Conspiracy of human intelligence., page 10

privacy

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 07:09 PM by bsbray11

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

If sirnex still refuses to see the obvious logic in what you are saying then I submit that as proof that she/he has accepted today's understanding as a dogmatic church that can't be argued with or changed in any way.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 07:11 PM by sirnex

reply to post by bsbray11

Well, you're barking up the wrong tree, because I don't remember reading a thing about it in the book that I read. I remember reading pages upon pages detailing experimental set-ups, recorded data, and the data's interpretation by Dr. Tiller and his staff at MIT, but that's neither here nor there and has nothing to do with this thread.

My thread, so who cares. I certainly don't. Hell, talk about peanut butter if you want.

This is the book you read correct? Science and Human Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality, and Consciousness.

I know you said it was in the trunk of someone's car. The review says it is mentioned in the first chapter, maybe you just forgot? I'm trying to find more information on it right now.

Yes, I saw all that already, but I clearly asked you to address the other 10 examples.

All of those thing's were discovered and eventually found to be proven.

The difference between those and the last three is that the last three are stating something by yourself that is non-existent in which you still refuse to answer to for some reason.

I know of no one who says baloney to entanglement, I know of no one who says baloney to the bodies natural healing ability and the consciousness claim is disregarding the chemical nature of the physical brain as a component of it.

I would also like to point out that you initially ignored my reply to the last three *before* you demanded I remark on the other examples. Just nitpicking.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 07:16 PM by sirnex

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

Did you not post this?

There is light matter, dark matter, light energy and dark energy which science is now aware of and trying to figure out.

Did you not see me reply to that statement saying that no, science has *not* discovered, but rather invented in order to explain the problems with the current standard model?

Man, wtf is in the water these days! Both of you are so forgetful today and unable to see certain points of your own arguments that I am raising here. I think maybe we should lobby against dumping pollutants and chemicals in the water. o.0

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 07:20 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by sirnex
This is the book you read correct? Science and Human Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality, and Consciousness.

I know you said it was in the trunk of someone's car. The review says it is mentioned in the first chapter, maybe you just forgot? I'm trying to find more information on it right now.

I probably did forget, yes. I remember enough to know it obviously wasn't critical to the main body of work presented in the book.

Yes, I saw all that already, but I clearly asked you to address the other 10 examples.

All of those thing's were discovered and eventually found to be proven.

Eventually.

So in the times when it hadn't been proven yet, why are you going to make yourself look like a fool and argue as if you know better and it will never be proven, when you can't possibly know any better?

Are you familiar with the phrase "proving a negative"?

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 07:30 PM by sirnex

reply to post by bsbray11

I probably did forget, yes. I remember enough to know it obviously wasn't critical to the main body of work presented in the book.

I disagree, I believe it would be *very* critical as to what the rest of the book is postulating. I mean, let's utilize at least a shred of common sense with that claim towards acupuncture. If he can make such a bold *wrong* statement like that, then how seriously can we take the rest of the work.

So in the times when it hadn't been proven yet, why are you going to make yourself look like a fool and argue as if you know better and it will never be proven, when you can't possibly know any better?

I would like to point out that this entire crap spouting is in no way an attempt to refute any of the points that I raised about the last three examples. Your still not focusing that intent hard enough. Be one with the force young Skywalker!

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 08:37 PM by theabsolutetruth

reply to post by bsbray11

Seems like it!

Maybe Sirnex should take his own advice about drinking pollutants!

And for the record, I only drink bottled organic mineral water!

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 09:03 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by sirnex

I probably did forget, yes. I remember enough to know it obviously wasn't critical to the main body of work presented in the book.

I disagree, I believe it would be *very* critical as to what the rest of the book is postulating.

I read the entire book, you read an online summary of it.

Enough said...

I mean, let's utilize at least a shred of common sense

Yes, let's.

I already said I am not that familiar with the subject of acupuncture. You're not interested in it, you're interested in an argument to feed your ego. You get a endorphin buzz arguing with people online. If you were actually interested you'd go look up whatever it is that's bothering you instead of pestering me about it when I've made it clear several times now I neither know much about the subject nor particularly care to listen to you rant on about it when you are obviously extremely biased.

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 10:06 PM by sirnex

reply to post by bsbray11

I read the entire book, you read an online summary of it.

And yet you concede to the possibility that this particular issue may have slipped your memory as you were more concerned with the technical aspects of the book.

I already said I am not that familiar with the subject of acupuncture.

I'm well aware of that statement, but I wasn't asking of your personal knowledge of the subject. Instead, I was asking about the topic as it was discussed in the first chapter of the book. In which, again, you conceded to the fact that it may have slipped your memory.

You're not interested in it, you're interested in an argument to feed your ego. You get a endorphin buzz arguing with people online. If you were actually interested you'd go look up whatever it is that's bothering you instead of pestering me about it when I've made it clear several times now I neither know much about the subject

What a presumptuous way to misrepresent what I've been arguing this entire time. Hell, it's the whole basis for the topic of the thread. Let's go over the argument again. I am simply against people misusing or using a misunderstanding of science in an attempt to "prove" their assumptions without any further evidences for those assumptions and I am against using assumptions to prove assumptions as that is more of an exercise in stupidity and futility.

nor particularly care to listen to you rant on about it when you are obviously extremely biased.

Ah, so now we're going to claim that in light of Tiller *which again I would like to point out that you concede to the possibility this slipped your memory*, is blatantly wrong about the weak electromagnetic force, that his own fault of one aspect of science now make's it a wrongful bias towards the rest of his work.

So, I'm just some big mean biased bad guy and Tiller is still such a wonderful man who has it all right? OH BALONEY!

By the way, how is that power of intent working out for you? I noticed you still failed to refute the three points I raised. I'm sure there is a real good reason or argument coming. Or are you going to keep up with the verbalized bowel movements? I just love a good crap show!

[EDIT TO ADD]

Actually, now that I think about it, maybe there is something to this. I've been so positively intent that you would be unable to reasonably answer my queries and hell... here we have it folks, PROOF IT WORKS!

[edit on 30-10-2009 by sirnex]

reply posted on 30-10-2009 @ 10:15 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by bsbray11

I read the entire book, you read an online summary of it.

And yet you concede to the possibility that this particular issue may have slipped your memory as you were more concerned with the technical aspects of the book.

I was more concerned with the main subject of the book, which wasn't acupuncture.

I am simply against people misusing or using a misunderstanding of science in an attempt to "prove" their assumptions without any further evidences for those assumptions and I am against using assumptions to prove assumptions as that is more of an exercise in stupidity and futility.

That's not at all what you are doing here. Tiller IS doing science, you haven't even seen his work, and you try to piss all over it anyway even though there is nothing out there replicating and contradicting his work.

I'm not getting into that discussion again, though. I've made my point. It's clear where you stand on this issue; time will tell how justified your opinions are.

reply posted on 31-10-2009 @ 06:21 AM by sirnex

reply to post by bsbray11

I was more concerned with the main subject of the book, which wasn't acupuncture.

Right, and from your description, was a technical scientific document, but if Tiller can get the science wrong on one thing right off the bat then how valid is the rest of the work? I mean, that acupuncture problem is just insanely *huge* that it can't be ignored.

That's not at all what you are doing here.

Tiller got the acupuncture "science" claim *wrong*, I dislike and argue against wrong garbage that I see. Appears that *is* what I am doing.

Tiller IS doing science, you haven't even seen his work, and you try to piss all over it anyway even though there is nothing out there replicating and contradicting his work.

I read one paper so far in which I did try to discuss a couple of points with you and you decided to ignore those points as well. So yes, I have seen some, at least one example of his work. Perhaps no one is attempting to replicate his work because of his acupuncture claim being blatantly wrong as well as his views on kirlian photography. The scientific community doesn't normally give much attention to pseudoscience.

I'm not getting into that discussion again, though. I've made my point. It's clear where you stand on this issue; time will tell how justified your opinions are.

Hell, the only reason your backing out rather than nutting up and refuting those three points is because... *you can't*. This whole discussion has been nothing more than you backing away like a wet abused half drown animal in fear. You've done nothing more than ignore very valid inquiries and settled on crap spouting as a way of validating your arguments. Your worthless and your power of intent sucks. You haven't even managed to focus hard enough to make the problems I raised go away.

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 >> ^^TOP^^