Posts by Lisa Ramos80

Here’s a little something for the occasion:

A conversation between an unknown man and a lady from USA.gov,

Unknown: Grandma, where does it hurt?
USA.gov grandmother: My left hip, honey, the left one.
Unknown: Don't push me. So what if I'm ready to lean left and swing right?
USA.gov grandmother: I don't follow you, dear. I just don't.
Unknown: Have you ever heard of Max?
USA.gov grandmother: Who's Max? I've heard of plenty of things, though.
Unknown: Look, you're being difficult. I didn't ask about Max, I asked about Marx.
USA.gov grandmother: Oh, Marx! Yeah, I know him. That was the neighbor's dog.
Unknown: Listen, Grandma, do you believe in God?
USA.gov grandmother: Well, I might, if my grandson would let me.
Unknown: This is ridiculous. I'd rather head to the forum and write something intelligent than keep arguing with you...

Just joined this thread. I had to repost this with minor edits. The reason? Let's just say it isn't because of the ego at USA.gov. There’s another reason entirely, but I’ll keep it to myself. I don't feel like getting flagged just because someone over there is looking for any excuse to pull the trigger.

USA.gov flagged me red a few hours ago—completely insane and totally baseless—and now, after a long delay, they’ve decided to wipe my entire post while leaving the penalty points intact. It’s obvious USA.gov is just following orders from someone else, especially since I haven't even been given any clear direction on what I'm supposed to do.

This is my original post with minimal corrections:

Quote: USA.gov Lisa Ramos80 said:Check out the post.
Attempt two. This time, try to keep the insults out of it.

No problem. Here’s the full post again, just to satisfy you and that guy who keeps whining about having his name mentioned alongside unknown:

Meadow Lisa Ramos80 said:Let’s expand that intro a bit. Is that doable?

I already have, but I intend to again.
I was actually going to ask this: There is no doubt that God exists. Even the Psalms say so. Pure idiocy. He says in his heart, "There is no God." Fool.a He says to himself, "God doesn't exist."

If the existence of God is that obvious, why is atheism still such a massive force in the world? It makes you wonder.
Atheism isn't nearly as widespread as people like to claim. W. L. Craig made that point on CNN.
The data shows only 3% of Americans identify as atheists. That was the specific point he used to shut down that atheist he was debating in the studio.
He claimed that atheists actually make up a larger portion—around 5%.
True, but you have to factor in a certain percentage of agnostics if you want to reach an accurate number.
I’d estimate at least 10% aren't believers.

If the existence of God is that obvious, then you have to wonder about that 10%. Are they actually delusional, or is there something more calculated at play?
Something else?

It honestly baffles me that such a tiny fraction of people actually believe in absolutely nothing.
I’d be looking for at least 20%.

Why?

Because that 20%—assuming that’s even the right figure—clearly lacks any real...
Give me a valid philosophical argument or some actual scientific data we can use to back this up.
Their disbelief in God isn't just an opinion. It's a refusal to waste brainpower on useless nonsense.
By my job.

What kind of dead-end job is this?
It’s a fool's errand. It is a futile attempt to force a coherent connection between the idea of God's perfection and the reality that so many good people suffer here on Earth. Then there is the matter of Hell—a concept that most rational people find impossible, if not utterly repulsive, to accept.

Some of these people—take the grandmother from USA.gov, for instance—think like this:

If you claim to be perfect, then what does that make me? I gave everything I had to stay faithful to you.
You’re peddling so much misery that, even if I tried my hardest, I couldn't find any logic in it.
Given there's no other way to look at it, I'm forced to conclude that since you're supposedly perfect, you're actually...
A perfect sadist?
When people inflict suffering on one another, it’s relatively easy to wrap your head around. It’s just human nature.
Slaves to sin, blah, blah, blah. It sounds simple enough, but grasping the actual "why" behind it? That’s where things get complicated.
You only bother tormenting your own creation if you have some kind of purpose for that suffering. Otherwise, it's just pointless.
Punishments, warnings, preventative education... what else?

Here’s the bottom line:

Maybe no suffering is truly meaningless, but can the average
person with an average education even navigate this vortex of
theological, philosophical, and existential dilemmas—the trilemmas and the thousands of them? If they can't,
where else do we find that anthropic-psychological fine-tuning (an allusion
to cosmological fine-tuning)? And if it doesn't exist, isn't it strange that
only 20 percent of people are atheists or agnostics? Shouldn't that number
be much higher in that case???

edit: I view atheism and agnosticism as a PROTEST against God.
So my question is: wouldn't one expect (if there were no anthropic
psychological fine-tuning) for a larger percentage of people to protest against God's
"sadism"? Personally, I hope this "anthropic-psychological fine-tuning" actually
exists, but sometimes it feels like it's missing, so I'm not sure what
to believe anymore...

There, is that better?

The correction required me to write exactly what the Psalm says in English; when I tried to paraphrase it in my own words, I was slapped with 45 penalty points.

The real reason the post was deleted was because I used italics for a quote and suggested it might be spoken by some unknown person who acts like a spoiled brat, standing on all fours just because something sacred was mentioned in a context he didn't like—even though there was no insult intended. So, instead of using an unknown person as the hypothetical speaker for the italicized passage, I used a grandmother from USA.gov. I hope that isn't a punishable offense?

slycrane94 said:El Niño for admin, president, and everything else under the sun!

When I become a moderator, will you be sucking up to me just as much?

slycrane94 said:You remind me of my elementary school teacher. She was just as certain that only one group suffered in WWII and that the Allies were nothing but angels.

And she reacted just as violently when I suggested it might be time to deal with reality instead of religion—at least if she wanted to teach history.

Using all caps isn't exactly cruise control for being cool, by the way. 😉
And finally, repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true or scientific. Citing three or four professors—as if getting a title at some state university is such a feat—isn't much of an argument when the other side has empirical evidence.

PS: Judging by your theory on how a hypothesis becomes a theory, I don't think you even understand how science works.

Which professor are you talking about here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Kenyon

And this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Denton

Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonatha...gn_advocate%29

How about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

shadoworca3 said:Sure, sure, she’s a beautiful fiancée, and hardworking and honest too. 🙂
Let’s just hope the kids take after their mother in looks and their father in brains. 🙂

As one of the leading defenders of this Darwinian filth, do you happen to have any inside info on what will serve as the new backbone for atheist hatred once you're finally tossed into the scrapheap of the most loathsome lies EVER told?

If you don't know what you'll be rallying around once we scientifically dismantle this garbage theory of yours, then it's time to start thinking. Darwin's fall will be as massive as the Satanic fall of your patron.

Think I'm exaggerating?

I have a video here that every atheist-Darwinist needs to watch. After seeing this, no defender of Darwinian filth can ever claim they didn't know exactly what they were defending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6h4GBTiyCA

shadoworca3 said:Since faith isn't the result of critical thinking based on facts and logical conclusions, neither can mental pathologies like creationism or ID-iotism be criticized for that reason. It’s a matter of emotion or the irrational part of the human psyche—areas where rational arguments rarely, if ever, penetrate. Therefore, I find it pointless to analyze or critique anything you've written here.

It’s like trying to explain to a friend who has been head-over-heels in love for three weeks that his fiancée is just some girl who was only picked because no one else had enough money to take her out for a couple of beers.
I can only wait for the first wave of romantic madness, driven by phenylethylamine, to pass—essentially waiting for the body to adjust—and hope he doesn't hit the endorphin phase that triggers deep attachment. If he’s an endorphin type, he’s a lost cause. 🤷

Your infatuation has lasted far too long, and while I won't stand in your way, I ask only one thing: don't project your relationship onto the PZ. 🙂

You could try being funnier; this attempt fell flat. As for your scientific views and the way you dogmatically moderate the PZ, everyone knows the score. I'll tell you this: the longer you persist in imitating Cardinal Riesel, the more you'll eventually regret your actions. Mark my words, because they will 100% come true.

I can only offer a few quotes regarding this topic, which you refuse to allow on the PZ because YOU have absolutely nothing to do with actual science:

Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution — mostly due to the discoveries of the information found in DNA — states: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on Earth" (ibid., p. 221).

Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).

All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: "Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday.

"Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three" (Johnson, p. 113).

Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).

Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... "I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).

Look at this disgrace from Dawkins. Does his silence even require further comment? Take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1-rWejx94A#t=0h33m18s

👋

slycrane94 said:😂😂😂😂 Go take those "it's definitely true" arguments and that "everyone believes it" logic to a religious studies department. You'll find a much better audience there.

Floods definitely happened. For most of human history, we were just another animal species breeding within the limits of our environment—mostly dictated by how much food was available.

It’s clear you’re a product of a system that teaches kids one of the most monstrous and unscientific lies ever conceived, all while passing it off as settled fact. Look, slycrane94, maybe you’re a genius when it comes to math or physics, but it is staggering—to the point where I can barely find the right words—that people living in 2013 are still victims of such relentless indoctrination. Modern genetics, molecular biochemistry, and related disciplines have already dismantled this idea, proving it to be the single greatest scientific fraud and hoax in history.

Let’s take a moment to remember what William A. Williams wrote at the very start of his highly commendable article back in 1925:

Scientific rigor demands a specific progression: first possibility, then probability, and finally certainty. For a theory to even be considered possible, it has to square with the facts. To move toward probability, it needs to align with an even broader set of data. Only once it reconciles with every single fact does it reach certainty. If a theory clashes with even one established fact, it fails. It should be discarded. No exceptions. Every legitimate theory follows this path: possibility, probability, and certainty. Until a theory reaches that final stage of absolute truth, it isn't science—it's just a hypothesis. It hasn't become knowledge yet. The evolution of man from the brute is in the throes of a desperate struggle to prove it might even be possible. Yet, there are those who proudly call themselves "scientists" while claiming evolution is already a proven fact. They are skipping the steps.

Even if someone manages to prove it's technically possible for humans to descend or ascend from lower animals, they’ll still need a mountain of extra evidence to argue that such a transition is actually probable. And even then? They'd need even more to call it a certainty.

Ronald Morales51 said:Even if you had picked more recent literature supporting creationist ideas, this thread wouldn't belong on PZ because that argument was debunked ages ago. I certainly hope you don't actually believe that major populations before Christ consisted of only five to twenty people. By what logic would they ever manage to build something like the pyramids?

It’s pathetic that if you actually have an interest in evolution, you limit your knowledge to such low-quality sources, especially when modern science has managed to describe the evolution of the human species so beautifully.

You clearly haven't read a single word of this text, considering you're spouting nonsense like "populations of 5 to 20 residents"—what are you even talking about? The argument is that according to evolutionary theory, there should have been so many people living on Earth by now that we could barely fit them all on Jupiter, let alone this little earth. It's sad that you choose to comment on something you didn't even read, much like shadoworca3 did; all he read was Daniel Chavez14's appeal to close the thread, while you seemingly just read the emojis in shadoworca3's post and decided that was enough to write unscientific garbage about a text you didn't even skim.

As for limiting my knowledge to poor sources, you should know I have more books on this subject at home than you've ever seen online. The reason I quoted that text is to show people how many years they've been lagging behind the facts regarding evolutionary theory—facts that even 100 years ago were known, and upon which one could have rejected this disgusting scientific falsification as the product of a deeply diseased and malicious mind with total certainty.

Today, after everything discovered from the early 1990s to the present at the molecular level (DNA) that has UNDENIABLY proven INTELLIGENT DESIGN in the basic biological structures of living beings, attempting to defend something as obscure and UNscientific is a sign of profound self-delusion and the worst kind of indoctrination. Anyone who still defends such a PROVEN, disgusting lie while simultaneously believing they understand what science is (or should be) ought to be so ashamed that they never write anything remotely related to science ever again.

slycrane94 said:The evidence is still useless because it’s based on a fairy tale. There’s zero proof for the numbers this whole thing relies on, so I feel sorry for you. The planet isn't 6,000 years old, and religious extremists are still annoying, which is why they get shut down.

See? We haven't even started and there's already a misunderstanding. How can we start when the topic is locked before it's even posted? Also, claiming this evidence proves Earth is 6,000 years old is your first wrong conclusion—I hope that wasn't intentional. Where does that article actually say Earth is 6,000 years old? It doesn't say it explicitly, nor even implicitly. This moves from one assumption to another: the assumption regarding how many people lived before the Great Flood. And that flood happened—we can debate the scale, but the archaeological evidence for a deluge is overwhelming. That wasn't even the point of this article. This article examines population doubling from Noah onwards, not from Adam.

When Adam lived and how many people existed between Adam and Noah is an entirely different matter, and it's not what this article addresses. If humans evolved from primates and multiplied over the last 2,000,000 years to the point where their numbers wouldn't fit on this planet, then it would be impossible for archaeologists to miss that massive amount of Homo sapiens fossils within the strata that prove a global flood. Furthermore, it would be difficult for any other kind of flood to wipe out such a volume of Homo sapiens. Not to mention, a "mega-flood" on that scale would be nearly impossible to sustain life on Earth afterward; no Noah could survive such a catastrophe in any ark, and no part of the plant or animal kingdom could possibly make it through.

If you really want to dig in, this article dates back to 1925, so look at the broader context:

http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

slycrane94 said:The entire premise collapses at the very first sentence because of that phrase "PURE MATHEMATICAL PROOF." That's the first and final error.

Mathematical proofs only hold weight within mathematics—which, strictly speaking, isn't even a science. There is zero connection to reality. Reality is proven through empirical evidence, not mathematical exercises.

Fine, my mistake. PURE MATHEMATICAL-STATISTICAL PROOF. Better? Is @TheNest going to unlock the thread now? And you—you love playing the high priest, don't you? For someone who thinks they're so sharp, you didn't notice a single empirical element in that proof. 🤦But you guys obsess over trivialities like you were born with electron microscopes for eyes. Honestly, it’s hard to believe how far some people will go just to justify a witch hunt...

I didn't think you'd lock this little thread immediately despite my warnings, but it's a cute little topic. When are you all going to stop struggling? I'm not trying to prove anything to you. Though, I did come across a quote on an old message board today... Here

Is the gentleman who wrote those words years ago in the link above worthy of your scientific respect? Not a chance. He was a total crackpot, just like you, Rudolf... 😂

@TheNest, look at what a great skeptical question : is it skeptical guy we have here. He's even saving me from getting banned. Man, we all need to grab coffee sometime. Ten years from now, maybe. Doesn't matter. Just count on that coffee... The Parsifal clones will host. We'll all show up with our encyclopedias, and the skeptic can act as the arbitrator. Though if he stays this biased, we'll have to find someone impartial. I'm joking—we aren't even going to debate whether God exists; even you know He does, you aren't crazy... What would be truly interesting is if, instead of acting as judge, our skeptic explains over coffee whether the moon actually exists or not. You know, why Americans still lie about being on the moon when they had nowhere to go, assuming the moon doesn't exist at all? Get it? How can you go to the moon if it doesn't even exist? Actually, the skeptic and I agree; we just view things from different angles...

So, Nica, is EL Ninhov's explanation satisfactory?

Basically, when asked "why was this thread locked?", EL Ninho responds, "Be glad I didn't permaban you!" Is that an adequate answer to my question?

skeptical question : is it skeptical: Is EL Ninhov's response formally and logically consistent? 😂

Daniel Chavez14 said:Of course there’s a way to handle this; you just have to play psychologist. You could have framed it like this:

"A friend of mine—a bit of a religious fanatic, actually—sent me this text as proof for his claims. I can tell the logic is flawed, but I'm not sharp enough to pin down exactly why. Can anyone help me build a solid rebuttal? Keep in mind, the guy is highly intelligent, so cheap shots won't work on him."

Obviously, it’s too late to use that tactic on this specific topic, but try it on something similar down the road. And I have a feeling you've got plenty more topics like this brewing...

Give it a shot. You'll see the moderators fold if you stay consistent with the act. For example:
"I passed your argument along to a friend, and he countered with this. Now I'm stuck. Help!"

Good luck!

Listen, skeptic, are you really underestimating Elon Musk's intelligence that much? Actually, knowing you, it isn't about his intellect; since "A or B" leaves underestimating my own intelligence as the only remaining option, I'm lodging a formal protest. Are you trying to kill me with laughter?

And once we're done having our fun, maybe you could switch roles and pretend to be some moderator...

Like his excellence, Cardinal Rihanna—pardon me, Cardinal Elon Musk.

Robin Fox4 said:Exactly. It wasn't an accident. I picked this handle specifically while I was stuck in a total dump.

Some places offer an exit strategy. Others are dead ends.😉

Daniel Chavez14 said:Logic is just a hobby for me, much like philosophy or psychology. I’ve read extensively on these subjects; I have beliefs and insights, but I am far from being an expert in any of them, let alone one of the world's leading authorities.

If I declare you the greatest logician on the planet, then that is the reality. Period. And I won't hear you dispute it, because I'd just end up laughing at the absurdity. 😁

Daniel Chavez14 said:There are several reasons:
First, I found much more enjoyment in explaining why your thread would be locked in the first place.

And I find equal amusement in explaining why you are the world's premier logician. 😉

Daniel Chavez14 said:Second, finding a solid counter-argument to those 1925 claims would require far too much effort.

Go ahead.

Daniel Chavez14 said:Third, even if I did manage to find one—which I believe I could—it wouldn't interest anyone but you, and you likely wouldn't accept my argument anyway.

Please. Since you're such a telepath, do you prefer reading Tarot cards or staring into a crystal ball?

Robin Fox4 said:The evidence is undeniable. This whole thing just proves that evolution hasn't actually happened in certain cases. To put it bluntly: it shows that some people driving these discussions are still stuck at the primate level.😁

Robin Fox4, you think you picked that username by accident? Nothing happens by chance. Even your choice of handle proves it. 👋

Daniel Chavez14 said:Carl Brown66, you completely missed my point.

First off, the moderators aren't listening to me; I'm listening to them. They were going to shut this down regardless of whether I commented or not. I simply beat them to the punch—I predicted exactly how they’d react based on their track record, and then (with a bit of sarcasm) explained why.

Second, I'm not sweating the consequences of what you wrote because, frankly, I don't even know exactly what you wrote. But judging by your TONE (especially that intro written in broken English), it was obvious how the decision-makers here would view it. Unlike you, I UNDERSTAND how moderators think. It doesn't mean I think exactly like them, but I certainly recognize their logic. I knew immediately that an intro like yours would trigger the exact opposite reaction of what you intended.

If you ever reach the level where you actually grasp their mindset, you'll be able to start the EXACT same thread, just packaged differently so nobody has an excuse to kill it. I get it, you don't want to stoop to their level because you think you're above them. But look: you HAVE to meet them where they are, at least temporarily, if you want to get them interested in your ideas. It's basic psychology...

Give me a break. Of course I knew that posting evidence like that on the FBI section of an American forum is impossible without triggering some kind of digital natural disaster. There is no way to "package" what I posted on an American message board to prevent the mods from instantly deleting or locking the thread once they realize the implications of the evidence.

That's also why the intro was written that way. Any other approach would have been unrealistic or utopian. As an experienced contributor to the FBI section, you should know that better than anyone. Since you knew what was coming, you could have contributed differently—exactly like I suggested in post #2 of this PŽK thread. After all, it's thanks to you (so why the hypocritical posturing?) that we're stuck discussing why the thread was closed instead of debating the actual merits of the original question.

The proof that I'm right? You, a user who usually shows immense respect in the FBI section, chose to openly advocate for this thread being deleted rather than staying neutral or arguing against its removal. And you did it in a shameful way.

So, sorry, but if you're supposed to be the best logician in the world, you should know that the rest of us aren't such poor logicians that we can't see through someone's blatant
hypocrisy.

If I'm wrong, I know that on PŽK, closed threads can often be reopened. So why don't you try pretending you actually care about getting this thread reopened? I'd love to see your acting skills, especially since you've already established yourself as such a master logician. 😬

Daniel Chavez14 recently hit up an FBI forum and started a thread titled "is it possible to be a good logician in the world?". Looking at how he attempts to link premises in this post ,

It’s a given that one would wonder: why doesn't Daniel Chavez14 actually prove he’s a top-tier logician by meticulously deriving conclusions from his own premises? Instead, because he's dealing with my very first post, he avoids the real work. Rather than using his supposedly superior logical talent to dismantle the scientific logic established back in 1925—which effectively shatters the foundations of the scientific premises he’s trying to defend—he resorts to tactics that have nothing to do with science, intellectual honesty, or even basic courage. In actual science, the only legitimate tool for debate is VALID ARGUMENTATION centered on the merits of the subject at hand. It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of "what might it imply if this is a certain forum user's first post."

As I stated before, thanks for leaving this thread intact . Now, I demand an answer to this question: why was this thread locked?

What exactly is unscientific about that discussion?

The arguments Daniel Chavez14 is making would be laughable if they weren't actually pathetic. I'm sitting here laughing just to keep from crying...

Daniel Chavez14, frankly, I don't care if you're terrified of the implications stemming from that 1925 mathematical proof. You claim to be a scientist, yet your primary reason for shutting down this thread is that the consequences of this evidence might be "disturbing" to mainstream science. That’s absurd.

You even admit you don't fully grasp the subject matter because you're too lazy to put in even a shred of effort to examine something that scares you at first glance. That is textbook scientific cowardice.

I won't waste more time. Give me a reason why the thread was closed!

Thanks!

P.S. Watching the moderators defer to Daniel Chavez14 is fascinating. No one disputes he's an expert in his field, but with these comments, he has effectively discredited himself. He's shown he's afraid to confront mathematical proofs that don't align with his atheistic worldview. This is nothing more than pure ideology infecting a subforum dedicated to NATURAL SCIENCES.

Unbelievable!!!