-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
More Americans are now reading the Bible but fewer believe it’s 100% accurate: study
- By Ellesmere
1) Given that are currently over 45,000 Christian denominations, groups and sects in the world it shouldn't come as a surprise that no version of the Bible can achieve universal acceptance - even within the Christian community itself!
2) Read the Preface found at the front of any version of the Bible - I challenge anyone to find in these introductory notes the claim that their translation to be "INFALLIBLE!"
3) That being the case leaves the Bible subject to different interpretations!
-
Upvote
0
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- By stevevw
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 1404 Replies
I am way ahead. The whole thing about the definition of the word 'conspiracy' is itself a disatraction ffrom the point being made. That is the idea of any of what has been presented as being a conspiracy theory. This is just one way among a number of ways to discredit whats presented.
I don't care how you define conspiracy. I am talking about its unjustified use. Along with other words and meanings like pseudoscience and grifters which are used arbitrarily to dismiss the good work and people involved.. You have done this from the get go.
I understand what you are saying. I just disagree that this is the case. Explanations can become the evidence ie the signatures of scoop marks in the granite is the observational evidence.
The orthodox explanation is small dolerite pounders. The explanation is claimed to be supported by the evidence and the evidence supports the explanations. It becomes the orthodoxy regardless of the evidence.
This is not science but a belief. The overiding belief that everything was created by traditional gradualism and reductive thinking that forces all methods into a simple to complex schema. Thus the explanation becomes part of the evidence which begs the question.
No it hasn't. If you call a couple of exchanges thorough enough to establish the truth then this is poor epistemically. Certainly at the very least we have good preliminary science that warrants further investigation and certainly has not established the orthodoxy.
But its a good example of how alternative perspectives are dismissed as 'already been dealt with and nthing to see here'. So lets move on. I disagree.
I don't care about working out the difference. Only to say whatever is the negative use of these words to misrepresent good people and their work has already been shown in this thread.
So however you want to describe these words they are being misused in this thread. Is that clear enough for you and straight to the point. I don' care about the meanings. Only that they are wrong used.
Yes this is one aspect of evidence. Then you have the cultural aspects such as belief, cultural practices, the influence on the physical world such as architecture, temples and the spiritual aspects of the kinds of structures and artifacts made, ie the pyramid shape, the way objects are lain out in space ect which may have an influence.
Material science will relegate all this dimension to a by product of the material and objective measures like you mention to make belief and superstition. No purpose involved. This all evidence is just an accident or coincidence.
This is based on the premise that fundementally reality is Mind and conscious experiences of the world which give a deeper knowledge. This includes phenomenal belief which includes the spiritual and transcedental worship and practices that had an influence on the physical world these ancients created.
But is not this circular easoning. I am saying that the orthodoxy which is usually (the people who claim to know how to test) are doubling down on orthodoxy despite the evidence. There seems to be an assumption that these people are correct according to their explanations.
What has been happening in recent times is that more indpendents are out in the fields taking a closer look at the evidence and they are finding contradiction in the orthodox explanations.
So if this is about the evidence being the evidence which is the observations and data collected. Then what is wrong that people are pointing out the orthodoxy is wrong with better explanations that seem to fit the evidence.
It was my attempt to show that conspiracies are never made from nothing. If the Atlantis idea is a conspiracy theory that is used as an example. All I can say is that it had a real event basis.
There would be no conspiracy for 9/11 if it did not happen lol. Thats all. The conspiracy has a real basis. This was the original point but it got lost in all this semantics about the meanings of words.
Lol your asking me to believe you. Its not whether you have the ability or credibility to do so. Its that people make this claim against others without actually showing that its the case by the specific content being discussed. I just gave the examples of how Chris Smith and now Marian Marcis were made into amateurs without any evidence. Showing bias.
Why on earth would I take the word of anything said on such a thread. There is obvious bias. You may be right but you have not specifically shown the pseudoscience.
Is the Vase scan projects pseudoscience. Is modelling the pyramids or testing for ancient cement pseudoscience. What exactly is pseudoscience about what is presented. Or is this a hunch or feeling you get for certain words and narratives that speak a language you don't like and assume is all bunk.
But what happens when others with just as much or even more expertise say the opposite. Then it becomes a game of who is the biggest expert lol.
I mean even Petrie from the very beginning when these works were discovered until today. Experts are still explaining the evidence as advanced knowledge.
If like you say the evidence is the evidence. Then why is one explanation more truthful or factual then another. In fact if we are truthful then we would have to admit that some of these signatures blantantly look like machining. Even if they prove not.
We first have to admit the observations. Yet even the orthodoxy fails this first basic step in dismissing the obvious signatures. That there is a debate and resistence over this only shows that despite the evidence this comes down to belief.
Whatever worldview belief one has will determine what they allow as the explanation even if that means ignoring or dismissing the evidence.
Commonsense lol, two eyes, ears and a mind that can understand stuff. You don't need to be a rocket scientists to see a machine cut in stone before your eyes.
As for the specialist stuff yeah, sure I leave that to the experts. I trust theyknow what they are talking about. I can or the average person can sort of understand the rational or basis. In the case of conspiracy you don't have to be a scientist and in fact a behavioural expert would be better as its more about human cognition then the science.
By this logic you should also allow experts in other fields to have their say. Therefore depending on your field you cannot know all things relating to this thread. Commensense can tell a conspiracy otherwise it doesnpt explain how non experts can sport a conspiracy and not fall for it lol.
Here we go again with the semantics. It doesn't matter. Whatever negative meaning you want to use thats going to undermine the person and ideas.
Well you should. Who is more an expert on tooling or macining signatures. Someone who may have worked as a machinist and precision toolest for 50 years. Or an archeologist for 20 years. Or an academic without machining or tooling experience.
The idea of using academia to dismiss expertise is a false analogy.
But once again all the attention is on the semantics an dnot the point. That good people who are experts in what they were talking about were dismissed as amateurs without any evidence and no explanation. No reference to their work, nothing.
Thats why I think all this fixation on peer review is silly. Its an extention of the ad hominems over the credibility of individuals being called amateurs and psuedoscientists and all that.
Ok I don't care now. I think even if they were peer reviewed they would have been dismissed one way or another. There is obvious bias.
The uploads to You Tube actually contain live tests recorded. Thats why I think they are better than peer review. They allow the average person to be the scientist. They upload results, scans, files ect for others to test for themselves.
I think thats a level above social media comments. I can understand how its a good way to conduct a project. You can gain collaborations and funding and its independent. This is what I am talking about how more independents have been able to go out into the field and do research to give new perspectives on the orthodoxy.
Yes and because some may sell stuff as part of doing a podcast or research is not wrong. There is no funding for the research and they are not lucky like some who can get grants. Try getting a grant for research on lost advanced tech lol.
Lol that you moralise it is interesting. I think elaborating and imagining far fetched possibilities is a natural human tendency. We have to accept that. In some ways its a vessel which carries a truth or a grain of truth thats been taken to an extreme.
Sometimes its good like in making a great science fiction novel. Other times its out of place and unreal. But there are also a lot of blurred lines in between as well and thats part of what needs to be sorts. Thats metaphysical beliefs and not science.
No thanks. I have heard of that one lol. When and if I am in the mood I will have a look. Thats the point. I think its important that we can indulge this kind of imaginative thinking as it actually is at the forefront of scientific thinking.If that is what you want (a pseudoscience conspiracy theory) maybe this thread is more your speed:
Free Energy & Tartaria
Some say Tartaria was a myth or a conspiracy theory but I can assure you it was not. And on this thread I will try to prove it. 1. The Tartarians had the knowlede of how to access free energy from the Ionosphere & Nickola Tesla knew abot this technology. 2. The Tartarians built some of the...www.christianforums.com
If it was not for the fact that we can indulge such far fetched ideas loosely based on some truths we would never discover anything new that was beyond what we could have believed at the time.
That some look at this like its a contagion and avoid it like the plague seems more about belief than being open minded to all sorts of possibilities. Based on the idea that people can entertain such things without being sucked in. The assumption that because they suggest or entertain such ideas they must have already been sucked in.
Yes thats why I objected to your framing of Hancock. I disagree that he is a bad person. THise who know him actually say the exact opposite. Yeah he may have some far fetched ideas. BUt a lot if actually supported or is not proposing anything and just posing questions and alternative possibilities.
I don't see a lot of people out there in the fields, diving on ruins, going to the sites and making direct observations. To label all his work and him as a person as bad or any single words is itself bad.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
