PartSkeptic’s Thread for Predictions and Other Matters of Interest

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Reincarnation is not new.

How did the first modern human reincarnate from the previous species it evolved from?

Are you suggesting you have the reincarnated mind of a tetra-pod from 300 million years ago, in human lineage evolutionary history?

[PartSkeptic]

Here is some evidence to support my claim that the Telcos are war-gaming the EMF harm by "buying" their own scientists who publish Telco-friendly studies using the generous donations.

https://microwavenews.com/
A German court of appeals has ordered Alexander Lerchl to stop smearing the authors of two papers which show that mobile phone radiation can break DNA and possibly cause cancer. For more than a decade, Lerchl, a professor of biology at Jacobs University in Bremen, has charged, without evidence, that the experimental data from Hugo Rüdiger’s lab at the Medical University of Vienna (MUV) were fabricated.

Alexander Lerchl’s bogus campaign against the REFLEX project and members of Hugo Rüdiger’s lab did nothing to harm his career. Just the opposite, Lerchl thrived as he gained stature and a succession of rich research grants from the German government.


(Just a note) I had a terrible night last night. And suffering this morning. Drifting in and out of sleep with disjointed dreams with a dull headache.

[PartSkeptic]

Here is an NPR article which shows how quickly and how extensively mutation can occur. SA has a high rate of HIV. If immunocompromised people are "virus mutation factories" then it may not be surprising that we have a really bad mutation.

I am starting to hear experts say that we may not get rid of Covid-19 using vaccines. All that is needed is a really bad mutation. One news headline was "The War against the Mutants". Sounds like a comic book. My message that a pandemic will wipe out billions still has a chance of eventuating.

https://text.npr.org/964447070...
Scientists in the U.K. and South Africa announced they had detected new variants of the coronavirus. These variants were causing huge surges of COVID-19 in these countries.

When researchers looked at the genes of these variants, guess what they found? A cluster of mutations that looked remarkably similar to the mutations found in the virus from the Boston patient. The sets of mutations weren't exactly identical, but they shared important characteristics. They both had about 20 mutations, and they shared several key ones, including a mutation (N501Y) known to help the virus bind more tightly to human cells and another mutation (E484K) known to help the virus evade antibody detection.

Since Li and his colleagues published their findings, several other teams have reported similar cases in which the virus evolved rapidly inside an immunocompromised person with a chronic coronavirus
infection.

[PartSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

How did the first modern human reincarnate from the previous species it evolved from?

Are you suggesting you have the reincarnated mind of a tetra-pod from 300 million years ago, in human lineage evolutionary history?

By George. You are getting it. I have said that souls reincarnate and evolve. So what you say is a possibility. Have you heard of the Scopes Monkey trial. It caused outrage.

Some of us are reincarnated humans, but possibly not all. What animal do you think your soul may have come from in its last reincarnation? Or maybe a human of some sort. Even a female.

Israelis would be shocked to think that maybe that Palestinian they are beating could have the soul of their departed grandmother. The concept is likely to make humans a lot less brutal towards others.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

By George. You are getting it. I have said that souls reincarnate and evolve. So what you say is a possibility. Have you heard of the Scopes Monkey trial. It caused outrage.

Some of us are reincarnated humans, but possibly not all. What animal do you think your soul may have come from in its last reincarnation? Or maybe a human of some sort. Even a female.

Israelis would be shocked to think that maybe that Palestinian they are beating could have the soul of their departed grandmother. The concept is likely to make humans a lot less brutal towards others.

But, as with all religious concepts, it falls apart the moment you apply actual logic to it unless you invoke unprovable magic.

At some point in the past there was no life on earth. Thus souls would need to spontaneously appear, something which no doubt you'll attribute to your magic sky spirit, which conveniently needs no cause to explain where it came from.
Also, it once again belies the 'free will' you've touted before. After all, if souls had an actual choice noone would incarnate into cattle or people living in horrible slums.
Once again you manage to make your god come across as at best utterly uncaring, but probably an evil slave driver, hurting beings for it's own amusement.

[Pixel42]

The concept of reincarnation, which usually comes with the assumption that your status in this life is a result of your behaviour in your previous ones, has caused untold harm. Clearly those born poor and underprivileged did something in their previous lives to deserve to be so, so the luckier are under no obligation to help them. See castes, karma etc.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

I still have to take pain tablets and anti-fungals, and the morning are still rough. But what a difference to go from only able to get 2 hours of work done to getting nearly a full day of work done.

It is quite noticeable for me to correlate any trip outside my house to a bad day the next day. When I am home for 3 days in a row (and take my medication), I am in reasonable shape.

Apart from psychosomatic (which I reject), do you have an answer? Other than my explanation of cell tower radiation?

You are demanding an explanation for feeling better after staying home and taking your medication?
Seriously?
I, too, would like to know why you so arbitrarily reject a psychosomatic cause. Is it because that would remove your 'special chosen by god' status, and make you the same as the rest of us?
Is it your claim that your mind cannot affect your body?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Here is some evidence to support my claim that the Telcos are war-gaming...

No, that's not what "war gaming" means. Once again, you're not actually looking at the subject. You're looking at what activists are telling you about the subject.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

I am starting to hear experts say that we may not get rid of Covid-19 using vaccines.

Which experts? Name them.

Quote:

All that is needed is a really bad mutation. One news headline...

"One news headline" should be a clue that you may not be tapping the actual consensus of the scientific community.

Quote:

Sounds like a comic book.

Which tells me your source may not be the serious, hardcore reporting that it would take to inform you rather than entertain or frighten you.

Quote:

My message that a pandemic will wipe out billions still has a chance of eventuating.

So now you're back to making specific predictions about this? How many billions? In what time frame? Come on, Mr Prophet. Prophesy.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Are you suggesting you have the reincarnated mind of a tetra-pod from 300 million years ago, in human lineage evolutionary history?

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

By George. You are getting it. I have said that souls reincarnate and evolve. So what you say is a possibility.

Dear...o..dear.....You didn't get it. A 300 million year old tetra-pod had a brain the size of a fish. You now agree you probably have the reincarnated brain of a fish?

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

At some point in the past there was no life on earth. Thus souls would need to spontaneously appear,

Exactly. Human evolutionary lineage came from single cell, four billion year old, prokaryotes. I'm glad Partskeptic is satisfied with his inherited soul that God created for single cell prokaryotes.

[PartSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

The concept of reincarnation, which usually comes with the assumption that your status in this life is a result of your behaviour in your previous ones, has caused untold harm. Clearly those born poor and underprivileged did something in their previous lives to deserve to be so, so the luckier are under no obligation to help them. See castes, karma etc.

I have done my homework. I have plenty of books on various religions, including the strange ones.

Reincarnation is not just a Hindu concept. Jews, Christians and Muslims at one time gave serious consideration to the possibility. Currently there are Buddhists, Druze, Gnostic Christians, Sufis, Jainists, Hasidic Jews, Native Americans, Inuits, Sikhs, Spiritism, Astrologists, Scientologists, and Wiccans who all accept reincarnation.

Unfortunately the Hindus abused the concept so that the wealthy and the holy men could justify their lack of compassion for not only the bad guys but the poor and disabled.

There has been plenty of abuse by religions whose leaders misinterpret and misapply the various concepts. That does not make the concepts false.

Assume for a short while, if you can, that humans have eternal souls.
1 - Where do they go to?
2- How many are there, given the long time humans have been on earth?
3- If a new soul is created each time a new person is born, how does that soul have the required insight and knowledge required to guide a person's growth and spiritual life?

The reason for a great die-off is that religions need to update their principles. The Hindu concept of Karma as rebirth for punishment is wrong. Some people are reborn into poverty and misery in order to learn lessons. That does not mean they should be abused. The opposite. They should be treated with charity and compassion.

You are focusing on the bad in every religion as "evidence" for your "belief" that there is no God and no souls. You should instead look at the positive to see what greatness and achievements humans are capable of.

I am skeptical of past life regressions because I think that most memories are retained by the soul for only a short time. As time passes and with each rebirth, the memories fade almost completely.

[PartSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Exactly. Human evolutionary lineage came from single cell, four billion year old, prokaryotes. I'm glad Partskeptic is satisfied with his inherited soul that God created for single cell prokaryotes.

Explain how life started?

How did a single cell self assemble and acquire the ability to be self-replicating? Both had to happen at the same time. Like a Boeing not only self-assembling but have a factory self-assemble more of them.

Even a virus self-replicates but has to hijack a more advanced cell to do so.

If you believe in evolution of life, why do you scoff at evolution of souls?

If we have souls that guide the formation of life and the wiring of brains into workable pieces of machinery, why is the evolution of souls illogical to you?

[PartSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Dear...o..dear.....You didn't get it. A 300 million year old tetra-pod had a brain the size of a fish. You now agree you probably have the reincarnated brain of a fish?

How far back does your DNA go? A single celled creature with NO brain?

How about using your brain (how many cells?) to apply physical evolution to soul evolution?

[PartSkeptic]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Which experts? Name them.

"One news headline" should be a clue that you may not be tapping the actual consensus of the scientific community.

Which tells me your source may not be the serious, hardcore reporting that it would take to inform you rather than entertain or frighten you.

So now you're back to making specific predictions about this? How many billions? In what time frame? Come on, Mr Prophet. Prophesy.

"Experts". I am quite skeptical about such people even with their degrees and experience in a scientific field. Melinda Gates urging people to get vaccinated when clearly she has only a rich husband as her credentials.

One headline. But who would have predicted that it would actually be a headline?

There is not much real reporting these days. Profit, profit, profit. Rupert Murdoch for example. And of course, censorship in the Big Tech controlling interests. See https://www.ncregister.com/blog/carr...ok-amazon-list

Predictions about a great die-off? You scoff because you think humankind is in control and not God. Even without a God, why is a huge die-off due to over-population not credible? Why could Covid-19 not keep mutating into a very virulent strain with a much higher kill rate?

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Assume for a short while, if you can, that humans have eternal souls.
1 - Where do they go to?
2- How many are there, given the long time humans have been on earth?
3- If a new soul is created each time a new person is born, how does that soul have the required insight and knowledge required to guide a person's growth and spiritual life?

4. If a soul remembers nothing of its previous lives, how does it acquire insight and knowledge in order to guide growth in subsequent ones?

5. If a soul remembers nothing of its previous lives, how can it be considered the same one in any meaningful sense?

6. Why is every individual's character and personality clearly massively influenced by - even perhaps fully explained by - their genes and upbringing if they are actually determined in some inexplicable way by previous incarnations?

[PartSkeptic]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

No, that's not what "war gaming" means. Once again, you're not actually looking at the subject. You're looking at what activists are telling you about the subject.

Definition:
engage in (a campaign or course of action) using the strategies of a war game.

The Telcos decided in 1994 to "war game" their opposition of studies of harm.

Evidence? See the confidential Motorola Memorandum dated 13 Dec 1004 specifically stating "We have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Sing issue..."
https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-indus...se-the-public/

[PartSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

You are demanding an explanation for feeling better after staying home and taking your medication?
Seriously?
I, too, would like to know why you so arbitrarily reject a psychosomatic cause. Is it because that would remove your 'special chosen by god' status, and make you the same as the rest of us?
Is it your claim that your mind cannot affect your body?

Psychosomatic. What prompts you to even consider such a diagnosis?

Do you put people in pigeon-holes and then apply a certain standard of diagnosis? Woo = psychosomatic.

Oh wait. I think I know. You believe the industry propaganda that EMFs can do no harm. Despite a vast number of scientific studies. And despite some countries recognizing EHS as a medically accepted diagnosis.

You reject skeptical science. You took a position of atheism and anti-woo a long time ago and cannot update or change. You will not let facts confuse you. Too much like hard work.

[PartSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

But, as with all religious concepts, it falls apart the moment you apply actual logic to it unless you invoke unprovable magic.

At some point in the past there was no life on earth. Thus souls would need to spontaneously appear, something which no doubt you'll attribute to your magic sky spirit, which conveniently needs no cause to explain where it came from.
Also, it once again belies the 'free will' you've touted before. After all, if souls had an actual choice noone would incarnate into cattle or people living in horrible slums.
Once again you manage to make your god come across as at best utterly uncaring, but probably an evil slave driver, hurting beings for it's own amusement.

Wrong. It is logic that supports it. I challenge you to explain how life (intelligent life as well) formed from dumb matter. See my previous reply on one celled organisms.

The choice of what to reincarnate into is clearly not the souls choice alone. Why would one reincarnate into a lower form of life? Both your premises are wrong and illogical.

Why does having a soul refute free will? A soul may have some limits on freedom of will, but so does a human body.

Take a drone programmed with AI to adapt and being sent off. It will not take long before you cannot predict what choices the drone will make. Unless there are imperatives that are program in that cannot be overridden. Like "destroying humans."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0_DPi0PmF0 at 2:07

BTW. That is what makes AI very scary. More scary than a virus.

[PartSkeptic]

Originally Posted by welshdean

Yet you felt well enough to post that drivel, doesn't the lord indeed move in mysterious ways. ffs.

Not yet content with the crap you posted, you immediately waste our time with the professional liar, William Lane Craig. He has repeatedly peddled bullcrap after he'd been shown and proven to be wrong. Making millions by Lying For Jesus^TM, is not what the Jesus story espouses.
Please don't lie to us with your imaginary and very convenient 'ailments', address the questions and comments directed to you.

People who disagree with you on basic beliefs are LIARS? All of them?

In my opinion Craig has refuted many of the arguments put forward by prominent atheist. If you used logic and put emotion aside you may be able to see that. Your viciousness towards him indicates that he must hit the mark more often than not, and no doubt his logic is used against atheists.

Try applying "nuance" to various statements I make. Not well enough to "read" and go through a thought process to provide an argument, but well enough to post a comment.

Like an ill person not able to get out of bed to do activities but able to go to the bath room.

One person posted "My doctor thinks that because I go to work each day that I am not sick. But I have no choice but to go to work despite the suffering I endure to do so. I need the income."

[PartSkeptic]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Hey back in 2016 PS was supporting Trump because he would have a more "even handed" approach to the Arab Isreali dispute.....that should tell you how much belief you should put in PS as a prophet.

I am entitled to personal opinions. I was very wrong in my assessment on his foreign policies. It was based on hope. Just as I wanted Obama to become President and was quickly disappointed.

But not on his popularity and populism. I like a number of Biden's new policies but not all. His stance on Iran is to continue Trumps sanctions (pro-Israel) but seem to oppose Trump on leaving the agreement.

Trump's bias towards Israel is very business-like. He needs the support of AIPAC. Until recently, it was a given that if AIPAC decided you would not make it in politics, you would not make it. Obama caved like a whipped dog when he took a pro-Palestinian stand for a short while.

It is MY PERSONAL OPINION that Biden is corrupt and will be swayed this way and that. If he gives in to the hawks and the military industrial complex he may just start a major war. That could reduce the population rather quickly if it is Russia or China.

[PartSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

PartSkeptic is indeed the only poster contributing to this thread who has obstinately refused to consider the possibility that he might be wrong, despite not having a shred of objective evidence to support his outrageous claims.

Take the time to read my posts carefully. You have shown you are capable of that. I do concede that I might be wrong. I do say the probabilities of being wrong in my overall outlook to God and the supernatural are quite low, but not vanishing so.

I will quote from WL Craig. It is the best explanation that fits the observations in their entirety. Requiring an explanation for the explanation is not science because then it leads to an infinite regression of explanations.

Do you or other atheists have a better explanation to intelligent life on earth? All I hear is that science does not know and when challenged refuses to "speculate".

[PartSkeptic]

I have read and replied to a few posts. I am doing much better today. Yesterday I went to the factory but I wore my mesh helmet and my mesh poncho.

Psychosomatic you say. Shielded from EMFs I say.

Which is the best explanation given the science showing harm, and the type of harm?

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Exactly. Human evolutionary lineage came from single cell, four billion year old, prokaryotes. I'm glad Partskeptic is satisfied with his inherited soul that God created for single cell prokaryotes.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Explain how life started?

Self replicating enzymes from over 3.9 billion years ago. The same things that you naturally get with radiation hitting organic molecules over a half billion years. (carbon molecules) with radiation from the sun without an atmosphere. Are you saying you didn't even know that?

We all realise you don't know any basic science or mathematics all.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Take the time to read my posts carefully. You have shown you are capable of that. I do concede that I might be wrong. I do say the probabilities of being wrong in my overall outlook to God and the supernatural are quite low, but not vanishing so.

On the rare occasions you make even that small concession you make no attempt to justify why you set the probability so low when consideration of all the available evidence would set it so high.

Quote:

I will quote from WL Craig. It is the best explanation that fits the observations in their entirety. Requiring an explanation for the explanation is not science because then it leads to an infinite regression of explanations.

It explains nothing, it simply arbitrarily replaces one mystery with another, even greater, mystery. And requiring explanations/justifications for what are actually just assertions absolutely is science.

Quote:

Do you or other atheists have a better explanation to intelligent life on earth?

Millions of years of evolution by natural selection is a perfectly adequate explanation, and it does not have the crippling disadvantage of having to assume the prior existence of intelligence in order to explain the existence of intelligence.

Quote:

All I hear is that science does not know and when challenged refuses to "speculate".

Then you are not listening carefully enough.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

How far back does your DNA go?

Back to the evolution of T-RNA and the double helix. Are you now admitting you didn't even know that?

That's amazing! Do you know what atoms are?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

I have read and replied to a few posts. I am doing much better today. Yesterday I went to the factory but I wore my mesh helmet and my mesh poncho.

Psychosomatic you say. Shielded from EMFs I say.

Which is the best explanation given the science showing harm, and the type of harm?

Given the evidence, psychosomatic, as there is good evidence for the placebo/nocebo effect.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Do you or other atheists have a better explanation to intelligent life on earth?

What, better than “it’s magic”?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Psychosomatic. What prompts you to even consider such a diagnosis?

It's real, well-documented and fits your description of your symptoms perfectly.
I have posted links showing you the research, but, as usual, you have ignored them and carried on regardless.
I can post them again if you like, but you have to promise to actually read them this time.
Now, I'm not going to let you reverse my question.
Do you reject the existence of the phenomenon of psychosomatic symptoms?
Do you believe that your mind cannot affect your body?
Please answer the questions.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Do you put people in pigeon-holes and then apply a certain standard of diagnosis?

No. I deal with individuals on an individual basis. What you describe, and the anecdotal support you supply, are what I am dealing with here.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who sees your characterisation of atheists, and of scientists, as much better examples of pigeonholing.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Woo = psychosomatic.

No. Psychosomatic symptoms are real, and supported by a wealth of research.
Woo is assigning supernatural explanations to something that doesn't need them.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Oh wait. I think I know. You believe the industry propaganda that EMFs can do no harm. Despite a vast number of scientific studies. And despite some countries recognizing EHS as a medically accepted diagnosis.

No, you don't know, You are pushing your own assumptions and biases onto me.
I go with the evidence, and, despite your blustering, you have yet to produce any of the 'vast number' of scientific studies you claim exist. You have also repeatedly dodged the attempts of JayUtah and Pixel42 to get you to discuss the few studies you have referred to.
Oh, and which countries recognise EMH/EMS are a medically accepted diagnosis? That's new to me.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

You reject skeptical science.

Absolute bilge. Please quote me anywhere on this forum rejecting science. Once again, you are projecting.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

You took a position of atheism and anti-woo a long time ago and cannot update or change. You will not let facts confuse you. Too much like hard work.

Also utter bunkum.
Please quote me rejecting facts anywhere on this forum .
Yet more projection, and it won't work.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Definition:
engage in (a campaign or course of action) using the strategies of a war game.

And what does "using the strategies of a war game" mean in the context of American business jargon?

Quote:

Evidence? See the confidential Motorola Memorandum dated 13 Dec 1004 specifically stating "We have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Sing issue..."

Why does your source -- the aforementioned anti-capitalist activist organization -- reproduce only the first page of the multipage memo? Could it be to alarm its readers with contentious-sounding language? Unlike you, I have read the entire memo. Unlike you, I know what its jargon means. You keep citing this document (or rather, activist interpretations of it) as evidence of your point, but you seem unable to discuss it beyond the mere citation. You don't know anything about the science, and you don't know anything about the business. This is now the third time I've invited you to an in-depth discussion of the Lai memo, and the third time you've done nothing but refer to it and assume it says what your activist authors tell you it says.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Which is the best explanation given the science showing harm, and the type of harm?

There is no "the science showing harm." The constantly referenced "thousands of peer reviewed studies" that the activists rely on, whose arguments you are cribbing, point in a thousand different directions. When a body of research does this, it means you're not onto something. "The science" you allude to vaguely doesn't even include your symptoms, and references things like cancer.

The best explanation in any case is that which answers the most evidence with the least conjecture. In your case we've attempted to collect that evidence, but you won't cooperate. You've latched onto something you simply want to believe, and you're mining anti-capitalist extremists in order to pretend you have a rational basis.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

"Experts". I am quite skeptical about such people even with their degrees and experience in a scientific field.

Flip-flop. You tried to cite authority to back up your claim, but your citation was vague. Now that you're on the hook to provide the identity, you can't suddenly decide that they can't be trusted. Name the authorities you referred to earlier, please, whether or not you trust them.

Quote:

There is not much real reporting these days.

Yet the only scientific sources you can cite seem to come through the lens of the media you're now telling me can't be trusted. My point is exactly that your reliance on media -- especially activist media -- to give you an accurate picture of the scientific consensus doesn't jive with your claims to have done your homework. When we quiz you on the actual science, you run away.

Quote:

Predictions about a great die-off? You scoff because you think humankind is in control and not God.

I made no such claim. I scoff because you're playing the same motte-and-bailey game that every fake prophet plays. You stand by predictions when you think the data are going your way. Then when faced with error, you claim the practice of prophecy is inherently uncertain and you shouldn't be held accountable for any claims that don't come true. I'm asking you whether you're going to take any responsibility for specific claims.

Quote:

Even without a God, why is a huge die-off due to over-population not credible? Why could Covid-19 not keep mutating into a very virulent strain with a much higher kill rate?

Because mutation doesn't always result in increasing a pathogen's virulence or mortality. You seem to think it will. And I'm asking you to be accountable for that claim.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

I do concede that I might be wrong. I do say the probabilities of being wrong in my overall outlook to God and the supernatural are quite low, but not vanishing so.

This is not a concession. You're just replacing the claim you make -- without evidence -- that you must be right, with the claim -- again without evidence -- that it's highly unlikely you're wrong.

Quote:

I will quote from WL Craig. It is the best explanation that fits the observations in their entirety. Requiring an explanation for the explanation is not science because then it leads to an infinite regression of explanations.

Religion does nothing but lead to an infinite regression of the inexplicable. Real parsimony doesn't let you discard observations, to be sure. But more importantly it doesn't let you fill consequential gaps in your "explanation" with speculation that then magically becomes inscrutable just because you say so.

Quote:

Do you or other atheists have a better explanation to intelligent life on earth?

Yes.

Quote:

All I hear is that science does not know and when challenged refuses to "speculate".

No, that's the anti-science activist's pidgin idea of the prospect. It's the nonsensical argument that if a detail remains unexplained, the entire explanation is worthless. Yes, science refuses to elevate speculation to the same altitude as theory. That's why it continues to succeed while religion flounders in superstition.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

I am entitled to personal opinions.

Yes, but if you want to claim to have prophetic ability, anything that seems like a prediction has to count, regardless of what name you attach to it. I explained why in a previous post. It's a statistical argument.

Quote:

It is MY PERSONAL OPINION that Biden is corrupt

That's an allegation of fact, not an opinion.

Quote:

and will be swayed this way and that. If he gives in to the hawks and the military industrial complex he may just start a major war.

A carefully-phrased non-prophecy. If President Biden doesn't start a war, you can say that the conditions weren't satisfied because Biden resisted the hawks. If war breaks out, you'll claim it as a hit. As I said, you're not even very good at faking being a prophet.

Quote:

That could reduce the population rather quickly if it is Russia or China.

You predicted God would cull the herd by means of a pandemic. You don't get to rewrite your prophecy to make it a war instead.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Psychosomatic. What prompts you to even consider such a diagnosis?

Because it's a well-known, well-studied phenomenon that is highly applicable to circumstances such as yours, and has been shown by experimentation to be one of the likely causes of claimed electromagnetic hypersensitivity. I consider it because the evidence points to it.

Quote:

Do you put people in pigeon-holes and then apply a certain standard of diagnosis?

I'm not making a diagnosis. I would need data and a medical degree for that. However, as a trained scientist having previously dealt with human-subjects research, I can say that failing to consider and control for psychosomatic causes for your reported observations and circumstances would be irresponsible.

The only categorical reasoning that's being applied here is to place you in the category of EHS sufferers, which is a category you haven't previously minded being in. You're happy to claim that what you experienced is being experienced also by others similarly situated, and you seem to consider this as evidence that the phenomenon is real. It would be unreasonable to arbitrarily exclude potential causes that have manifested in studies done on subjects from this category.

Quote:

Woo = psychosomatic.

Utter hogwash. The placebo effect was first demonstrated well over two hundred years ago and is a staple phenomenon in any scientific test of medical cause and effect. You don't get to dismiss one of the most demonstrated and important effects in medicine simply by a pseudo-equation and no evidence. You'll need to come up with explanations for the many demonstrations of psychosomatic symptomology throughout the centuries if you plan to disregard psychosomatic causes categorically.

Quote:

Despite a vast number of scientific studies.

Activist hyperbole. All they can ever point to is the supposedly "vast number" of studies that allegedly show "harm" from electromagnetic radiation. It's a Gish gallop. The lawyer in the court case you were so happy about couldn't get past that. The issues in the case were ultimately legal and regulatory, but the lawyer could only go on and on about "thousands of peer-reviewed studies." Apparently that's all you know how to do too.

And that's because, as I mentioned earlier and as the scientific consensus shows, those "thousands" of studies point in a thousand different -- and often contradictory and incompatible -- directions. The activists want that to stand for the notion that there is a broadly-expressed effect stemming from a single cause. No, that's not a scientifically workable approach. If there is an actual phenomenon, further study should narrow the field, not widen it.

Further, we took apart some of those studies, at your request, and showed how they were either poorly modeled or were being misinterpreted and misapplied to human factors. You either aren't actually interested in the science, or you don't understand how science works.

Quote:

And despite some countries recognizing EHS as a medically accepted diagnosis.

The WHO does not recognize electromagnetic hypersensitivity disorder as having diagnostic standards or the proffered medical cause. Its recommendation is that practitioners look for other kinds of environmental or psychological causes whose effects might be attributed to electromagnetic field effects.

Which countries, specifically, diagnose EHS as a medical condition with the cause being electromagnetic field effects? Name them.

Quote:

You reject skeptical science. You took a position of atheism and anti-woo a long time ago and cannot update or change. You will not let facts confuse you. Too much like hard work.

This is frankly insulting. You keep accusing your critics of being hopelessly entrenched when it's painfully obvious you're the one unwilling to look at alternative hypothesis. The insult digs deeper when you recall that many of us spent weeks and months doing the "hard work" of determining how to accumulate the facts that would fairly and rigorously test your claim to a scientifically credible standard of proof. You couldn't be bothered. Even now you can't do the "hard work" of supplying evidence for your claim, so you're trying to shame, gaslight, and browbeat your critics into accepting a lower standard of proof. The sanctimonious posturing from you is just beyond the pale.

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

Take the time to read my posts carefully. You have shown you are capable of that. I do concede that I might be wrong. I do say the probabilities of being wrong in my overall outlook to God and the supernatural are quite low, but not vanishing so.

I will quote from WL Craig. It is the best explanation that fits the observations in their entirety. Requiring an explanation for the explanation is not science because then it leads to an infinite regression of explanations.

Do you or other atheists have a better explanation to intelligent life on earth? All I hear is that science does not know and when challenged refuses to "speculate".

The problem with Craig's "explanation" (and, by extension, yours) is that, as Pixel42 says, it explains nothing. "God did this" or "intelligence requires intelligence to create it" are not explanations, they are mere attributions; and once you've decided on that method, it's entirely fair to ask you why the intelligence required to create intelligence doesn't require an intelligence to create it. If there's an "infinite regression," it's one of your own making- you don't get to escape the consequences of your logic because you don't like them.

In the end, your religion, original or not, really only amounts to a cycle of non-testable assumption fortified by necessary attribution. If you believe it, that's fine; but this idea that it's other people who aren't doing science because they aren't starting with your assumptions or buying your attribution is just pretentious nonsense.

[PartSkeptic]

I just so happened on this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W57...ature=youtu.be

At 5:17 check out the "walking" structure taking out the cellular garbage. There is a "sack" (a vesicle with a lipid layer) of it that is taken along a microtubule to the cell wall by a motor protein that "walks" along the microtubule. The "sack" then blends into the cell wall which is also made of lipids and then is expelled out the cell.

Also at 5:45.
https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/180073685087835419/

And all of this is self-assembling and self-designed?



The flagellum is interesting to revisit. Even if it was evolution that went step by step, the creation of a biological machine of such complexity is amazing. I am not easily awed or impressed, but to me this is a "clue" or "hint" that God has given as to his existence.
https://thejohn1010project.com/the-e...-machines.html

And the atheists comment is? Evolution is amazing. Molecules just have this "emergent" innate property that drives them to create and create without limit. Chaos and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Life seems to be an exception.

What if all molecules have this "drive" to self-assemble so that the entire physical universe becomes one giant intelligent being that is mostly brain. A version of my "Infinite Intelligence".

Do you have a "better" explanation, other than "It just is."

[wollery]

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic

And the atheists comment is? Evolution is amazing. Molecules just have this "emergent" innate property that drives them to create and create without limit. Chaos and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Life seems to be an exception.

The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.

The Earth is not a closed system.

Are there any thoroughly debunked creationist arguments you won't try to use?

More to the point, is there any aspect of science that you actually have a good grounding in? I merely ask because every time you try to argue from a scientific standpoint it's obvious that you've got your information from either a fundamentalist christian source, or a misunderstanding due to only reading the headlines and not the meat of an article.

The rest of your post is just argument from incredulity, basically, "It's incredible - therefore God!"

[PartSkeptic]

Just another "gee-whiz" article on microtubules.

https://sciencetrends.com/the-functi...-animal-cells/

Science has made incredible strides from the time in 1961 when I became an atheist partly because science said it had created the first amino acids needed by those simple single celled blobs of life.

They said that sparking a mixture of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen did it. Now we know the hydrogen was not there and that the experiment fails when the (currently) known composition of gases is used.

The rabbit hole just keeps getting deeper and simplicity is out the window. The more we know the more these is to know.

[PartSkeptic]

BTW - Went to the factory with the mesh shielding. Am doing good. Working hard. My sleep and dreams are now quite different. The feeling of confusion and chaos is no longer there. It is a truly horrible emotion.

Is there a proper scale of describing subjective emotions, pain, confusion and the like? How do I communicate the distress of a "brain fog"? How does anyone do so? Is my "brain fog" different to other peoples brain fog?

I feel like someone with a broken leg who is complaining about the pain and difficulty of walking. And then having posters on this thread tell me it is all just psychosomatic symptoms. Yeah right.