Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Bias in Action: Ida the Fossil

I wasn't going to post about this amazing fossil find because I'm not in the mood to have another debate with creationists. But then I came across this wonderful example of scientific skepticism vs. creationist "skepticism." I'll post just the excerpts that are skeptical in some way.

The Washington Post, one of the most well-respected papers in the English language:

About the size of a small cat, the animal has four legs and a long tail. Nobody is claiming that it's a direct ancestor of monkeys and humans, but it provides a good indication of what a long-ago ancestor may have looked like, researchers said at a news conference.

In an evolutionary sense, the fossil is like an aunt from several generations ago, said Jens Franzen of the Senckenberg Research Institute in Frankfurt, Germany.

The fossil is the best preserved ever found for a primate, said Jorn Hurum, of the University of Oslo Natural History Museum, one of the scientists introducing the specimen. It's about 95 percent complete, even including fingertips with nails, and lacks only the lower portion of one leg, Hurum said. It also includes gut contents, showing the creature ate leaves and fruit in its rainforest environment.

Experts not connected with the discovery said the finding was remarkably complete because of features like stomach contents. But they questioned the conclusions of Hurum and his colleagues about how closely it is related to ancestors of monkeys and humans.

"I actually don't think it's terribly close to the common ancestral line of monkeys, apes and people," said K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. "I would say it's about as far away as you can get from that line and still be a primate."

Rather than a long-ago aunt, "I would say it's more like a third cousin twice removed," he said. So it probably resembles ancestral creatures "only in a very peripheral way," he said.

Beard said scientists already have a fossil from China of about the same age that is widely accepted as coming from monkey-ape-human ancestral line, and it's much smaller than the new-found fossil and ate a different diet. "They are radically different animals," he said.

John Fleagle of the State University of New York at Stony Brook said the scientists' analysis provides only "a pretty weak link" between the new creature and higher primates, called anthropoids, that includes monkeys and man.

"It doesn't really tell us much about anthropoid origins, quite frankly," Fleagle said.


The Washington Times, favored by Republicans (Reagan endorsed it early on) and owned by cult leader (seriously) Sun Myung Moon:
But not everyone shares in the Ida adulation.

"This is an incredible piece of hype to popularize a movie and a book. It's hard to believe that this story took off, but the media picked up on very emotional claims about the 'missing link.' It's created good publicity," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum.

"What was wrong with all the other fossils over the years? Why get so excited with this one?" he asked.

"This is a noteworthy fossil find because it's so complete. But comparing it to the Rosetta Stone is quite an exaggeration," said David DeWitt, director of Creation Studies at Liberty University.

"They say 'we have proof' of the missing link. A few years later, they'll claim they have proof all over again. The important question is this: Where did the genetic information come from that produced that skeleton in the first place? It's not random chance," Mr. DeWitt said.

A 2006 Gallup poll found that eight out of 10 Americans believe God guided creation in "some capacity" - with 46 percent thinking God created man in his present form sometime in the past 10,000 years, while 36 percent say man developed over millions of years from lesser life forms, but God guided the process.

Thirteen percent of Americans think mankind evolved with no divine intervention. [Emphasis added.]


LOL. Now that's "fair and balanced."

33 comments:

Ezzie said...

That's just dumb. I have no bone to pick in this fight (no pun intended), but really?

You start the WaPo piece at one point, but ignore that the WashTimes piece is titled "Some scientists say Ida is the missing link"
True bridge between mankind and mammals? and continues "The missing link is missing no longer, apparently. And her name is Ida.

Scientists announced Tuesday that a diminutive, 47-million-year-old female skeleton is the true bridge between mankind and mammals. The discovery would "rewrite history," they said - an idea that was contested by creationists and pounced upon by the press."

The only thing that's not fair and balanced is your post.

Jewish Atheist said...

Ezzie:

I explicitly wrote that "I'll post just the excerpts that are skeptical in some way."

I'm just contrasting the kinds of alternate viewpoints the two papers turn to. One turns to actual scientists who happen to be skeptical of some of the claims from the first scientist, K. Christopher Beard of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh and John Fleagle of the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

The other turns to Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum, and to David DeWitt, director of Creation Studies at Liberty University.

THAT is the difference I'm pointing to, and I thought I spelled that out clearly.

Eric Dell said...

It amazes me the liberal media reports evolution as a matter of fact! When is the last time you've seen God's Word mentioned in the media? Not too long ago I believed in evolution, mainly because it made sense to me. But remember that Satan is the master of deception and lies - Those are his strongest attributes. I now laugh at evolutionists and Darwinist theory. I doubt that you've ever picked up a bible, but please find one and read Genesis, Chapter 1. If you pay close attention to what is said in verse 2, you should come to the conclusion that God did not originally create the Earth without form and void; it became this way after some kind of cataclysmic event - perhaps a revolt of Lucifer against God, which took place sometime in the dateless past. That would explain a lot, but I'm sure will not convince your kind.I would suggest to you that evolution is the easiest thing to beleive and God the hardest, but I will never again put my faith in 80 year old scientists with Alzheimer's trying to create a legacy for themselves before they die. I find it incredible that evolutionists will not put any faith in Jesus Christ who walked this earth and died for our sins at Calvary a little over 2000 years ago. That is a well documented fact!
Instead they put their faith in the "supposed" 47 million year old remains of a female monkey, who ate some berries for lunch, got into a tree fight, broke her wrist and fell to her death into a lake. Or how about the 75 million year old remains of a turtle that was about to lay her eggs when she suddenly died.
C'mon......Do you realize how long a million years is, let alone 75 million?
Give me a break!!

Garnel Ironheart said...

I would agree that interviewing creationists on scientific findings is like interviewing communists on the recent stock market collapse. You know the answer you're going to get so why bother asking the question.

However, I've noted before the difference between science and scientism. The scientists quotes in the article exemplify the former: This could be, this might be evidence, etc. A few years from now more definitive information might be available or this find might be forgotten when further studies don't pan out.

But other newspaper articles note that anti-creationist websites are advertising this find as THE Missing Link and already attacking even those sketpical scientists for not seeing the "truth".

Idiocy goes both ways, I'm afraid.

Holy Hyrax said...

>I would agree that interviewing creationists on scientific findings is like interviewing communists on the recent stock market collapse.

:)

I like that

Tigerboy said...

Ezzie:

Who ever is making a claim that we need to find a "true bridge between mankind and mammals" is already announcing their bias.

As we all learned in junior high school, humans are mammals. There is no question about it. No reputable biologist would claim otherwise.

Kingdom-Animal
Phylum-Chordata
Class-*Mammal*
Order-Primate
Family-Hominid
Genus-Homo
Species-Sapiens

Random said...

Not wishing to endorse either JA's ringing encomium to the WP ("one of the most well-respected papers in the English language" - really? Compared to what? It wouldn't surprise me if 90% of English speakers hadn't even heard of it) or his downer on the WT (I don't think anybody seriously claims that Moon exercises control over the editorial policies) - but, yeah. Anybody who quotes creationists as serious scientists with an opinion worth hearing on a debate like this should be mocked loudly and often.

Rush said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tigerboy said...

So, God has a Mother? Who created God's mother?

Rush said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rush said...

(Sorry for the deletion, hit the worng key so the first post has been repeated to comment on Tigerboy's post.)

Hi Jewish Atheist thanks for submitting to the Ida conflict.

Back on April 22, 2009 the cosmologists announced the discovery of Himiko, the Cosmic Blob beyond the red shifted potential of the Big Bang. Ida is of the same ilk.

To understand why these "observations of creation in action" have come now we have to allow an Eternal Being to exist beyond any human measure of time. Then we can ask whether what is was created by Cosmic Intent, or simply a stochastic meandering of energy at the Zero Point Field. Once we ask, then we must also establish that an artist creates a work of art even though the medium was preexistent. The opening of Genesis reveals the Work of the Cosmic Artist, and that has always been corralled by the name, God.

The evidence of creationism is totally revealed by the Intent of the Artist. Neither Evolutionists, nor Creationists, understand Cosmic Art. Yet, Himiko and Ida are directly tied into human spiritual artwork (Madonna and Child) and Cosmic Intent (Son of God). The evidence is what Himiko and Ida represent. The evidence says that Atheists do not comprehend the Cosmic Works and that the Creationists do not allow an Eternal Being time to change Its Mind. The change is evolution. And evolution of any work of art reveals the Intent of the change.

The consequence of change is life without a Big Bang and life with an Eternal Soul. Ida is part of our soul. The Big Bang is just science raping the Mother of God.

Rush said...

Tigerboy said...
So, God has a Mother? Who created God's mother?

Great question Tigerboy. But, the answer is obvious. God created the Mother of All. The Mother of All is that through which Universal Intent flows. In the material realm the Mother of God is the Dark Matter from which all substance is created.

It may be difficult to see the Dark Matter, but it is easy to see what comes from it. The word material was derived from the Cosmic Mater.

You may have been misled by the chicken and egg routine. But, as anyone who has ever created anything knows, it is the creator that determines the nature of what is created, and we do not need a chicken to lay an egg. That which determined the nature of Mother Nature was Father Nature. The evidence of Father Nature is Cosmic Intent. Of course, Cosmic Intent is not as easy to relate to as the chicken and egg routine, but the consequence of Cosmic Intent is Mother Nature in Cosmic Form, i.e., Cosmic Mother, Dark Matter.

Get in it, and you will see stars so far away that the Big Bang had not yet occurred. Now there is an amazing fossil find of cosmic proportions, e.g., Himiko

See http://www.eyeofsiloam.com/Varanasi/Somanth/HimLoco.gif

Tigerboy said...

Rush:

If intelligence comes about by way of intentional creation, who created the creator? Or, did he just form on his own?

Claiming the creator is eternal is a major cop-out!

How did he begin?

If he existed for eternity, before, and he will exist for eternity, after, why create finite beings, now?

What's the point? If he exists in the infinite, why create that which is finite? It's a futile endeavor.

I don't believe an intelligence can be eternal, but if one did exist, why would a truly eternal being care, in any possible way, about the actions of the finite?

Do we spend a lot of time worrying about the actions of fruit flies? Judging the morality of the actions of fruit flies?

Humans and fruit flies are both finite. An infinite, eternal being would care even less about us, than we care about fruit flies, in other words, not at all.

To an infinite being, the finite would be meaningless. To an infinite being, the finite would be equal to nothing.

Rush said...

Tiger, let me try one answer at a time.

Q1) If intelligence comes about by way of intentional creation, who created the creator? Or, did he just form on his own?

A1) Do not confuse intelligence with desire. All creators do what they desire. Once a desire is accomplished, then comes intelligence. This rule applies at all levels of existence. I do not argue for or against Creationism. I argue that beginnings are the result of creative desire.

Q2) Claiming the creator is eternal is a major cop-out!

A2) It would be a cop-out to rely on a Big Bang so that an artificial beginning could be fantasized. The universe as a whole is ageless. Stars, like humans, have limited existence in the form of stars. After the lights go out they return to dark matter. The only way that the Big Bang has any chance of being Truth is if light is eternal, thus, the Big Bang has created an Eternal Being. And I agree with you, Eternal Light is a cop-out. Even Hubble was reluctant to accept that light does not burn all its radiant energy. Given that light dies, then the distance across the universe is not measurable. That failing of human intelligence gave birth to the desire that caused the Big Bang. But, it is just a desire to create a model for what science can never define.

Q3) How did he begin?

A3) He? That is a trap. If you say that a “he” represents “intent” then you can establish when “he” began by tracing the “intent” back to its beginning. That is how the Big Bang was created by scientific “intent.”

Q4a) If he existed for eternity, before, and he will exist for eternity, after, why create finite beings, now?
Q4b) What's the point? If he exists in the infinite, why create that which is finite? It's a futile endeavor.

A4) All the works of artistic creation come to an end, even the photons racing across the universe. If we buy your argument then life is futile because it ends. The purpose of all creation is the satisfaction of the desire to create. Desire always comes first. Life follows desire, and that is the purpose of all finite action.

cont.

Rush said...

Q5a) I don't believe an intelligence can be eternal, but if one did exist, why would a truly eternal being care, in any possible way, about the actions of the finite?
Q5b) Do we spend a lot of time worrying about the actions of fruit flies? Judging the morality of the actions of fruit flies?
Q5c) Humans and fruit flies are both finite. An infinite, eternal being would care even less about us, than we care about fruit flies, in other words, not at all.
Q5d) To an infinite being, the finite would be meaningless. To an infinite being, the finite would be equal to nothing.

A5) Eternity and infinity are not the goal. The goal is always the short expression of desire. While the risk of failing to accomplish a desire is always present, we do not start the paths of desire so that we can get to the end. We start all paths of desire for the sake of the journey. Life is a journey and when we create a life for ourselves, we appreicate the opportunity to participate in purposeful creation.

Q6) This is an implied question from all the rest. If Tiger were to ask it, it might be something like this. Why can’t I be creative just like the Universal Creator?

A6) No reason at all provided the desire to create is within the means of self creation. If you rephrase all your questions in terms of actions and not knowledge, then you will automatically answer them. But, in a Socratic Wisdom based culture it is not accomplishment that proves intelligence, it is the argument of words that is rewarded as intelligence, when in fact, all that words create is a phantom of reality. The universe is real. All intelligence and all knowledge is just a phantom of reality.

Finally, Jewish Atheist started this thread based upon an observation. “I came across this wonderful example of scientific skepticism vs. creationist skepticism.” He specifically pointed to a bias in the way it was handled and avoided a war with Creationists. Yet, his observation was grossly biased because he did not say “scientist skepticism vs creationist skepticism.” Neither scientists nor creationists have any more validity that the other because they are both forms of “intelligence” bound by “perfect fitting boxes.” Whose box has the most “right angles”? Creationism was the ancient idea that existence and purpose come from the abyss, i.e. dark void. This was not originally an idea. It was originally what had been experienced. We came onto the scene so late in the process of creating human civilization that we do not stop and realize that human civilization has not always existed. Human consciousness as we perceive it today was created by the ancients who had not known it, nor saw where it would lead. Thus, our consciousness is dominated by what ancients, or at least elders, created in their own consciousness. The difference between them and us is that they had to use their senses to create. We can use the residue of their creations to cause us to seem intelligent as we argue scientifically against the very process by which our civilization was “created.”

The argument that Jewish Atheist wanted to avoid was an argument about what was in the void before the Scientists and the Creationists went their separate ways. What was in the void is obvious. It was dark light, which in creationists’ terms is darkness, and is scientists’ is dark matter. So, you and JA are correct again, it is futile to argue the difference between dark light and dark matter.

Tigerboy said...

Playing games with pronouns doesn't address your biggest problem:

Whether, or not, it's a "he," or a "she," or an "it," any intentional intelligence, any creative intent, that was capable of marshaling it's intent to create a universe of it's own design, would HAVE TO BE, virtually by definition, MUST be quite complex.

A being possessing such creative abilities would have to be complex beyond our understanding, certainly more complex than any being of which we are aware, more complex than any being which we can accurately, scientifically describe.

Complexity does not merely wink into existence, within a void. There must be a cause. I didn't say there must be an intelligent cause. But complexity must begin. Somewhere, there must be a beginning. Complexity becomes complex, it does not start out complex.

It may coalesce. It may break down. Complexity might form from lesser complexity. Complexity might return to lesser complexity.

But, complexity does not arrive, fully formed, and then exist eternally.

It's illogical.

Rush said...

Tigerboy:
Playing games with pronouns doesn't address your biggest problem:
. . .
But, complexity does not arrive, fully formed, and then exist eternally.

It's illogical.

Reply.

Yes, your are correct, it is not about semantics. Before words and before logic was the void. That is the whole essence of creating. Any creator, you and I, Obama, Cecil B. DeMille, whatever form, shape, or essence, is that which causes the existence of logic. The logic is the intent. The power behind the intent is desire. If you were the first form of a creative being, then you would have to draw from yourself whatever is created. This is “logical prescience” and mandatory because it is illogical that the first form must be created from nothing. All prescience is before science and logic must follow prescience in the sequence; prescience > logic > science.

Is desire logical, or emotional? Is desire rational, or irrational? Is desire a prescient seed?

Answer these questions before you put anything to the keyboard. The first question that is always answered in an act of Creation is “Why?” Only the creator has that answer, although a mortal finite creator may not know from whence came the prescient desire. This is the formation of Free Will, whether it is in the mortal of immortal from. We, and all creative intent, act upon the answer to the “Why?” question. It is not necessary that we have a logical ending to the act of creating. It is mandatory that the beginning be illogical and irrational (Mother of God) for all creators with less than Universal Intent (Father of God). These parenthetic names are useful in identifying states of Universal Being. The names are semantic. The Universal Being is Reality, a.k.a. Heaven.

Science begins after logic is found, and that is why science always fails in the act of creation. It is forbidden in science to be creative. Free Will is persona no gratis in science. Modern “peer review” is a “police state” intended to prevent “freewheeling creation” in the realm of the rationally bound. Science Fiction does not have logical material bondage. If all the peers are bound to a logical form that is “freewheeling creation” the whole idea of “peer review” is corrupted (science fiction). The Big Bang and Evolution are bound by the “freewheeling creation” of “higher peers.” They created a Land of Bondage, and all Wandering People’s are desperate to get up and out of the Land of Bondage.

Tiger, if you are going to “freewheel” then there is no means to communicate. Reply to the image given earlier. And then we can discuss your semantics and logic. If you have been raised in a Socratic system, then the image is forbidden because it has spiritual connotations (graven image).

http://www.eyeofsiloam.com/Varanasi/Somanth/HimLoco.gif

Tigerboy said...

Okay, you are a preacher.

When someone starts talking in circles, without really saying anything, that's a preacher.

I was willing to talk to you, until you revealed yourself to be a preacher.

" . . . all Wandering People's are desperate to get up out of the Land of Bondage."

Give me a break. That's not a discussion. That's preacher mumbo jumbo. If you want to talk plainly, someone might have a discussion with you. If you want to preach, I, for one, am not interested.

Rush said...

No Tiger, I am a business man with three degrees in engineering and an MBA and a professional engineer in three disciplines. So, I have climbed high on the academic ladder and as an independent business man I have experience in creating and in communication. If you do not want to learn, then do not ask questions.

Communication is the key. So, let me repeat my statement.

Tiger, if you are going to “freewheel” then there is no means to communicate. Reply to the image given earlier. And then we can discuss your semantics and logic. If you have been raised in a Socratic system, then the image is forbidden because it has spiritual connotations (graven image).

http://www.eyeofsiloam.com/Varanasi/Somanth/HimLoco.gif

Get the picture! Then we can discuss something you never thought of before. If you cannot see the image, then you see the graven icons of the Sons of Socrates.

Tigerboy said...

Rush:

No, I don't "get the picture." You have not described "the picture."

Your URL: http://www.eyeofsiloam.com/Varanasi/Somanth/HimLoco.gif

(much like what you have written in these pages)

does not say anything! It makes no claims!

Like a preacher, you are claiming to speak from a place of greater understanding, then you are speaking gibberish. Nonsense.

---"It is not necessary that we have a logical ending to the act of creating. It is mandatory that the beginning be illogical and irrational (Mother of God) for all creators with less than Universal Intent (Father of God). These parenthetic names are useful in identifying states of Universal Being. The names are semantic. The Universal Being is Reality, a.k.a. Heaven."

Call me "stupid," if you choose, but this is completely nonsensical to me. Gibberish. I have no idea what you are claiming.

---"Communication is the key. So, let me repeat my statement. Tiger, if you are going to 'freewheel' then there is no means to communicate."

"Freewheel" is not a word that communicates anything to me, so if "communication is the key," try something else.

If you would like to say something plainly, something with some clarity, I will converse with you.

Rush said...

Tigerboy:
No, I don't "get the picture." You have not described "the picture."
Your URL: http://www.eyeofsiloam.com/Varanasi/Somanth/HimLoco.gif

Ok Tigerboy, here is a very short version of “the picture,” but you have to put the picture before your face to see it.

On the right is Alan Guth. He is before a chalk board where he has drawn the hyperbolic equation for an expanding universe.

The window of appearances is what any scientist sees when he/she looks out onto the expanse of the universe. That window always blocks the complete perception, but through rationalizations of what can be discerned equations can always be created to explain what is seen through the “window of appearances.” I call it that because the term was used by the ancient Egyptians. Also, may clerics and scientists have “windows of appearances” through which others can observe them. You cannot see all of me, nor I you. Thus, the “window of appearances” we use is the keyboard and monitor.

In the center window is a photograph of a spiral galaxy. The image is used to present the Milky Way galaxy in which we all live. You will note that there are constellations around the plane of the path of the earth around the sun (ecliptic plane). The scales for the galactic equator and the ecliptic equator are different as noted. The solar system constellations are on the order of 1000 light years across, while the galaxy is on the order of 100,000 light years across. I will get back to the constellations below. But, all we can see with the naked eye are the constellations and the Milky Way, with nebula for a few galaxies. As for the ancients, there is no evidence that they realized that the nebula were other galaxies, although the wrote stories about the nebula.

cont.

Rush said...

Part 2:
The long frame to the left of the picture is the Big Bang Theory as it stands today. The time scale is not linear, so you have to be a little careful in interpreting time and the ellipses provide time markers. The Big Bang Theory is based solely upon the measured red shift in light from distant galaxies. Some of these measurements have been "scaled" by using Cepheid stars because they provide reliable measures for time, which is distance at light speed. These methods are used to calibrate the red shift distance function. However, the calibration is totally dependent upon a Doppler effect that gives the distance as scaled. This is how the police use radar to catch speeders. The Doppler effect can be applied if, and only if, light does not lose energy on its journey from distant galaxies. However, we know that light is redirected by gravity and we know that the intergalactic space contains free electrons (about one ever two cubic meters). Over the larger distances traveled the photon will be working against its originating gravity field and it will hit electrons along the way. The gravity effect would be continuous work. The electron effect would be discrete stepwise continuous work. When an electron is hit by a photon it will absorb the energy of the photon and then release nearly all of the energy as a new photon with the directional momentum conserved and a slight reduction in energy due to heat added to the electron structures. The energy in a photon is all a function of frequency of the photon light. When energy is removed in the discrete stepwise transfers of photon energy each photon has slightly less energy and slightly red shifted frequency.

The Big Bang Model assumes that intergalactic electrons lose no energy during a 13 billion year journey. This assumption has not been verified, and it is illogical since all entities in the universe consume energy when doing work and the photons have to do work to cross the universe.

Now back to the constellations. The ancients called the constellations the Word of God. By this they meant that it was feasible to communicate over vast ages by the use of the constellations. The so-called folklore or myths of the human race are evidence that the communication does work of tens of thousands of years.

cont.

Rush said...

Part 3:

Now, hold on to your hat and lets journey across the Milky Way galaxy knowing that the visual relationships between the stars will change as we move past stars. We are looking for a Star Born in Bethlehem. Understand that Bethlehem means House of Bread. Thus, the constellation would be the house and in the constellation would be bread, or the seed for bread, i.e., wheat. Also, we would need a second marker for the Star Born in Bethlehem that would give us a line through the Star of Bethlehem. So, we add the constraint that the Star of Bethlehem must be above a Temple of Man. We might even call the location a Ben-ben, as the Egyptians did. So, looking throughout the whole galaxy on our spaceship we are looking for a star with bread above and temple foundation below where a pyramidian lays at the foot of the temple. And it must be a Temple of Man. The name of the man will be that of the star of Bethlehem.

Now, look at the constellations and see if you can figure out why the name of the man is Solomon, as in Sol-o-Man. Once you see the man with the scepter of flint, then look straight up and you will see the star system with the name Sol. Looking beyond the Solar System you will see a House of Bread the Egyptians called the Elysian Fields and the Hebrews called Bethlehem.

And that line of sight is very close to the line of light that would be seen by the photons traveling from Himiko, the Galactic Blob half the size of the Milky Way and only 800 million years after the Big Bang occurred based upon red shifted light. There is not enough time for Himiko to form if the Big Bang Theory is valid, as can be shown by the placement of Himiko in the timeline of the Big Bang. This means that the desire of scientists was the cause of the Big Bang. Are the constellations we can see at night just human myths, or do humans conjure unlimited myths about what they see, as was the case with the Big Bang Theory?

Once you fully grasp what the image reveals, then the name of Alan Guth needs to be changed. In honor of Himiko, the Big Bang Buster, I have given Alan Guth the name "Him Loco." But, it is just a name, so if you like the Big Bang Myth and you want to keep it, you are allowed to do so because the Creationist process is the Scientist process and religion is the right of Free Thinkers. One believes in the myths of the constellations with invisible embroidery between the stars and the other believes in visible chalk lines on a black board revealing an invisible equation. Both explanations leads to evidence of Intelligent Design, if only in the design of the myths about space and time.

I would suggest that Scientist Skepticism and Creationist Skepticism are just two peas from the same pod that share the celestial realm of a Star born in Bethlehem at the Temple of Bethel and Solomon, to name but a few of the ancient navagition markers of humans who traveled through Windows of Appearances like Alice in Wonderland.

Does this prove there is a God? That is a matter of choice, for the Universal Being has a bit more work to do keeping track of all those free electrons and wandering photons than locking a wandering human imagination into a perfect fitting box. Most of the ancient God "respecting" cultures never assumed that the universe was ignorant and chaotic. On the contrary, they saw Inteligent Design as proof that the Universe cared enough about a moment called "Now" to let each wandering photon and wandering mind of man to find its own way.

Do you really want to give up that Glory of the Lord of the Universe? Or, is it possible that you never saw the Picture in the First Place? The Legends of the First Place are different religions about Time. But, there never was a First Place, for Time is always a Virgin State of Mind.

Tigerboy said...

You are still talking in riddles. That stuff makes me distrust you, from the outset. Please attempt to speak more clearly.

You seem to be setting out, in your space ship, already looking to find the Star of Bethlehem. What self-fulfilling wish are you making?

I do not understand how " . . . Scientist Skepticism and Creationist Skepticism are just two peas from the same pod that share the celestial realm of a Star born in Bethlehem . . ."

This sounds like more preacher gibberish.

" . . . to name but a few of the ancient navagition markers of humans who traveled through Windows of Appearances like Alice in Wonderland."

Are you claiming that "Time" and "Now" are illusions? Everything is infinite? Just give me a straight answer.

" . . . the Universal Being has a bit more work to do keeping track of all those free electrons and wandering photons than locking a wandering human imagination into a perfect fitting box."

This sounds like just the opposite of infinite beings in the thrall of an illusion of finiteness.

" . . . they saw Intelligent Design as proof that the Universe cared enough about a moment called "Now" to let each wandering photon and wandering mind of man to find its own way."

This sounds like you are mumbling something about "free will." I have no idea what it might be.

" . . . you are allowed to do so because the Creationist process is the Scientist process and religion is the right of Free Thinkers."

I have never claimed that religious thought, spiritual meditation, an exploration of the interior of one's own mind, is anything but a profound, inalienable right. Humans must be free to postulate about that which is unknowable, and about their own potential.

" . . . Do you really want to give up that Glory of the Lord of the Universe?"

Why is the universe any less glorious, without belief in an omnipotent intelligence, for which there is no evidence, and which I find illogical?

How does following a trail of evidence, down a path towards "truth," lack in glory? Why is making leaps of conjecture, about the nature of the universe, more worthy of glory?

I do not claim to be well-versed in The Big Bang Theory. Although I have greater trust in the unbiased point of view expressed by peer-reviewed scientists, than the conjecture of preachers with agenda.

If you are claiming that all is infinite, that all is illusion, I am less determined to take up an argument. I didn't say I buy it. I said I'm feeling less willing to argue the point.

My primary argument is with the vision of the Abrahamic God, as laid out by the world's three major monotheistic religions. Particularly, the notion of judgment of a finite life, followed by eternal paradise, or damnation, which sets the universe up as an eternal police state, complete with a fiery gulag.

Rush said...

Tigerboy: I do not claim to be well-versed in The Big Bang Theory. Although I have greater trust in the unbiased point of view expressed by peer-reviewed scientists, than the conjecture of preachers with agenda.

Rush: Tigerboy, if you cannot interpret the picture, then you have a rationalist bias---peer reviews are performed by individuals with rational bias. That would mean that to communicate with you I would have to use words you understand or you would criticize me for being a preacher or someone you do not, or care not, to understand because my rational bias was not the same as yours. Peer review is acceptable if the peers state that they have a specific bias. If they deny their bias and attempt to claim Universality, then the claim would have to be a lie because their rational bias alters truth by the color of the bias---rose colored glasses give comfort to rosy eyed people.

I can live with that. But, I will leave you with one or two final thoughts. Probably the most famous rationalist of the ancient world was Socrates. What he did was so offensive to his own countrymen that they had him execute himself for degradation of the sensible perceptions of the youths of Greece. A picture is worth a thousand words, and I gave you over 1400 words and you did not get the picture. My words rationalized the picture, and that offended you because I used words that were “off sense” for you. But, when you say my senses are off because I used words that were “off sense” for you, you deprived me of “free will” and our attempt to communicate failed.

That is the difference between how you are communicating with me and how I am communicating with you. I use my senses to gather information. I use my words to "reveal" sense acquired information in a way that anyone who uses their senses in the same way can find the meaning of my words. I acquire other peoples words without assumption regarding meaning and through sense feedback I triangulate their meaning. In sailor’s jargon, “I navigate the shoals.”

You communicate like Socrates. You have a large vocabulary and you can use your vocabulary extremely well because your Socratic mentors were good at giving their skill to you. But, if someone speaks words you are FAMILIAR with but in a "sense" that you are UNFAMILIAR with you call them preacher or associate them with some other derogatory beast who does not know how your Socratic wisdom works.

If you could slow your Socratic mind down for a split second and allow the senses to catch up to the rationalizations you would find more sensible understanding and expression. This is not a matter of intelligence. It is a way of communicating, and words are the least effective means of communication. That, my dear Tigeryboy, is why humans and all other creatures thrived for billions of years before Western Civilization wrote texts that replaced proper sensation and the ancient icons of the “Word of God” that were hieroglyphs (higher glyhs).

It has probably not occurred to you that the “Word of God” is the source of all scientific rationalizations. What is the “Word of God” in simple terms? It is the Language of the Senses, or what the Ancients called the Language of the Birds. It was these Spirits of the Beasts that Socrates objected to, and for that he got a fatal cocktail.

A rational intelligent person who cannot get the picture, hear the music, taste the wine, or touch the porcupine, needs to stop and smell the roses.

Sorry to have bothered you. You may go back to your classroom and impress a Son of Socrates of your great vocabulary and rational knowledge and your Peer Status. But, I suspect, that you are on your way to being a great Socratic mentor to sensible youths.

Otherwise you would have commented on the visual sensations of the picture. Did you look at the picture?

Rush said...

Tigerboy: I do not understand how " . . . Scientist Skepticism and Creationist Skepticism are just two peas from the same pod that share the celestial realm of a Star born in Bethlehem . . ."

Rush: If you had looked at the picture it would have been possible for you to navigate the Galaxy and find a star in a House of Bread. That star is famous on Earth because it is the Sun.

The Star that lights the day and causes the face of the Moon to shine is the star born in Bethlehem over 5 billion years ago. If the constellation above the galactic plane had been that of a Unicorn, then the Sun would have been the Star of the Unicorn. But, when we go into the darkness of night and look straight up through the galactic plane we see a House of Bread. Thus, this fabulous star system in which life exits is the Star System of Bethlehem. Before the Star of Bethlehem became light there was darkness upon the “Face of the Deep” that was the region under the Milky Way and the Solar System had yet to be born. But, since the Milky Way was existent before Heaven and Earth (Up and Down) were revealed by the Light of the Sun through the cognitive imagination of humans it is evident that Understanding was the Light that came upon the First Period of Enlightenment for the Star of Bethlehem caused the First Day.

And, here is the most amazing fact of all. The whole galaxy of stars in which the Solar System gives life was born of the Virgo Cluster. Thus, everything that the naked eye can sense was “Born of the Virgin,” and to deny our Virgin Birth is to remain without revelation of the ancient truth called Reality.

Now, with the Light of Himiko we have found a galaxy born in the Behemoth of Job that was called the “Chief of the Ways of God” and once known as the “Face of the Deep.” But, that discussion would be “off topic” in a thread dedicated to skepticism by scientists and creationists. For you see, there are no living skeptics who have witnessed the brilliance of the Star of Bethlehem some call Sol Invictus and some call Sun.

Try this picture of the Star of Bethlehem on January 16, 2005 when a Great Red Dragon over fifty times the size of the Earth appeared upon the Face of the Star of Bethlehem.
http://www.eyeofsiloam.com/SGR1900+14/titanlanding-dragon0.mov

The view of the Star of Bethlehem I like very much has a relationship to the Choctaw Legend of the Wind Horse, i.e., a form of Unicorn. In the Face of the Star of Bethlehem (Sun to a rational materialist) there is a Woman Clothed in the Sun bearing a child where the Great Red Dragon once passed. This is the spirit of the Wind Horse.
http://www.eyeofsiloam.com/SGR1900+14/WindHorse.html

So, though you stand upon one leg, the rational mind, I have given you a ride where feelings are the second leg. If you cannot find feelings, then rest assured that your senses cannot find your rational mind, either, for feelings are the messengers that carry the messages of the senses. Without feelings, all messages are non-sense.

Tigerboy said...

I would encourage anyone who is fascinated by religious nonsense to visit Rush's "Wind Horse" URL,

http://www.eyeofsiloam.com/SGR1900+14/WindHorse.html

and then click on the Greek/Roman circular stone medallion beneath the Wind Horse story. (Not the blue link below the medallion, but on the medallion itself.)

Wild and woolly bullcrap. It doesn't make a bit of sense, but it is interesting. Someone put a lot of effort into this.

Later--I have looked at several "Eye of Siloam" websites. It is a crazy mish-mash of astronomy, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Christianity. I cannot make heads or tails out of it.

Is this a cult?

Does anyone have any information about these people?

What's the scam?

Rush said...

Tigerboy: Does anyone have any information about these people?

What's the scam?

Hi Tigerboy, I am the Eye Of Siloam.

The web site includes over 3gb of some forty years of research into the source consciousness of Science and Religion. Long before man decided to redact human experience into rational boxes, man recorded consciousness in rock art, cave art, and eventually temples. The consequence of the redaction was weak recall devices (icons, then letters).

Ultimately I found profound "rational spiritual" paths back to the sources of the imagery. Don't try to understand what a “rational spiritual” path is. It can only be understood by walking the path because it is "muscle memory" in the "meat heads" that “air heads” choose not to comprehend. The ancients called a being something that existed. Rational spiritual comprehension would conclude that there can be only one All, and that would be the Supreme Being, or else Two Alls could be combined into One All as the Supreme Being. Atheism takes the final step and concludes that there can be a Zero One. A Scientist can follow this logic, but a Scientist cannot follow the path back to a direct communication with a Supreme Being because “free thinking” derived from invisible “body language” results in lost messages between the sinews and the synapses when we reject the possibility that the sinews have a language of their own.

Just go to the home page at http://www.eyeofsiloam.com if you want to know "information about these people." It is a cult of one person. The same person you do not want to understand now, me. You already know the "scam" as the attempt to reconcile the Scientist skepticism and Creationist skepticism. These skepticisms are the schisms that broke the Sacred Science of the ancients into the BREAD of Rational Science of Scientists and the WINE of Spiritual Science of the Creationists. Today the number of people who live in their "air heads" overwhelms the number of people who live in their "fire heads" because the water of the “meat heads” had no earth for the “rock head” any more. (Zeus and Ganymede medallion)

Today we have “department heads” in Ivory Tower cults resembling the bone heads placed on poles near ancient sacred sites. Rationalists cannot comprehend the "fire heads" because the windmills in their minds pump no water into their bodies and they cannot "walk on water" any more. Air was a metaphor for rational being. Water was a metaphor for emotional being. To the ancient metaphysics a person who could walk on water could maneuver in the wind and the waves of cosmic reality where mind and body have to function together for the sake of finding the way, the truth, and the life mandatory for holistic being.

No one needs to go looking for anything regarding "these people" because "these people" have been dead for 2,000 to 50,000 years in homo sapiens form. The socialism currently in vogue in America is evidence that we no longer are capable of creating a personal relationship with Universal Intent and we must rely upon the Government to bail us out of our failure to create the stimulus to save ourselves.

The Eye of Siloam is the Eye of Hathor in the Sea of Reeds, from which Western Civilization followed the Israelites some 3300 years ago. All that is left on Earth are the most ancient sacred sites of Egypt, India, Southeast Asia, Australia, China, Japan, and Melanesia, and the cave art of the primordial Migratory Cults the Egyptians called the Shemsu Hor who followed the herds of beasts that followed the Sun. However, in the heavens we still see that there are yet some 275 years before the Sun gets fully out of the Reed Sea of the Fishes and the Sun Stop of Joshua passes.

A Renaissance of the Golden Age before the Fall of Man could take place if we cure the schizophrenia of Scientist and Creationist skepticisms. But, that is just one old man looking back to those who walked before him. If that is a cult, then I am a Cult of One. I can live with that.

Tigerboy said...

I suspect that Mr. Rush E. Allen fancies himself some sort of new L. Ron Hubbard.

After reading pages and pages of your lunacy, Rush, at places like

www.siloam.net
and
www.eyeofsiloam.com

I have two questions for you:

1. Are you building a utopian society in the jungles of Guyana?

2. What is your favorite flavor of Kool-Aid?

Rush said...

Tigerboy, it is difficult to communicate with someone whose skepticism controls the gateways of his mind. If you had read the first post on this thread you should have understood that the topic was skepticism, Scientist and Creationist. (Assuming you are not Jewish Atheist.)

Skepticism is a disease caused by the survival instinct (amygdala) preventing the frontal cortex from witnessing the messages of the senses. It is not a rational action of the brain, for it acts before any prescient rational content is discovered. In faith based cultures the survival instinct is held at bay until there is rational content is available by using the subliminal program “turn the other cheek.” I am not advocating the elimination of the survival instinct. I am suggesting that when we kill the messengers because we have prescient knowledge of any message before it is delivered, we are bound by faith. You clearly live in a land of bondage to faith in skepticism with limited capacity for Free Thinking. That is the consequence of placing all your faith behind skepticism rather than truth seeking before judgment.

You bring up Guyana and Kool-Aid as what probably tickles your fancy. But, if you really want to tickle your fancy, then consider the simultaneous conjunction of the Moon, Neptune, and Jupiter while Uranus rides the zenith in Sulawesi on July 11, 2009 with Chiron standing above the three orbs. Why is that important? It is important because the New God of Columbia was raised as a Muslim Warrior in Sulawesi. This lord, with the name of the spirit of First Mother, plans to destroy all the children of First Father who do not accept the ways of “her” training. She has already demonstrated that Capitalism is the first child to be taken down. Do you have any idea what 9/11 was all about? It was an attack on the Capitalist Banking System of the non-Muslim World. Europe has already gone the way of socialists and Islam is the most viable religion in Europe today. And now America will be taken down to the ancient lands of the Unicorn where dreams of impossible creations are accepted without skepticism as human civilization gets on the Magic Carpet of the Arabian Knights.

Since skeptics are bound by prescience to words they know, I use figures and pictures to get around millions of words. Faith in skepticism is the bane of all mankind whether the skepticism is against Scientist Unicorns or Creationist Unicorns is irrelevant. The disease is irrational skepticism.

Air France Flight AF447 rode the celestial Unicorn into Atlantis on June 1, 2009. That is a verifiable scientific fact derived from cosmic measurements and ancient cosmic experience merged together without skepticism to witness what was before the face when the plane left the environs of the sky. According to the ancients, the souls on that plane all rose through the Gateway of Gods where two men in white garments stand in welcome. And that was precisely the vision on the zenith at the moment of Last Contact with AF447.

The pictures of the truth are presented at http://www.eyeofsiloam.com/Varanasi/FlightAF447/index.html.

My Kool Aid is stronger than your Hemlock, so grab your amygdala by her donkey ears and listen before you judge without skepticism for the first time in your life.

Rush said...

ps: From http://www.ultrasaurus.com/sarahblog/2009/05/obama-on-journalism-and-his-next-hundred-days/

Highlights on what he (Obama) plans to accomplish in the next hundred days:

“During the second hundred days, we will design, build and open a library dedicated to my first hundred days”

“In the next hundred days, I will strongly consider losing my cool”

“Finally, I believe that my next hundred days will be so successful I will be able to complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest.”

-----------
Losing his cool, as in Kool-Aide?
172 days plus 1/20/09 is 7/11/09. Why 72 virgin days? Can anyone count? Muslim men look forward to the days with the 72 Virgins. It is a cosmic metaphor for those who ride Pegasus and have the name Perseus, as in Persia, as in Iran.

On day 173 he promised to "Rest In Peace." That is the meaning of Islam. These jests are not Freudian slips, they are evidence of a hidden agenda just like the time he gave a Five Finger Salute to Benjamin Latrobe after flubbing the oath of office as Lord of Columbia when he could not wait to be King. Benjamin Latrobe was the father of American Architecture who was a principle in the design of the White House built by black slaves. He was a Mason, and the Brotherhood of Masons are the arch enemies of the Brotherhood of Muslims

Though he jests, it is a fool who ignores Mother Nature when she speaks through the mouths of the Sons of First Father through Ishmael, or Isaac.

Especially so if the fool knows "knot" the meaning of a name such that the virgin can say, "But, I know not a man." All virgin content comes before the rational consciousness understands.

Tigerboy said...

Rush:
---"My Kool Aid is stronger than your Hemlock . . ."

That's so true. But your Kool Aid pretends to be something which it is not. Believing the lies people tell, just because they're pretty and sweet, is so dangerous.

Asking for a bit of truth, about that which I'm ingesting, is not a bad thing.

Hemlock may be poison, but we all know it. Your poison hides in colorful envelopes, with smiling cartoon characters.

Rush said...

Tigerboy: Asking for a bit of truth, about that which I'm ingesting, is not a bad thing.

Rush: Tigerboy, I presented information. You replied without any reference to the information I presented. I am left with a simple conclusion. I am not part of your communication.

If I offend you because I am willing to consider all things without a bias before I receive any information, then I apologize for being open. But, if you are not going to demonstrate any relationship with the details I present, then your position of adversary is more important to you than what ever facts may be given to you.

I made a statement about the Gateway of the Gods. You did not tell me anything about the Gateway of Gods. Why? Unless you can talk about the subject, then you must have an agenda off topic. Is your agenda to be offensive, or just self centered?

I did not name the Gateway of Gods. But, if you knew anything about the human soul you would have to know that throughout the ages and across all cultures there has been a Gateway of Gods. Unfortunately, there is also a Gateway of Men. The Fall of Man is through the Man's Gateway. The ascension of Man is through the God's Gateway. Thus, the topic is about descending and ascending and not whether one's own beast is a Unicorn or an Eagle.

You can defeat me because I am simply a humble human striving to ascend through the Ascending Gateway of the Ancients. But, if you think that you can erase the stars, which is implied in the poison in your words, then it would better serve you to stop and think about what you say to yourself before you reply regarding messages you have not received. Listening is The Key to learning and communication if "The Key" to the ascending heights.

So, as you continue to deny your inability to communicate, stop and ask whether you are putting down an opportunity to rise above what you cannot comprehend.

Arrogance is at Man's Gate. It is the poison that Socrates fed himself. You clearly like that potion.