire book and show you how rational it is (after all, this knowledge came from observation and reason) without you putting forth some effort. You're not doing that. I wish someone would come to this thread after thoroughly studying the book, and then we could have a much fairer conversation. All you're doing is taking what people are saying in here, and because I'm at a complete disadvantage because I am trying to explain the book to you in little pieces (which does not do it justice), you say I'm irrational. That's foul play.

[LadyShea]

there are inconsistencies that go against this theory

Such as?

[LadyShea]

I am trying to explain the book to you in little pieces (which does not do it justice)

That shouldn't prevent you from offering rational support for whatever aspect is being discussed, rather than your weaseling evasions and appeals to future evidence we have no reason to believe is forthcoming.

Why should anyone believe Lessans ideas about conscience are correct?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, obviously if they are landing on the planet it's not circumstantial, but there could be another explanation. You're talking about millions of miles away and the circumference of a planet is huge. To say we'd miss the planet altogether without these calculations is questionable. You are assuming that this proves your case, but I don't because there are inconsistencies that go against this theory, and until further empirical testing is done, there is no conclusive proof as much as you want to believe there is.

No, as a matter of fact that is not the case. We skim off planets in exactly the right spot, and at exactly the right angle. When we land probes, we can pinpoint where it will land down to an area of a few hundred meters these days.

It is not difficult to calculate the margin by which we should miss planets if there was no delay in sight. In the case of Mars, which is not even a particularly distant planet, the amount by which we would miss if sight was not delayed by exactly the speed of light is several times larger than the diameter of the planet we are aiming at. The difference is far greater for more distant planets.

What inconsistencies are these?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My mind is quite rational Dragar.

Then what the reasons you believe Lessans? Because earlier, you told me there were none. And you even acknowledge that there is plenty of evidence to suggest he is wrong. But still, you believe Lessans, for no reason.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Undetectable? What are you talking about?

I refer to the fact that since we do not know

a) what these patterns were
b) how they were detected, by which methodology
c) what they were detected in

we just have to take your word for it that he was detecting them: we certainly cannot check. Also, because of the way you phrased your initial statement, I thought it was funny that you could day the same thing about someone who hallucinates: they see things very few other people can see too.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're only making yourself look like an idiot. Here's a clue for you: anyone who can manage to keep a straight face while saying "Biological evolution is still [or 'only'] a theory" as if that is somehow a criticism has just demonstrated that they have no idea whatsoever what the word theory actually means in the sciences.

I am not saying there aren't adaptations that have occurred through time, but I don't necessarily think that I'm an idiot just because I question the idea of mutations of a previous life form causing the exquisite design of each individual species. And I don't think I'm an idiot for questioning the idea that we evolved from fish and monkeys.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Biological evolution, by the way, is a fact that has been demonstrated over and over again. Evolutionary theory is all about explaining the fact of evolution. There's an important distinction.

I'm not sure I understand.

Why would someone burn in hell for believing in evolution? I never heard of that before.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I can only assume that you haven't been paying attention, then. It's an extremely common postion amongst Creationists that one cannot accept the fact of biological evolution and yet be a good Christian.

Being a good Christian and being told you're going to go to hell for not believing in Creationism are two different things. I thought that all you have to do is give your life to Jesus and you are saved from going to hell.

And what would they be lying about to potential recruits? It's not like people don't know Christianity's position on creationism.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The "professional" Creationists lie constantly. Chiefly, they lie about the fossil record, and about molecular biology. Again, presumably they lie because of the claim that one cannot be both a Christian and an "Evolutionist," and they figure that a lot of their "recruits" will not bother to check up on the claims.

Again, I never heard this before. Molecular biology is a wonderful field, but fossils may not give the entire picture that they are trying to piece together. Couldn't it be that these scientists are doing the very thing they claim that the Creationists are doing...trusting so much in the way they are piecing things together that it automatically becomes fact? And that turns out to be an even worse problem because now there's no room for new ideas or thoughts on the subject.

Check with whom? Who are you telling them to check with? The very scientists who are just as dogmatic in their beliefs as the religious folk?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You know, if a Creationist tells you "this rock stratum contains both human and dinosaur remains," it's not all that difficult to pick up a rock hammer and check for yourself.

More commonly, the Professional Creationists engage in a particularly dishonest practice called "quote mining." They take quotes from legitimate scientific articles and either edit them or simply re-write them to make it sound as if the author was saying something very different from what (s)he was actually saying. Quote-mining is an extremely common practice amongst the Professional Creationists.

And all you have to do is go to the library and look up the original sources to prove that they're lying.

Well obviously it's not right to change a source or take it out of context. That has a ring of familiarity.

I agree with you that if someone makes a claim of seeing something, they should be able to reproduce it, or give some kind of proof that the evidence actually existed.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're such a hypocrite!

No I am not. Obviously the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Knowledge has to be tested. But this blueprint of a new world could be applied right now and it would be confirmed because the principles work. There's no doubt about it.

You are making a false dichotomy by saying you either have to be a creationist that believes the world was made in 6 days, or a die hard evolutionist. There is an in between.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I never said any such thing. You're lying again.

I didn't mean you personally. I meant the argument over these two worldviews are diametrically opposed, and maybe there is some common ground. I think there are people who believe in intelligent design and are trying to prove it scientifically.

So this is where your little synopsis of the entire Christian religion was headed; all to compare Lessans to a religious fanatic?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If you think that was in any way a synopsis of "the entire Christian religion," you're even more deluded than I imagined. In any event, to call Lessans a "religious fanatic" is an insult to religious fanatics everywhere. Most religious fanatics have a far more well-supported, coherent, and cohesive worldview.

That's not fair TLR. I hope you read the book one day. Maybe you'll have a change of heart.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's right a lot more often than unsupported and untested claims are.

Maybe that's true, but the fact that they can be misleading should give you pause. It should make you more cautious about accepting every single conclusion, especially when these tests are not always reliable due to factors that were not accounted for.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, obviously if they are landing on the planet it's not circumstantial, but there could be another explanation.

What other explanation could there be? You have no idea, do you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're talking about millions of miles away and the circumference of a planet is huge. To say we'd miss the planet altogether without these calculations is questionable.

No it isn't. It's an established fact that if we instead used calculations based on real-time vision we would miss the planets altogether.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are assuming that this proves your case, but I don't because there are inconsistencies that go against this theory...

What are these inconsistencies? You certainly haven't identified any yet.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My mind is quite rational...

On the contrary, your mind is quite clearly defective. You believe things for which you have absolutely no evidence, and you ignore all the evidence showing your beliefs to be in error.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wish someone would come to this thread after thoroughly studying the book, and then we could have a much fairer conversation.

I wish you had done so.

[Vivisectus]

On the contrary, your mind is quite clearly defective. You believe things for which you have absolutely no evidence, and you ignore all the evidence showing your beliefs to be in error.

I do not think that means her mind is defective per se. If we assumed that, then we would have to call a pretty large chunk of religious people mentally defective too. Irrational, yes. But I see no reason to assume actual insanity.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I do not think that means her mind is defective per se. If we assumed that, then we would have to call a pretty large chunk of religious people mentally defective too. Irrational, yes. But I see no reason to assume actual insanity.

You are right. Let me clarify: Peacegirl's mind is clearly defective and her irrationality is established by the fact that she believes things for which she has absolutely no evidence and ignores all the evidence showing her beliefs to be in error.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe that's true, but the fact that they can be misleading should give you pause. It should make you more cautious about accepting every single conclusion, especially when these tests are not always reliable due to factors that were not accounted for.

LOL,That's woo argumentation, right there. I am very cautious, and I certainly don't accept "every single conclusion". As I've demonstrated and explained, I am a skeptic across the board.

Now, when the same or very similar conclusions have been independently reached by multiple people in multiple fields over the course of years, decades, and even centuries (as biological evolution and the age of the Earth have been), yes, I tend to accept that as fact until/unless new evidence comes along.

I was not at all prepared to simply accept that neutrinos had exceeded the speed of light traveling from one lab to another, even though the data seemed to indicate that in several instances. It would have had to be duplicated by multiple labs using different equipment over many tests for me to even start considering that as worth accepting.

And really, you are the raven calling the crow black here. You accept purely anecdotal evidence about alternative medicine and treatments that have zero empirical support and trust your own interpretations over controlled test results. Why is only empirical science to be subjected to skepticism and scrutiny?

[ceptimus]

BBC - Earth News - Dogs recognise their owner's face

I think a better methodology is required, but this study at least gives some clue that dogs do rely on seeing their owner's face (though this study was on actual faces - not photographs).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, as a matter of fact that is not the case. We skim off planets in exactly the right spot, and at exactly the right angle. When we land probes, we can pinpoint where it will land down to an area of a few hundred meters these days.

It is not difficult to calculate the margin by which we should miss planets if there was no delay in sight. In the case of Mars, which is not even a particularly distant planet, the amount by which we would miss if sight was not delayed by exactly the speed of light is several times larger than the diameter of the planet we are aiming at. The difference is far greater for more distant planets.

What inconsistencies are these?

There are obviously no inconsitencies, but the origin of this calculation could be masking a more profound truth. Why can't you just sit back and be a scientist Vivisecuts, instead of defending your position. That is not good science at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are obviously no inconsitencies...

Then why did you say there were?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but the origin of this calculation could be masking a more profound truth.

What could this more profound truth be, and how could the origin of this calculation be masking it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you just sit back and be a scientist Vivisecuts, instead of defending your position. That is not good science at all.

Being a good scientist entails not accepting unsupported claims, and dismissing falsified claims. Constantly appealing to faith in future evidence and testing is not what a good scientist does.

[LadyShea]

Good science=anything that confirms or supports deeply held beliefs

Questionable, incorrect, unreliable science=anything that refutes or negates deeply held beliefs

Classic woo

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you giggling Vivisectus, and why are you so vindictive? He was extremely perceptive, more than the average person. Why do you resent him for this?

We have only your testimony for the claim that Lessans was extremely perceptive and you are hardly a reliable witness. The only other source of information we have about Lessans is his book, and it suggests that he was anything but extremely perceptive. Why should we believe you in preference to our own judgement?

[Vivisectus]

There are obviously no inconsitencies, but the origin of this calculation could be masking a more profound truth. Why can't you just sit back and be a scientist Vivisecuts, instead of defending your position. That is not good science at all.

How could that be? We know the exact trajectory of the probes: that is a simple matter of mechanical forces. We know we fire them not at where we see planets, but where we know they actually are. We hit them, every time, with pretty impressive accuracy. This happens over different distances, and the difference is exactly as much as we would expect if the speed of light determines the delay in sight.

What is changing these trajectories, and changing them more for more distant planets, less for closer ones, but always exactly enough to compensate for the difference we would expect if sight is delayed by the speed of light?

The difference is always as much as we would expect there to be if everything had moved at it's normal speed, for exactly as long as it takes light to reach the earth from that position. Every time.

[Vivisectus]

I would like to bring this back up? I would be very interested in your answer.

So we have a person who allegedly "sees patterns" but does not record what these patterns are, or where be observed them.

He also did not reveal his method for spotting there "patterns", so we cannot check if we agree with his methodology either.

However, we need to believe these "patterns" exist, and that he spotted them correctly, if we are to be convinced the book is correct. There is no other reason to assume conscience works the way it is described in the book, and if conscience does not work as described in the book, then the entire system does not work.

So now we need to ask ourselves: what reasons do we have to assume Lessans was able to see "patterns in human behaviour" that indicate that conscience works the way he described it? Without evidence, we need to make this decision solely on the basis of our belief (or lack thereof!) in his skills.

Do we at least have a list of books that he read and used to spot these patterns? Do we have an example where he described a pattern and where he spotted it? Do you have any other information that would help us evaluate his capability and the likelihood that he was correct?

In short: can you please explain why we should believe that Lessans observed patterns in human behaviour? Please do not repeat what it was that he concluded: we have all heard that enough times. We are trying to find out why we should believe he correctly spotted these patterns.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are obviously no inconsitencies, but the origin of this calculation could be masking a more profound truth. Why can't you just sit back and be a scientist Vivisecuts, instead of defending your position. That is not good science at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Laugh if you must, but at grave risk to my own personal intergety and mental health, I am going to attempt to think like Peacegirl, and explain why these two bolded statements are not a contradiction. First there are inconsistencies in NASA useing 'delayed time seeing' in flagrant violation of Lessans claims that we see in real time. Second there are no inconsistancies in Lessans claim that we see in real time and therefore there are other errors that cancel out the original error of not useing real time seeing. Now if that doesn't clear things up, you just need to go back and read the book again, till it becomes clear. After all Peacegirl understands it perfectly, but then this is the only book she has ever read.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How could that be? We know the exact trajectory of the probes: that is a simple matter of mechanical forces. We know we fire them not at where we see planets, but where we know they actually are. We hit them, every time, with pretty impressive accuracy. This happens over different distances, and the difference is exactly as much as we would expect if the speed of light determines the delay in sight.

What is changing these trajectories, and changing them more for more distant planets, less for closer ones, but always exactly enough to compensate for the difference we would expect if sight is delayed by the speed of light?

The difference is always as much as we would expect there to be if everything had moved at it's normal speed, for exactly as long as it takes light to reach the earth from that position. Every time.

It does make you wonder, doesn't it? If Lessans is correct, then the entire Universe is somehow conspiring to convince us of a falsehood.

For some reason, no matter how close or far away something is, it always appears to be displaced by exactly as much as you'd expect if the speed of light caused a delay in our seeing it.

This is true whether we're looking at something here on Earth, or at a quasar that's 13 billion light-years distant, or at anything in-between. Talk about a massive conspiracy!


[Light travels less than one foot in a nanosecond. Nowadays, we can directly measure how the finite speed of light imposes delays on when we see things, even when observing things here on Earth. That's how technologies like LIDAR work.]