Does anyone else get the sense that something downright miraculous might be up ahead?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage

Don't kid yourself, you're not here defending historical fact. You're pushing a known book of tall tales as historic, you only have to read your rinse and repeat posts on the 'Noah' thread to see that.

And you're pushing a fairy tale about microbes mutating into human beings over a billion years. I leave you to your beliefs, you leave me to mine. Regardless, referring to historical records has nothing to do with the origin stories of Judaism.

I see you dismiss the millions of years of fossil records, chemistry, physics and history and substiute it for your pesudo-science when it suits you, to try and prove a book of talls as a book of fact.
What long list of facts and data can you point to that shows real actual evidence of what you claim other than your regular stand up routine of rinse and repeat???

a reply to: Kurokage

Please post where I said I was 'forced to accept religious doctrine', are you putting words into other people mouths to reinforce your own bias here?

Sure, why not...

When it comes to religious 'belief' or 'faith', I have to take the word of a 2000 year old dusty book, full of stollen stories, tall tales and contradictions, which I'm not allowed to question, it's the 'word' of God!!

Sounded pretty bad, but maybe you're just a drama queen when it suits your argument

nvm, ignored the poster to avoid further irrelevant drift

originally posted by: Kurokage

I see you dismiss the millions of years of fossil records, chemistry, physics and history and substiute it for your pesudo-science

What long list of facts and data can you point to that shows real actual evidence

No, You were the one denying the thermodynamic unfavorability of amino acid polymerization in water:


(the "negative delta G h" value on the right is showing that protein polymers will break down in water, rather than form in water. This prevents primordial organic matter from creating complex organic polymers that are necessary for life. This fact of life is best shown by the fact that when things die they decompose, rather than grow into a massive blob of amorphous flesh)

This is why there is no model for how abiogenesis could have occurred, because there are a multitude of steps that are the exact opposite of known thermodynamic laws of chemistry. As I said before, I dismiss no empirical data, I assess all of the empirical data. I then share my conclusions based off the raw data.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

You do know that BC/AD has been dropped don't you?

It's now BCE/CE

Yeah because the secularists are trying to destroy history. AD/BC has been going for almost 1500 years and they want to change it to an arbitrary meaning of "common era" to try to erase the history of Christ. 'common era' (CE) is derived from the same date as 'the year of our Lord' (AD).

You clearly choose to ignore history. I already answered how this is in no way evidence for a "history of christ" in a much earlier post that you either did not comprehend or completely ignored- (www.abovetopsecret.com...)


Here is an excerpt from that post regarding A.D. and B.C.-

As far as using A.D. or B.C. it's not anything supernatural- "the anno domini dating system (BC/AD) was invented by the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525." Dionysius Exiguus (A.K.A. "Dennis the Little") was a monk in the service of pope John I, pope John tasked Dionysius with computing the future dates of Easter. Dionysius decided that he wouldn't use the dating system already in place, instead he decided that year 753/4 was the birth of jesus and made it 'year 1' (his system had no year zero because Arabs introduced the concept of zero from India centuries later). The year 753/4 was irrelevant, he could have chosen any day, month, or year and it wouldn't have mattered because there was no contemporary consensus on the life of jesus, he never existed. No one would have challenged his dates any how (although some maintain that the year 749 would have been the actual year jesus could have been born) and between the 7th and 14th centuries Dionysius's system spread across christianity. Dionysius also provided the Latin translation of the canons of the eastern church, including fifty fictitious canons from the apostles themselves. Dionysus lived in the 6th century, over 500 years after the supposed christ. He obviously took a lot of liberties to invent his system for pope John I.

Please post where I said I was 'forced to accept religious doctrine', are you putting words into other people mouths to reinforce your own bias here?

When it comes to religious 'belief' or 'faith', I have to take the word of a 2000 year old dusty book, full of stollen stories, tall tales and contradictions, which I'm not allowed to question, it's the 'word' of God!!

Sounded pretty bad, but maybe you're just a drama queen when it suits your argument

Hey Terpene, is English your first language? No offense meant, I'm just wondering why his obvious sarcasm is going over your head... his statement was definitely not meant to be literal.

originally posted by: whereislogic
By 'enlightened ones' by any chance?

No, from a brochure given to him by some alien being that had been on a space cruise where the last stop was the loosh garden named earth.

ETA: "Take with a pinch of salt" and variations of that means, "I'm not saying it is true, that is just what was said".

a reply to: whereislogic

Isn't it interesting how those concepts were used in the article about The New Age movement in comparison with your comment?

I haven't studied New Age breakout 'fads' much, so I am not sure how you are defining that?

My cursory understanding lead me to believe, that elements of the 'secret knowledge', which had been esoteric for centuries. Has been cherry picked and re-branded as 'New Age' and that, in itself, is a falsification without studying it in context to the original teachings.

I studied Hylozoism, which is a remarkable glimpse into the processes of divine law and structure behind Gods creation.

Hylozoism was adopted and accepted by millions of people over millennia. It was widely understood as a fundamental explanation as to the nature of our existence. It formed a major keystone to the divine truths believed by many Greek Philosophers which influenced their philosophies.

Pythagorus decoded the knowledge from symbols, texts and scrolls, and he meticulously analysed the data, and set about scientifically enumerating and elucidate the processes of Gods divine manifestation on Earth. The reality and revelation that we all exist in a multi-dimensional biological simulation and that we are all a part of the intricate tapestry that dictates and forms the natural physical laws of nature.

Pythagorus was considered to be the father of science.

Jesus almost certainly discovered the esoteric teachings of Pythagorus, mostly, passed down through secret gnostic schools, and again, returning to the use of symbols and codes to maintain the esoteric and occult knowledge, pertaining to the reality of life.

I still puzzle, what could be the reason to keep the knowledge of reincarnation and eternal life a secret? .. Unless a population that realised that they are 'immortal spiritual beings', could have threatened the control structure of the era. An informed people would reduce the power a priest or holy man would have over them.

Pythagorus's ambition was to create a scientific base, for future scientific studies into divine law by translating the hidden knowledge. His desire to make it more assessable to western conceptual minds. Sources stretching back thousands of years, and from many different cultures were integrated to bring together the disparate truths collected from our ancestors.

Jesus would have likely followed the studious paths of Pythagorus, who also studied in the 'Library's of Alexandria' and without doubt, would have been exposed to the 'Vedic scripts' and 'Zoroastrian teachings' and Hermeticism. He would have been surrounded by those secret teachings, including knowledge from the mages of his time.

How would Jesus!, born as a mortal, learn the knowledge of the ages? without drawing from the same sources of information available at the time. All humans hold latent memories passed down through incarnation. Jesus adding to that information with his own latent knowledge .. something we all humans possess, but much deeper because Jesus is 'God in the flesh' but still a man governed by the limitations that human physiology imposes.

Returning to a physical life and trapped in a 'suit of suffering' for the duration of his life, was in itself an enormous sacrifice made by a divine being for his love for humanity.

Pythagorean Hylozoics is a mental framework for understanding this information.. and a blueprint to explain God's creation in scientific detail. It is scientific knowledge, as it was understood over 2,600 yrs and handed down from generation to generations.

I have been on ATS for a long time now, as have many of you. I discovered this 'ism' by reading the posts from a member called 'The initiate' and I became curious enough to hunt down his source. It would be unfair to criticise him and his exuberance but ultimately he didn't display a behaviour that would suggest he had learned much from the teachings and sort of imploded and disappeared from the site.

The trail I followed led me to this Henry T Laurency Particularly his treatise 'The Philosophers Stone' left column - books online

His works are deeply satisfying to read and leaves you feeling that no stone had been left unturned.

Nobody knows who Laurencey was~ (being a pseudonym), or how he had attained his knowledge but I am sure that anybody at any level of intellect would find his works to be a revelationary education, with extraordinary scientific theories that would satisfy the curiosity of most learned men. His explanation has been described as the most plausible scientific, non-contradictory hypothesis as a 'Theory Of Everything' .. placed side by side to contemporary science.

I highly recommend you to read 'The Philosophers Stone' (free online) and his large body of work is all available for free (as all knowledge should be.)

This information could change the way you view life .. it did for me,

a reply to: NovemberHemisphere

It's one of 5 languages I speak pretty fluently. You should try having these debates in a foreign language. Pretty fun and challenging, good thing most are challenged already so we're kind of starting off at the same point...

Did you know that languages define your thinking patterns, it gives you extra dimensions to think in, pretty wild. It's science

It would be in his best interest to be literall with his written words.
Everyone who wants to make sure his sarcasm is well received makes something like /sarc

But I guess grammar and spelling is what we focus on...

Not the proper transmission of ideas and sentiments...

It still is a drama queen move...

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Kurokage

Please post where I said I was 'forced to accept religious doctrine', are you putting words into other people mouths to reinforce your own bias here?

Sure, why not...

When it comes to religious 'belief' or 'faith', I have to take the word of a 2000 year old dusty book, full of stollen stories, tall tales and contradictions, which I'm not allowed to question, it's the 'word' of God!!

Sounded pretty bad, but maybe you're just a drama queen when it suits your argument

I see you don't get sarcasm, I never said I was 'forced', thats just your incorrect misinterpretaion of the sentence maybe? So tell me, do these religious 'cults' like Christianity and Islam allow anyone to question the authenticity of of their religious texts?
If you feel better calling others drama queens when it suits your argument, good for you and your intellect!!

a reply to: cooperton

No, You were the one denying the thermodynamic unfavorability of amino acid polymerization in water:

As i said.....

your regular stand up routine of rinse and repeat???

So you know life first started on Earth in water, you where there?
Your pension must be huge!!!

a reply to: Kurokage
No I don't get sarcasm, my bad.

So what exactly did, ou want to say? How would it sound without sarcasm?

Everyone is allowed to question the authenticity of anything.

If you subscribe to dogmatic echo chambers like science or religion and therefore suffer consequences by not adhering to the boundaries set, is none of my business.

I know, that's what religion is well known for, and has been for a long time.

But for a little perspective which never hurts. Let's look at the scientist that got their career destroyed or worse lost their lifes in crucial moments through suspicious circumstances, like Stan Mayer to name just one.

The moment you have scientific prove that would shock the scientific establishment and the doctrines that alow profiting your life is in danger.

Same same...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage

I see you dismiss the millions of years of fossil records, chemistry, physics and history and substiute it for your pesudo-science

What long list of facts and data can you point to that shows real actual evidence

No, You were the one denying the thermodynamic unfavorability of amino acid polymerization in water:

(the "negative delta G h" value on the right is showing that protein polymers will break down in water, rather than form in water. This prevents primordial organic matter from creating complex organic polymers that are necessary for life. This fact of life is best shown by the fact that when things die they decompose, rather than grow into a massive blob of amorphous flesh)

This is why there is no model for how abiogenesis could have occurred, because there are a multitude of steps that are the exact opposite of known thermodynamic laws of chemistry. As I said before, I dismiss no empirical data, I assess all of the empirical data. I then share my conclusions based off the raw data.

You are trying to push again creationism based on your interpretation of amino acid polymerization which you have called thermodynamically impossible and then you realised that unfavorable means something else in the English vocabulary.

You have tried to argue by linking a paper in which the author never claimed that abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible and then you have used its Abstract without linking the rest of the paper but you linked and copy pasted your thread from Reddit coming up to erroneous conclusions and making it look like it was the author who came to the conclusion.

This is a huge misinformation attempt and knowingly you have pushed false information without even making a reference to the copy pasted thread of yours on Reddit.

What is more ironic is that the person who is the author of the paper you linked was an editor of the Skeptical Enquirer who debunked creationism and the ridiculous claims of creationists on a frequent basis. You have tried to use him to push your arguments which have been debunked again and again.

a reply to: Terpene
We get bad apples on all sides, so lets remove that for the moment.

Scientist and scientific research is checked and rechecked and data examined, and usually experiments are re-done to prove or disprove a theory or new discovery, the room tempreture superconductor LK-99 is also a good example. We have scientist jumping all over this data and trying to recreate it.

With religious doctrine and texts, you're not allowed to question it's accuracy. You're told it's the word of God and so must except it for what it is.

Stan Mayer claimed to have invented a new tech, which he sadly hadn't and to this day no one has ever seen it work.

Parading a vehicle outfitted with his water fuel cell around the country, Meyer caught the eye of the public, and investors, with his revolutionary technology. Not long after obtaining his investment, in 1996 he was taken to court in Ohio for fraud on account that the fuel cell was using the already developed technology of the electrolysis fuel cell, and was just being marketed as an original idea. Additionally, there was also no evidence, besides eye witness reports, that the car actually ran. No clear videos of the car in motion were taken, which could be argued to leave the investors with doubt in the back of their minds. Stanley had to pay back the investments in full.

a reply to: Kurokage

So you say we get bad apples on all sides, does that mean there are mostly good apples on all sides?

Because the paragraph after praising science, seems to imply otherwise.

You're not alowed to question it you say, yet there are plenty of diffrent religions and shootoffs.

Of course you're not alowed to go beyond the set limitation of the echo chamber you ascribe to, that's the nature of the social contract.
For many the mental protection a peer group gives is worth more than the pressure it exerts.

Of course you're allowed to question it's veracity with science, but certain topics will destroy your career over night...
So here we are, still same same...

Has the scientific method helped greatly to understand how the manifested reality works it sure did.
Are we becoming aware of an even more fundamental reality behaving completely diffrent than the models we apply and does the observer seem to have a fundamental role that bridges the two realities, we absolutely do.

So yeah, i think subjective truth is going to turn out to be a fundamental part in collapsing the wave of function.
Objective truth might become a misnomer, and will be something like a morphogenetic field or something along the lines of a consensus reality.

a reply to: Terpene

What I was refering to about 'bad apples' was the fact both groups have individuals who are frauds, or pervets and I was trying to even up the playing field.
I wasn't praising science, I was praising the fact that science allows the data to be verified and checked, yet religion doesn't. As a Christian the bible or Muslim the Quran, its meant to be taken as the literal word of God and if doubted, you're doubting God, and could suffer servere consequencies for it.

I agree in the past, careers could be destroyed but we've mostly moved on from that kind of behaviour, in religious circles however, there are places that mutalate young girls (FGM) and still stone people in the name of God.
As for 'truth' I tend to agree with Lucas....

“Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

It may just be from a movie but it does have a lot of 'weight'

originally posted by: ToneD
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Just to add . . .
true monotheists have Only
'One Master'
(which excludes: following mortal leaders,
military, governments, bloodlines, or nations)
Seems some 'religious' folks have amnesia,
or else have become hypocrites concerning
who their 'Master' really is.
Like it's been said ,
"you can only serve One Master"

True. That last concept comes from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Shall we have a look at what else Jesus said there? Cause he also explained why. It's related to this "love of money" (2 Timothy 3:1-5) that I spoke about before.

Matthew 6:24-34:

24 “No one can slave for two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will stick to the one and despise the other. You cannot slave for God and for Riches.

25 “On this account I say to you: Stop being anxious about your lives as to what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your bodies as to what you will wear. Does not life mean more than food and the body than clothing? 26 Observe intently the birds of heaven; they do not sow seed or reap or gather into storehouses, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth more than they are? 27 Who of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his life span? 28 Also, why are you anxious about clothing? Take a lesson from the lilies of the field, how they grow; they do not toil, nor do they spin; 29 but I tell you that not even Solʹo·mon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these. 30 Now if this is how God clothes the vegetation of the field that is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much rather clothe you, you with little faith? 31 So never be anxious and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or, ‘What are we to drink?’ or, ‘What are we to wear?’ 32 For all these are the things the nations are eagerly pursuing. Your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.

33 “Keep on, then, seeking first the Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these other things will be added to you. 34 So never be anxious about the next day, for the next day will have its own anxieties. Each day has enough of its own troubles.

originally posted by: Owlwatcher
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I'd like to see the bad people we currently worship and admire get exposed. Can you imagine if these celebrities and adored people were exposed to be frauds and disgusting and what would happen to them? They'd be reduced to paupers and shuuned like lepers. Taylor Swift as a bag lady, what a wonderful vision.

Yeah, wouldn't that be nice (responding to the bolded sentence). I'd personally like to see some philosophers or "teachers" (2 Tim 4:3,4) that are popular on ATS exposed for what they truly are and what they are truly 'selling' (marketing/promoting/propagandizing), "false stories/myths" by means of 'tickling people's ears' "according to their desires", i.e. catering to the market, South Park calls it pandering in their Panderverse special (I was quoting from 2 Tim 4:3,4).

Some names that have already been mentioned in this thread: Michael S Heiser (promoted by the OP on page 1 as "a very good author"), Robert Monroe (Daskakik), "Plato, Socrates, Archimedes et al" (Kennyb75), "Our beloved Putin, Xi and Kim" (twistedpuppy, might have been sarcasm), Henry T Laurency (Kennyb75, on page 18). And those were just those mentioned on the first 8 pages (apart from the last one).

Some names I often mention and describe as philosophers posing as scientists (when they are selling/promoting their unverified philosophies/ideas and false stories/myths, pseudoscience): Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Dave Farina, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, Alan Guth, David Bohm, Charles Darwin, Haldane & Oparin (don't know their first names, nor do I care), Miller and Urey, Craig Venter, Jack Szostak (origin of life scammer who is fascinated with glorified soap bubbles, much like the character Bubbles in the movie Nemo, calling them "protocells"), Jeremy England, Steve Benner (OOL; lol, I typed Bruce Banner first, but that's the Hulk), etc. (I think that's enough for now, you can add most famous Rockstar 'scientists' that are still alive to the list, oh yeah, Alexander Vilenkin, another adherent to the false religion of scientism and South Park's Agnostic Code, Isaac Asimov, mentioned below, more presented as a "science writer").

Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)

...

Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?

Editors of science journals often​—but not always—​submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-​correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-​policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”

But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

...

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

...

Some examples concerning Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins (playlist links first, so you can see the full title):

Psychology: The Art of selling nonsense/contradictions (Prologue: Stephen Hawking's nonsense)

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something





You probably need to have seen the episode in the show above and below to 'get it', it's about the snake-oil salesman Lucius Lavin. Same type. Same effect on his target audience (the flock). Very efficient at 'tickling people's ears' and telling ('selling') false stories, captivating his audience, suckering them in to think of him as someone worth listening to, someone with something of value to offer (in terms of knowledge and understanding; he's called "a very wise and kind man" in the last video). A phrase ('tickle your ears') also used by Danny Kaye in that scene from The Inspector General, I sadly didn't include that part of the scene (didn't want to make it too long, was just to introduce the video about Dawkins and Krauss).

a reply to: whereislogic

(when they are selling/promoting their unverified philosophies/ideas and false stories/myths, pseudoscience)
Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Dave Farina, Richard Feynman, Alan Guth, David Bohm, Charles Darwin, Haldane & Oparin (don't know their first names, nor do I care), Miller and Urey, Craig Venter, Jack Szostak

I think you should put down your JW authorized bible and read an actual science book instead of watching garbage TV like south park and Stargate Atlantis for you infomation? I've never read such misguilded nonsence in my life.

a reply to: Kurokage

Back at it again?

Quick, more comments so we can get to the next page before anyone sees something important.