evangelicals trying to hide hominid fossils

Ahnimus

NMyTree wrote:

Seriously, you are being a horses-ass. Grow up.

Stay out of it NMyTree.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

How about this, since you are claiming something exists that others can not see, the burden of proof is on you. I can easily prove an apple exists, because it does. You have to prove your multiverse exists, I don't have to disprove it.

The only way it can be disproven is for you to go to a psychiatrist. Get an antipsychotic to help with your "experiences". Then it will be disproven.

I can't discuss this logically with you, because you don't understand the logic. You are thinking with your "creativity" side of the brain, which is what leads to psychotic episodes. Psychosis goes back centuries, but in the past people would typically experience unicorns and demons. In modern times it's mostly aliens and out-of-body experiences.. Because pop-culture has changed, but the illness is still the same.

Still trying to "prove" your "beliefs"?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Still trying to "prove" your "beliefs"?

Don't give me that shit. Ask any professor of brain studies.

See that's the problem with movies like "What the BLEEP?" it has some good science in it, but it's drastically skewed. So new-agers go and float around the multiverse and claim it's real. Shit, you don't even understand the word "empirical" let-alone what's going on in your brain.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Don't give me that shit. Ask any professor of brain studies.

See that's the problem with movies like "What the BLEEP?" it has some good science in it, but it's drastically skewed. So new-agers go and float around the multiverse and claim it's real. Shit, you don't even understand the word "empirical" let-alone what's going on in your brain.

You might recall that it was yourself that was linking the movie "What The Bleep" on this board. You were telling people if they did not watch it they were less for it. There is a psychological principle that says when we don't like something about ourselves, we try to "give it away". Now you're blaming "new-agers" for what you were in fact doing.

Another example of you trying to "give away your feelings", aka projecting them onto someone else:

If you don't understand the valid interpretations of "empiric" and "empirical" from dictionary.com, and how personal practical experience is 100% valid in this category, then, that means you don't understand. It does not mean that the way I used such words was incorrect. You cannot "give away" your lack of understanding. You cannot effectively project that, or disown it. When you try to do so, you instead prove your lack of understanding.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

You might recall that it was yourself that was linking the movie "What The Bleep" on this board. You were telling people if they did not watch it they were less for it. There is a psychological principle that says when we don't like something about ourselves, we try to "give it away". Now you're blaming "new-agers" for what you were in fact doing.

Another example of you trying to "give away your feelings", aka projecting them onto someone else:

If you don't understand the valid interpretations of "empiric" and "empirical" from dictionary.com, and how personal practical experience is 100% valid in this category, then, that means you don't understand. It does not mean that the way I used such words was incorrect. You cannot "give away" your lack of understanding. You cannot effectively project that, or disown it. When you try to do so, you instead prove your lack of understanding.

"Empirical" does not refer to personal subjective experience!

"A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically.""

In order for it to be "Empirical" I have to be able to "Experience" it as well, everyone has to be able to do it.

"In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature."

I'm not projecting any lack of understanding. My linkage of "What The BLEEP?" was purely for educational purposes. It explains quite in-depth how certain brain functions work. It explains how subjective experience can differ drastically from objective reality. I never once agreed with it's philosophical view that physical reality does not exist. I acknowledged that that view is a dangerous road. I wanted people to watch it to understand synaptic plasticity and the addictiveness of emotion. Which I applaud the video for illustrating quite well.

Ahnimus

From Marriam Webster online http://m-w.com

Entry Word: empirical
Function: adjective
Text: based on observation or experience <guidelines for raising children that are based on empirical evidence>
Synonyms experimental, objective, observational
Related Words actual, factual, genuine, hard, real; accepted, established, tried, tried-and-true; indisputable, undeniable; demonstrable, provable, verifiable
Near Antonyms conjectural, hypothetical, speculative; unproven, unsubstantiated, unverified
Antonyms nonempirical, theoretical (also theoretic)

NMyTree

Ahnimus wrote:

Stay out of it NMyTree.

Yeah, okay. You're delusional.

Ahnimus

NMyTree wrote:

Yeah, okay. You're delusional.

Fuck off, I understand what I'm talking about, Eva-Angelica-l does not. That is apparent by the above posts.

You are a whiny little kiss-ass and have nothing to contribute besides your backseat driving abilities. Instead of throwing ignorant comments into the discussion to gain the support of Angelica, why don't you put some thought into it and/or stay out of it.

I don't know you, but I'm willing to guess your either a guy or a lesbian. Sex is one of the greatest motivators of our species, and subconsciously people will run to the aid of the opposite sex for no logical reasoning and they don't even know it.

Mookie Baylock

enharmonic wrote:

You know, I laugh at the evangelicals, because not once have I ever heard one even consider that evolution might have also been part of God's plan. They just assume that we were popped out of the universe by an almighty, all-powerful being.

2000 years is not a whole lot of time on the evolutionary ladder, but clearly people are taller now than they were 2000 years ago, stronger, smarter even (arguably). If that's not evolution, then God must have messed up, because were are almost in no way similar to our ancestors who walked this Earth during the time of Christ.

Yeah, the differences between people now and 2000 years ago are mostly due to nutrution - not evolution. You need to think more like 2000 generations.

That being said, anyone who tries to censor what a museum exhibits is a facists. As someone who is highly studied in human evolution (as I've said many times before, I'm probably the board's leading expert in the field), and who works in museums, I guess I'm a good one to talk about this (my dislike for some of Richard Leakey's theories aside). Aside from the fact that the museum is presenting the TRUTH according to EXPERTS, not religious nuts with their heads in the sand, museums are important to economies and culture, and a Kenyan museum that did not display information about the country's contributions to the study of human origins would be a crime against humanity.

Whether you think evolution is purely natural (my belief) or guided by "God" (it's not, but I won't get into that), anyone without a severe bias CANNOT deny that evolution is real and we come from ape anscestors.

NMyTree

Ahnimus wrote:

Fuck off, I understand what I'm talking about, Eva-Angelica-l does not. That is apparent by the above posts.

You are a whiny little kiss-ass and have nothing to contribute besides your backseat driving abilities. Instead of throwing ignorant comments into the discussion to gain the support of Angelica, why don't you put some thought into it and/or stay out of it.

I don't know you, but I'm willing to guess your either a guy or a lesbian. Sex is one of the greatest motivators of our species, and subconsciously people will run to the aid of the opposite sex for no logical reasoning and they don't even know it.

We've had this discussion in the other thread. It's obvious to everyone you have provided zero proof for your opinions, which are based on opinions and theories of others. Spin as you might, nothing you have provided has delivered conclusive proof of anything to support.

On another note, it's interesting to see a self-proclaimed and self-glorified intellectual, resorting to childish name calling, such as " whiny little kiss-ass " :D Good job there, genius!

Ahnimus

NMyTree wrote:

We've had this discussion in the other thread. It's obvious to everyone you have provided zero proof for your opinions, which are based on opinions and theories of others. Spin as you might, nothing you have provided has delivered conclusive proof of anything to support.

On another note, it's interesting to see a self-proclaimed and self-glorified intellectual, resorting to childish name calling, such as " whiny little kiss-ass " :D Good job there, genius!

Well, I suppose you are a self-proclaimed asshole and that excuses your behavior, does it?

Ahnimus

Mookie Baylock wrote:

Yeah, the differences between people now and 2000 years ago are mostly due to nutrution - not evolution. You need to think more like 2000 generations.

That being said, anyone who tries to censor what a museum exhibits is a facists. As someone who is highly studied in human evolution (as I've said many times before, I'm probably the board's leading expert in the field), and who works in museums, I guess I'm a good one to talk about this (my dislike for some of Richard Leakey's theories aside). Aside from the fact that the museum is presenting the TRUTH according to EXPERTS, not religious nuts with their heads in the sand, museums are important to economies and culture, and a Kenyan museum that did not display information about the country's contributions to the study of human origins would be a crime against humanity.

Whether you think evolution is purely natural (my belief) or guided by "God" (it's not, but I won't get into that), anyone without a severe bias CANNOT deny that evolution is real and we come from ape anscestors.

I'm curious about your interpretation of the evolution of mind. Many biologists seem to believe that our brains have evolved from what they were 2000 years ago. Of course, they base this mostly on the rise of science and the fall of subjectivity. Though, perhaps it is purely nutritional.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

"Empirical" does not refer to personal subjective experience!

"A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically.""

In order for it to be "Empirical" I have to be able to "Experience" it as well, everyone has to be able to do it.

"In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature."

I'm not projecting any lack of understanding. My linkage of "What The BLEEP?" was purely for educational purposes. It explains quite in-depth how certain brain functions work. It explains how subjective experience can differ drastically from objective reality. I never once agreed with it's philosophical view that physical reality does not exist. I acknowledged that that view is a dangerous road. I wanted people to watch it to understand synaptic plasticity and the addictiveness of emotion. Which I applaud the video for illustrating quite well.

Okay, from your own source: "empirical: originating in or based on observation or experience"

Note, Ahnimus, it says observation or experience. Do you realize that this can refer to science observation or LIFE OBSERVATION and experience? For example, I know firsthand that my philosophies work because of my own observations that I became healed from numerous disorders. I found numerous working practical applications and by EXPERIENCE, I OBSERVED consistent healing.

Or from dictionary.com: depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory

WITHOUT USING SCIENTIFIC METHOD OR THEORY.

Again, because you are looking at this differently, that does not invalidate this particular interpretation. Besides that fact, do you realize I've been documented by medical doctors throughout my whole life? Do you realize there are tons of medical records on my process? You like to think this is a figment of my imagination, but there is a ton of empirical scientific data that backs up my EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE and OBSERVATIONS. Do you realize that much of this empirical data for my doctors has been my words? It has been their assessment of my truthfulness and my integrity? Because you don't understand this is about you. Because you don't see or comprehend something, does not make it go away--it means you don't comprehend or see it.

When you are trying to be "right", you manage to overlook the numerous interpretations that exist, and their validity. Therefore you undermine your own arguments. With what seems to be your philosophy of "if I don't understand it, it can't be real", you're keeping your hands over your eyes, even when you tell yourself otherwise. It doesn't help your case, it merely keeps you blind to true understanding.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Okay, from your own source: "empirical: originating in or based on observation or experience"

Note, Ahnimus, it says observation or experience. Do you realize that this can refer to science observation or LIFE OBSERVATION and experience? For example, I know firsthand that my philosophies work because of my own observations that I became healed from numerous disorders. I found numerous working practical applications and by EXPERIENCE, I OBSERVED consistent healing.

Or from dictionary.com: depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory

WITHOUT USING SCIENTIFIC METHOD OR THEORY.

Again, because you are looking at this differently, that does not invalidate this particular interpretation. Besides that fact, do you realize I've been documented by medical doctors throughout my whole life? Do you realize there are tons of medical records on my process? You like to think this is a figment of my imagination, but there is a ton of empirical scientific data that backs up my EMPIRICAL EXPERIENCE and OBSERVATIONS. Do you realize that much of this empirical data for my doctors has been my words? It has been their assessment of my truthfulness and my integrity? Because you don't understand this is about you. Because you don't see or comprehend something, does not make it go away--it means you don't comprehend or see it.

When you are trying to be "right", you manage to overlook the numerous interpretations that exist, and their validity. Therefore you undermine your own arguments. With what seems to be your philosophy of "if I don't understand it, it can't be real", you're keeping your hands over your eyes, even when you tell yourself otherwise. It doesn't help your case, it merely keeps you blind to true understanding.

Come on, just admit that you misused the word. You were digging to make your experience fact. Ask your doctors what empirical means to them. Also ask your doctors what they think of your experiences, as them to give you the data then show it to me. I don't think they are telling you the truth, in fear that you would just walk out, because maybe you can't handle the truth.

NMyTree

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, I suppose you are a self-proclaimed asshole and that excuses your behavior, does it?

I'm not sure how my behavior has been out of line, considering you were taking shots at us and throwing around little snide remarks through out the that whole thread, and it wasn't till the 12th or 15th page that I finally said something to you about it.

I guess my calling you out on your arrogant and snide jabs, is what you consider bad behavior.

By the way, is my asshole behavior an example of "Free-Will" or was it predetermined by my past experiences, my environment and your bad behavior?:D:D

angelica

Oh, and by the way, Ahnimus, approximately 70% of "my" theories are well known and have their empiric roots in the science of psychology where they've been tried, tested and put into place as proven to work EMPIRICALLY. I know this because I got them from there. Because you do not have an aptitude of understanding of psychology does not mean this science does not exist, nor does it mean that it's empirical studies and applications are "imaginary". It means you don't know about or understand them.

Ahnimus

NMyTree wrote:

I'm not sure how behavior has been out of line, considering you were taking shots at us and throwing around little snide remarks through out the that whole page, and it wasn't till the 12th or 15th page that I finally said something to you about it.

I guess my calling you out on your arrogant and snide jabs, is what you consider bad behavior.

By the way, is my asshole behavior an example of "Free-Will" or was it predetermined by my past experiences, my environment and your bad behavior?:D:D

Actually your first post was on page 4 and you tried to use some argument where an individual could make two opposing choices at the exact same place in space and time. An impossible and irrelevant hypothesis, because it can never happen. Read the thread again.

Mookie Baylock

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm curious about your interpretation of the evolution of mind. Many biologists seem to believe that our brains have evolved from what they were 2000 years ago. Of course, they base this mostly on the rise of science and the fall of subjectivity. Though, perhaps it is purely nutritional.

I'm definatly no expert in the mind, but I don't think that people 2000 years ago's minds were much different that ours. They did some pretty incredible stuff 2000 years ago and beyond. If you ask me, I'd say our minds were pretty much set at the current level between 30 to 50000 years ago when there was a huge increase in human material culture. By that I mean, if you travelled back 30000 years, abducted an infant and raised it as your own, you would see no difference in its development from a modern person.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Oh, and by the way, Ahnimus, approximately 70% of "my" theories are well known and have their empiric roots in the science of psychology where they've been tried, tested and put into place as proven to work EMPIRICALLY. I know this because I got them from there. Because you do not have an aptitude of understanding of psychology does not mean this science does not exist, nor does it mean that it's empirical studies and applications are "imaginary". It means you don't know about or understand them.

I know a lot about psychology. What the fuck do you know about it?

Psychology is highly subjective and thus criticized by much of the scientific community. Although it has had some serious changes to make it more empirical. What the fuck is your doctors name anyway? This person is going to get their license suspended for malpractice.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I know a lot about psychology. What the fuck do you know about it?

Psychology is highly subjective and thus criticized by much of the scientific community. Although it has had some serious changes to make it more empirical. What the fuck is your doctors name anyway? This person is going to get their license suspended for malpractice.

You may not be able to prove your beliefs, but you sure as heck know how to prove your ignore-ance. Suit yourself. You're representing for yourself. Nice job.