RIP Stephen

[Jorge]

I'm a little confused. How is "wow" a falsehood?

Was "Wow" all you wrote?
Let me check ...... (Jorge goes to post # 8 and reads)
Nope - "Wow" was NOT all you wrote.
"Falsehood" was based on the rest.

That you see Mr. Hawkin as less than a legend is clear, Jorge. I certainly agree that one person's "legend" is another person's "not legend." I continue to hold Mr. Hawkin and his accomplishments and zest for life in high regard. I recognize you do not.

Yup, and I explained why.

Your concern is appreciated, Jorge. I recognize the sincerity of that concern. I think this may be the first time we have encountered one another here, so you may not know my background. I actually was Christian for most of the first half of my life, including several years intimately involved with my church and in formation for the catholic priesthood. I left all of that 30+ years ago after significant exploration and study. I am atheist now, and I frankly cannot imagine what would/could turn that around. I'm fairly certain of the truth of my beliefs, as I'm sure you are of yours.

I appreciate your civil tone - a refreshing departure from what is common here at TWeb.

As for your Atheist position, allow me to be blunt. I am 100.00% certain that you are ignorant of a great many things that prove the bankruptcy of Atheism. "Ignorant", you may know, simply means "unaware; not knowing; not possessing knowledge" -- it is not meant as an insult.

What I have discovered in my 40-plus years in this field is that two things abound for Materialists/Atheists/Evolutionists: ignorance and selective data mining. In the case of militant hardcore specimens, add lying and intellectual dishonesty to those two attributes.

If you wish to begin discovering the truth I would highly - very highly! - recommend two books: Nonsense of a High Order - The Confused World of Modern Atheism (2016) by Rabbi Moshe Averick and Zombie Science (2017) by Jonathan Wells.

My own work (mainly in information theory) also provides devastating evidence against Materialism/Atheism but I suggest that you go to those other sources. They are easier to read and very well written.

This tone is very different from the previous posts, Jorge, so I am certainly open to the possibility that I misread your intent in the previous posts. For that I apologize. I have never rejected an offer of friendship, and don't plan to start now. If your offer, however, is dependent upon my conversion, I am afraid you are likely to be disappointed. That being said, if there are things you want to say, I will read them and tell you what I think.

Again, thank you for your civil tone. Apologies are not needed with me - we all make mistakes and I'm content with the recognition that a mistake has been made.

As for your "conversion" --- conversion is a spiritual matter that is well outside of my league. I am but a messenger (a poor one at that). Conversion occurs between a person and God - period.

Your offer is kind, Jorge. I will leave it to you to determine what you wish to share. As for your view on choice, I'm afraid I disagree. I am not atheist because I chose to be - I am atheist because that is where the evidence took me, as I noted before. I realize you believe the preponderance of evidence is for the Christan god, but that is not what I have found in my own journey. That being said, no one is perfect and it is always possible to discover new information. While I don't consider it very likely that I would ever return to my Christian roots, I am not closed to the possibility. If the evidence takes me there - that is where I will go. If not, then I will go where it takes me.

What I "wish to share" is all up to you. You must want to seek; you must ask questions. I will simple answer to the best of my ability and/or point you in the direction where you may find answers and/or simply tell you that I don't know. The two books that I mentioned before are an excellent start for you -- I cannot emphasize that enough.

You should also know that I am not a dogmatic promoter of ANY position. For example, Jonathan Wells, one of the authors above, is a "Moonie" - a religious position that I strongly oppose. However, Dr. Wells is an extremely intelligent educated man and has great truths to share. He knows very well, inside and out, of many truths that obliterate Evolutionism. Truth is truth - nothing can change that.

This is why ... heck, just go to my thread that I started today "You cannot make this stuff up!" for what I'm trying to say here.

Best wishes to you.

Jorge

[carpedm9587]

Was "Wow" all you wrote?
Let me check ...... (Jorge goes to post # 8 and reads)
Nope - "Wow" was NOT all you wrote.
"Falsehood" was based on the rest.

OK. I'm not going to go back and trace the entire conversation. I have enough to do as is. I'll just say that a "falsehood" is a lie, which is an intentional attempt to deceive. So you're essentially accusing me of lying. You can accuse me of possibly posting something you do not think is true, or you disagree with. But you cannot know that I was lying - and I wasn't. I post what I know and what I believe, and when someone shows me to be wrong about it - I acknowledge it. I'm too old to keep holding on to things that are demonstrably untrue. And it is not my practice to lie to anyone.

Yup, and I explained why.

I appreciate your civil tone - a refreshing departure from what is common here at TWeb.

As for your Atheist position, allow me to be blunt. I am 100.00% certain that you are ignorant of a great many things that prove the bankruptcy of Atheism. "Ignorant", you may know, simply means "unaware; not knowing; not possessing knowledge" -- it is not meant as an insult.

"Falsehood" I found a bit insulting, and not really in the spirit of "civil tone." "Ignorant" I did not. I do not pretend to know everything.

What I have discovered in my 40-plus years in this field is that two things abound for Materialists/Atheists/Evolutionists: ignorance and selective data mining. In the case of militant hardcore specimens, add lying and intellectual dishonesty to those two attributes.

If you wish to begin discovering the truth I would highly - very highly! - recommend two books: Nonsense of a High Order - The Confused World of Modern Atheism (2016) by Rabbi Moshe Averick and Zombie Science (2017) by Jonathan Wells.

I will add them to my reading list. Given the number of books that have been recommended to me just on this site, never mind the other ones I frequent, I have no idea when I'll get to it. And before you tell me these are the most important and should be moved to the top of the list, I get told that pretty much every time: The Case for Christ, The Resurrection of Jesus, The Lost World of Scripture, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Under Fire, the list goes on.

My own work (mainly in information theory) also provides devastating evidence against Materialism/Atheism but I suggest that you go to those other sources. They are easier to read and very well written.

Again, thank you for your civil tone. Apologies are not needed with me - we all make mistakes and I'm content with the recognition that a mistake has been made.

As for your "conversion" --- conversion is a spiritual matter that is well outside of my league. I am but a messenger (a poor one at that). Conversion occurs between a person and God - period.

I use the word a bit more loosely than that.

What I "wish to share" is all up to you. You must want to seek; you must ask questions. I will simple answer to the best of my ability and/or point you in the direction where you may find answers and/or simply tell you that I don't know. The two books that I mentioned before are an excellent start for you -- I cannot emphasize that enough.

You should also know that I am not a dogmatic promoter of ANY position. For example, Jonathan Wells, one of the authors above, is a "Moonie" - a religious position that I strongly oppose. However, Dr. Wells is an extremely intelligent educated man and has great truths to share. He knows very well, inside and out, of many truths that obliterate Evolutionism. Truth is truth - nothing can change that.

If I'm going to be honest, I'm not really that keen on yet another discussion about evolution. For me, it is about as "settled" as a science can get. Another exposition for why evolution is false has about as much interest to me as another discussion of why geocentrism is true, the earth is flat, the climate is not changing, or the earth is less than 10,000 years old. There will always be some that hold to such positions, and apparently even enough of them to host a convention, but the body of evidence for these positions is simply too vast for me to ignore or try to disprove.

This is why ... heck, just go to my thread that I started today "You cannot make this stuff up!" for what I'm trying to say here.

Best wishes to you.

Jorge

Best to you as well, Jorge. I really don't have any questions, at this point. I continue to explore and exchange with people, but my questions these days have moved on from "is there a god?" My primary reason for frequenting here (and other such fora) is to have a venue for exchanges that are "out of my bubble." I realized, at the end of 2016, that my circle of friends and online acquaintances, had shrunk to mostly those who think as I do. I thought it might be good, mostly politically, to expand my horizons a bit. I frequented this site many years ago, when I was still exploring some of those questions, and thought it would be a good place to reconnect with and see what the "other side" thinks. Most of my discussions here have been political in nature, rather than religious. I don't mind discussing the religious, but I usually let the other person initiate. It's not my primary focus anymore.

Michel

[Jorge]

And it is not my practice to lie to anyone.

That makes two of us. It is a very small group.

"Falsehood" I found a bit insulting, and not really in the spirit of "civil tone." "Ignorant" I did not. I do not pretend to know everything.

Falsehood = untrue. That is different from 'liar'. A person may state a falsehood yet not be a liar.

I will add them to my reading list. Given the number of books that have been recommended to me just on this site, never mind the other ones I frequent, I have no idea when I'll get to it. And before you tell me these are the most important and should be moved to the top of the list, I get told that pretty much every time: The Case for Christ, The Resurrection of Jesus, The Lost World of Scripture, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Under Fire, the list goes on.

Fine. Given that this is an eternal life-or-death issue, I would suggest putting them at the top of your list.

I use the word a bit more loosely than that.

Okay. I don't. On matters with eternal consequences I tend to be serious all the way.

If I'm going to be honest, I'm not really that keen on yet another discussion about evolution. For me, it is about as "settled" as a science can get. Another exposition for why evolution is false has about as much interest to me as another discussion of why geocentrism is true, the earth is flat, the climate is not changing, or the earth is less than 10,000 years old. There will always be some that hold to such positions, and apparently even enough of them to host a convention, but the body of evidence for these positions is simply too vast for me to ignore or try to disprove.

WOW! You really - I mean REALLY! - need to read the book by Dr. Jonathan Wells that I recommended to you. Evolution is as "settled" as is the "settled" news about "global climate change"... as are the "settled" narratives of the JFK assassination, the 9/11 event, the too-big-to-fail banks, the naturalistic origin-of-life claims, and many other so-called "settled" issues. Thanks for your honesty, Michel, and let me be just as honest: You have a LOT to learn if you truly wish to be educated in these areas!

Best to you as well, Jorge. I really don't have any questions, at this point. I continue to explore and exchange with people, but my questions these days have moved on from "is there a god?" My primary reason for frequenting here (and other such fora) is to have a venue for exchanges that are "out of my bubble." I realized, at the end of 2016, that my circle of friends and online acquaintances, had shrunk to mostly those who think as I do. I thought it might be good, mostly politically, to expand my horizons a bit. I frequented this site many years ago, when I was still exploring some of those questions, and thought it would be a good place to reconnect with and see what the "other side" thinks. Most of my discussions here have been political in nature, rather than religious. I don't mind discussing the religious, but I usually let the other person initiate. It's not my primary focus anymore.

Michel

Neither you nor anyone should "move on" to other areas when the single most important area is unfinished. But, hey, it's your life. I've done what I can here.

Jorge

[carpedm9587]

That makes two of us. It is a very small group.

Falsehood = untrue. That is different from 'liar'. A person may state a falsehood yet not be a liar.

First, all lies/falsehoods are untrue, by definition. The term falsehood is also widely defined (I checked three dictionaries - here's one, here's another, and the third). I accept that you meant it as a simple reference to "untruth," and were not calling me a liar. However, I suggest that you reconsider your use of the word. Given the strong connotation (as well as denotation) this has with "lying," I am not likely to be the last to trip over it if you use it. Saying, "that is untrue" or "that statement is false" is less likely to provoke a response. Saying, "that is a falsehood." is.

Fine. Given that this is an eternal life-or-death issue, I would suggest putting them at the top of your list.

I hope you can appreciate, everyone tells me their recommendations need to go to the top of my list. I can't do that for every recommendation, or I'll never finish a book.

Okay. I don't. On matters with eternal consequences I tend to be serious all the way.

WOW! You really - I mean REALLY! - need to read the book by Dr. Jonathan Wells that I recommended to you. Evolution is as "settled" as is the "settled" news about "global climate change"... as are the "settled" narratives of the JFK assassination, the 9/11 event, the too-big-to-fail banks, the naturalistic origin-of-life claims, and many other so-called "settled" issues. Thanks for your honesty, Michel, and let me be just as honest: You have a LOT to learn if you truly wish to be educated in these areas!

I'm taking from this list that you are a proponent of the JFK and 911 conspiracy theories?

Neither you nor anyone should "move on" to other areas when the single most important area is unfinished. But, hey, it's your life. I've done what I can here.

Jorge

Understood, Jorge. You have been largely civil. Perhaps we'll chat again in another venue.

Be well -

Michel

[Jorge]

I'm taking from this list that you are a proponent of the JFK and 911 conspiracy theories?

Michel

"conspiracy theories"? "theories"? HUH?

You do know the difference between a theory and a fact, right?

You know about epistemological subjectivity and epistemological objectivity, yes?

You know of the three general processes for logical conclusions, right?

Here's a simple one: The Twin Towers fell on 9/11. How many buildings fell on that day?

Jorge

[carpedm9587]

"conspiracy theories"? "theories"? HUH?

You do know the difference between a theory and a fact, right?

Yes

You know about epistemological subjectivity and epistemological objectivity, yes?

Yes

You know of the three general processes for logical conclusions, right?

Yes

Here's a simple one: The Twin Towers fell on 9/11. How many buildings fell on that day?

Jorge

As far as I know, three: the north and south towers and WTC 7. But other buildings were badly damaged and had to be either destroyed or repaired. I'm not sure why you ask.

[Roy]

I'm not sure why you ask.

Because has no answers, and thinks he can hide behind questions instead.

[Jorge]

Yes



Yes



Yes



As far as I know, three: the north and south towers and WTC 7. But other buildings were badly damaged and had to be either destroyed or repaired. I'm not sure why you ask.

Okay then, taking your answers to be true I have no idea how you can call the controversy surrounding 9/11 a "conspiracy theory" (as the term is usually used). I mean, there are quite literally mountains of hard facts that contradict the "official 9/11 narrative". These facts come from and/or have been fully endorsed by thousands of professionals including PhD scientists, veteran pilots, military and other officials. The facts also include video footage clearly indicating that the "official 9/11 narrative" does not pass muster - not even close.

In light of the overwhelming hard evidence against the official 9/11 narrative the only reasonable question is, how can anyone accept it?

A similar reasoning and conclusion goes for the JFK assassination.

Perhaps you are simply unaware of these facts that I allude to (?). It's the same regarding Evolution, Atheism, Materialism, and many other things: what you DON'T know can make all the difference in the world.

Jorge

[Roy]

In light of the overwhelming hard evidence against the official 9/11 narrative the only reasonable question is, how can anyone accept it?

I'm extremely unsurprised that some-one who thinks the lies and blunders of professional creationists are hard evidence would also think the lies and blunders of 9/11 truthers are hard evidence too.

Note that has not mentioned, linked to or hinted at even a single one of this mountain of so-called facts, but only asserted that they somewhere exist. Elephant hurling at its finest. Cluck, cluck, cluck, ...

[Sparko]

Okay then, taking your answers to be true I have no idea how you can call the controversy surrounding 9/11 a "conspiracy theory" (as the term is usually used). I mean, there are quite literally mountains of hard facts that contradict the "official 9/11 narrative". These facts come from and/or have been fully endorsed by thousands of professionals including PhD scientists, veteran pilots, military and other officials. The facts also include video footage clearly indicating that the "official 9/11 narrative" does not pass muster - not even close.

In light of the overwhelming hard evidence against the official 9/11 narrative the only reasonable question is, how can anyone accept it?

A similar reasoning and conclusion goes for the JFK assassination.

Perhaps you are simply unaware of these facts that I allude to (?). It's the same regarding Evolution, Atheism, Materialism, and many other things: what you DON'T know can make all the difference in the world.

Jorge

Which parts of the "official 9/11 narrative" do not pass muster?

[carpedm9587]

Okay then, taking your answers to be true I have no idea how you can call the controversy surrounding 9/11 a "conspiracy theory" (as the term is usually used). I mean, there are quite literally mountains of hard facts that contradict the "official 9/11 narrative". These facts come from and/or have been fully endorsed by thousands of professionals including PhD scientists, veteran pilots, military and other officials. The facts also include video footage clearly indicating that the "official 9/11 narrative" does not pass muster - not even close.

In light of the overwhelming hard evidence against the official 9/11 narrative the only reasonable question is, how can anyone accept it?

A similar reasoning and conclusion goes for the JFK assassination.

Perhaps you are simply unaware of these facts that I allude to (?). It's the same regarding Evolution, Atheism, Materialism, and many other things: what you DON'T know can make all the difference in the world.

Jorge

I am aware of all of the conspiracy theories, Jorge, and I do not see evidence in them of "hard facts." Sorry, but I am OK with the "official" story of the JFK assassination and the results of the Warren commission. I am OK with the results of the investigation into 911. I'm frankly not really interested in another round of "why they cannot be trusted." To be honest, my experience with folks who lean towards conspiracy theories is that they are locked in and there is no rational discussion to be had. I don't mean that pejoratively - you do seem to be a nice enough guy - but it's my repeated experience. It's just not a good use of my time.

Out of sheer curiosity, do you also subscribe to young-earth creationism, geocentrism, and/or the flat-earth movement?

[Jorge]

Which parts of the "official 9/11 narrative" do not pass muster?

Seriously, are you unaware of what's out there?
I want to hear your answer to that question before continuing.

By the way, I didn't post anything here because this is, after all, Science 301. However, on second thought, there is a significant connection between the 9/11 event, the "official narrative" and Science 301. That connection relates to evidence, following evidence where it leads, drawing sound conclusions, etc. This is what SCIENCE is (supposed to be) all about, right?

Jorge

[Sparko]

Seriously, are you unaware of what's out there?
I want to hear your answer to that question before continuing.

By the way, I didn't post anything here because this is, after all, Science 301. However, on second thought, there is a significant connection between the 9/11 event, the "official narrative" and Science 301. That connection relates to evidence, following evidence where it leads, drawing sound conclusions, etc. This is what SCIENCE is (supposed to be) all about, right?

Jorge

I know of a lot of conspiracy theories out there, but you made the comment that there were problems with the OFFICIAL 9/11 narrative. Since you made the claim only you can answer what those problems are. I can't read your mind.

[Jorge]

I am aware of all of the conspiracy theories, Jorge, and I do not see evidence in them of "hard facts." Sorry, but I am OK with the "official" story of the JFK assassination and the results of the Warren commission. I am OK with the results of the investigation into 911. I'm frankly not really interested in another round of "why they cannot be trusted." To be honest, my experience with folks who lean towards conspiracy theories is that they are locked in and there is no rational discussion to be had. I don't mean that pejoratively - you do seem to be a nice enough guy - but it's my repeated experience. It's just not a good use of my time.

Out of sheer curiosity, do you also subscribe to young-earth creationism, geocentrism, and/or the flat-earth movement?

From your post it is clear that you are a member of the vast majority that has swallowed their lies, are 'drunk' with the Kool-Aid and have closed your mind to anything that goes against your chosen beliefs. Check - I got it. I especially loved the "...not really interested in another round of "why they cannot be trusted"". I'm still shaking my head over that little gem!

To answer your questions, I am indeed a Biblical Creationist (you call it "young-earth creationism" but that is a loaded term that I discarded long ago). As for "geocentrism and/or flat-earth movement", no, I do not subscribe to the general/common views of those positions.

Kindly and gently, Michel, you are ignorant of so many things and it is this ignorance that provides you with a boundless assurance of being "right". It's also convenient to choose to remain that way by shutting out anything that threatens your chosen beliefs. We wouldn't want the TRUTH to come in and spoil that tidy little world, would we. Oh, and, don't even try to turn the tables on me here. I have hundreds of books/papers/articles from Atheists, Evolutionists (of all persuasions), Materialists, etc. here in my own home library. Unlike the usual practice of your camp, I do not censor other views.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I know of a lot of conspiracy theories out there, but you made the comment that there were problems with the OFFICIAL 9/11 narrative. Since you made the claim only you can answer what those problems are. I can't read your mind.

Okay. Do you know the OFFICIAL 9/11 narrative?
Could you summarize it here in a few sentences just so that I know that you know?
Specifically, who did they report was the (sole) perpetrator of 9/11 and,
did things happen as they say it did, i.e., are their accounts and explanations *believable*?

Jorge