Theism Analogy: Living Rocks of Death Valley

[boatsnguitars]

The mystery of the sailing stones
Located on the border of California and Nevada, Death Valley National Park was designated in 1933, and is home to one of the world's strangest phenomena: rocks that move along the desert ground with no gravitational cause. Known as "sailing stones," the rocks vary in size from a few ounces to hundreds of pounds. Though no one has ever seen them actually move in person, the trails left behind the stones and periodic changes in their location make it clear that they do.

The rocks of Racetrack Playa are composed of dolomite and syenite, the same materials that make up the surrounding mountains. They tumble down due to the forces of erosion, coming to rest on the parched ground below. Once they reach the level surface of the playa, the rocks somehow move horizontally, leaving perfect tracks behind them to record their path.

Many of the largest rocks have left behind trails as long as 1,500 feet, suggesting that they've moved a long way indeed from their original location. Rocks with a rough-bottomed surface leave straight tracks, while smooth-bottomed rocks tend to wander. The sailing stones have been observed and studied since the early 1900s, and several theories have been suggested to explain their mysterious movements.

"Proposed explanations run the gamut from natural to paranormal to alien. Strange magnetic forces, psychic energy, alien spacecraft, teenage pranksters, and even transdimensional vortices have all been proposed. "

Theist explanation:
Supernatural forces exist. God is revealing Himself to us. God is moving them.

The wonder this phenomenon instills likewise reminds us of the majesty and power of the Invisible Intelligence (cf. Romans 1.20), creating the very physics making moving rocks possible.

As I read about the sailing stones, I could not help but recall the words of Jesus when asked by the Pharisees to rebuke His followers. The occasion was Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem. The people were crying out their “hosannas” to the Lord. Jesus told the Pharisees, quoting from the prophet Habakkuk, that “if these become silent, the stones will cry out!” (Luke 19.40 NASB; Habakkuk 2.11) Indeed!

If you ever question your worth to God, recall the sailing stones. Without the benefit of intelligence or purpose, they still point to their Creator. They appear to be immovable, and yet are pliable by the laws God put in place. As I take stock of what I can do, I note that even I can do more than the sailing stones, possessing locomotion and free will. How shameful, then, when I choose to sit silent as a boulder. May God use me like a rock so others can see my deeds and give God the glory (Matthew 5.13-16).

Further "science" from theists was that if the stones were pushed by a flood, the tracks would have been erased. Or, wind isn't strong enough. etc. There were many knee jerk answers to the problem, all included supernatural elements - because to them, that's the first explanation when something is unexplained.


Scientific explanation:

In 2014, scientists were able to capture the movement of the stones for the first time using time-lapse photography. The results strongly suggest that the sailing stones are the result of a perfect balance of ice, water, and wind. In the winter of 2014, rain formed a small pond that froze overnight and thawed the next day, creating a vast sheet of ice that was reduced by midday to only a few millimeters thick. Driven by a light wind, this sheet broke up and accumulated behind the stones, slowly pushing them forward.
https://www.nationalparks.org/connect/b ... f%20pounds.
https://earthsky.org/earth/death-valley ... ry-solved/

This is what is happening with the Shroud of Turin, Evolution, Climate Change, etc: Theists (and other wackos) offering ridiculous "answers" to solve very mundane problems.

So, what is your explanation for the rocks moving in Death Valley?

[TRANSPONDER]

Maybe I don't hear well, but he doesn't say "injecting or swallowing bleach could stop COVID". He says something like: disinfectants stop viruses effectively, could something like that be used for to cure covid, it would be interesting to study is there some way to use it. He is not saying that people should swallow bleach to stop covid. I think it is interesting how people twist his words even though anyone can hear what he actually says.

I'm no Trump supporter, but I have noticed that for some anti Trumpers (I first heard Bill Maher make this point ironicaly), it is more important that he is perceived as being wrong than being honest about the man.
I believe that "Trump claimed injecting or swallowing bleach could stop COVID" is one such claim. ...

Thank you, nice that we can agree on something.

And, I think it is true that it is not only Trump haters who do so. It would be nice, if people would not do so and that people would also understand to be careful and not believe everything just because it fits to ones view of the matter.

This is agreed, and there is politicking on both sides. But what is alarming is that it is not just politicking (like blaming Biden for the pulling out of Afghanistan that Trump negotiated, nor even the rabble -rousing rallies and abusive a defamatory tweets on the 'Troth Cential. site, but the place of conspiracy theories, science denial and strings of lies as part of the campaign, and this is just accepted as normal as well as desired because it fits as you say 'one's view of the matter'.

[1213]

...the place of conspiracy theories, science denial and strings of lies as part of the campaign, and this is just accepted as normal as well as desired because it fits as you say 'one's view of the matter'.

It seems to me that many "conspiracy theories" are truth, but told too soon. That someone calls ideas that he don't like conspiracy theories, science denial doesn't necessary mean they are not true.

[TRANSPONDER]

...the place of conspiracy theories, science denial and strings of lies as part of the campaign, and this is just accepted as normal as well as desired because it fits as you say 'one's view of the matter'.

It seems to me that many "conspiracy theories" are truth, but told too soon. That someone calls ideas that he don't like conspiracy theories, science denial doesn't necessary mean they are not true.

The point about conspiracy theories is that Either they are already debunked and require fantastic excuses and denai to perpetuate them (welcome to theist apologetics) Or as you say it is a hypothesis too soon.

The characteristic (if not the definition) is a personal preference for a less well supported explanation and often appealing to a somewhat paranoid claim of a cover up. Notably the flat earth (1) idea that suggests that governments all over are colluding in a big lie to fake the evidence for a spherical earth just to discredit a percentage of denialists (though alarmingly large in the US at least. See also 'evolution -denial. Related to election denial but with church funding rather than political.

(1) dated perhaps but never bettered and just think. still going 'in this day and age'. It is interesting that Flat earth was a private belief NOT church dogma. It only became linked to the Bible later when the evidence against became heavy - rather the way scientology became a religion to block criticism.

[1213]

...Notably the flat earth (1) idea that suggests that governments all over are colluding in a big lie to fake the evidence for a spherical earth just to discredit a percentage of denialists (though alarmingly large in the US at least. See also 'evolution -denial. Related to election denial...

A conspiracy can work, even if there is only one who knows the truth, if he just picks right people to right positions. I think this pyramid depicts the idea nicely.



If the one in the highest point builds the pyramid, like a proper mason does, he chooses right people to one step below him. If those people have right beliefs, they will then transfer them to the people below them. And so the pyramid is formed from suitable people for the position. And then it is not necessary for the people in lovers steps to know or understand the whole picture, or be a part of the conspiracy, it is only required that they do their part as the leader wants.

In practice this can be done for example, if there would be a very rich person, who wants that his ideas are implemented. With his money he can choose people that he want and then those people will do what he wants. In this case the chosen people can genuinely believe the matter, but it is not necessary true.

For example, if such a rich man would want that people believe in climate change, for that he could sell more electric cars, he could fund studies that "confirm" the idea. And then he can buy "journalists" that promote the idea, fund politicians who serve him and if politicians don't act, arrange paid riots to make people believe that it is a real urgent issue and people must buy electric cars for to save the world.

So, for example in the case of flat earth, it would not necessary require vast conspiracy, only that there are few people who can control other people so that they confirm the matter so that majority believes. But, this is not to say earth is flat, only that big conspiracies are possible.

I think the cure for this kind of things is to require proof, or at least good evidence for claimed matter. For example the form of earth does not need to be a matter of belief, it should be possible to demonstrate. And this makes evolution theory look bad, because it has no good evidence, if it means that all species developed from single species in a long time period.

In the case of evolution theory, it is not necessary a conspiracy theory. It is just a belief that certain people choose and confirm with a bias.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Notably the flat earth (1) idea that suggests that governments all over are colluding in a big lie to fake the evidence for a spherical earth just to discredit a percentage of denialists (though alarmingly large in the US at least. See also 'evolution -denial. Related to election denial...

A conspiracy can work, even if there is only one who knows the truth, if he just picks right people to right positions. I think this pyramid depicts the idea nicely.



If the one in the highest point builds the pyramid, like a proper mason does, he chooses right people to one step below him. If those people have right beliefs, they will then transfer them to the people below them. And so the pyramid is formed from suitable people for the position. And then it is not necessary for the people in lovers steps to know or understand the whole picture, or be a part of the conspiracy, it is only required that they do their part as the leader wants.

In practice this can be done for example, if there would be a very rich person, who wants that his ideas are implemented. With his money he can choose people that he want and then those people will do what he wants. In this case the chosen people can genuinely believe the matter, but it is not necessary true.

For example, if such a rich man would want that people believe in climate change, for that he could sell more electric cars, he could fund studies that "confirm" the idea. And then he can buy "journalists" that promote the idea, fund politicians who serve him and if politicians don't act, arrange paid riots to make people believe that it is a real urgent issue and people must buy electric cars for to save the world.

So, for example in the case of flat earth, it would not necessary require vast conspiracy, only that there are few people who can control other people so that they confirm the matter so that majority believes. But, this is not to say earth is flat, only that big conspiracies are possible.

I think the cure for this kind of things is to require proof, or at least good evidence for claimed matter. For example the form of earth does not need to be a matter of belief, it should be possible to demonstrate. And this makes evolution theory look bad, because it has no good evidence, if it means that all species developed from single species in a long time period.

In the case of evolution theory, it is not necessary a conspiracy theory. It is just a belief that certain people choose and confirm with a bias.

But there's the usual Faithbased problem that invalidates your argument. Just as with asserting Bible reliability with any excuse, invention or just denial of the contradictions. Just as with denial of evolution and just as with the moving rocks and saying 'must be a supernatural agency' (if not God) when the actual answer is 'we don't know - yet'. And sometimes the answer is found, and it's never God.

The idea of company control and manipulation is not unknown (especially in the States) but crazy cultism is what we get when science rejection is based on Faithclaims - and not just religion.

You suggest (as an analogy) that climate change might be a conspiracy by a businessman who wants to sell electric cars? But why not a climate change denial - cult by a businessman who wants to keep selling fossil fuel? (1) You see how this can work both ways? Once again, you are doing it wrong, arguing from a biased Faithclaim position - whether in your climate conspiracy analogy or you denial of evolution - evidence and Bible contradictions.

(Not cue - I hope - 'Logic is only a human invention and opinion')

This is why you can never win, because the faithclaim is flawed from the start, and of course so is accusing the other side (who rather look at both sides) of bias when it is your faithclaim position that is biased. And all you can do is hope for groupthink power so who is right or wrong doesn't matter, but who gets the power, whether in commerce, media and entertainment or politics.

That said, your religious beliefs wouldn't pass muster under the Baptist Church inquisition so you'd better hope Church and State stay separate in the next election.

(1) there is of course the minority clout problem. Fossil fuel cabals have far more clout than an electric car retailer, so a climate change denial conspiracy is more probable than a climate change conspiracy, just as a global science round earth conspiracy to discredit mr Fuller (or in the past mr Parallax) or the Fl;at earthists is improbable, and just as global consensus on evolution evidence has been presented as a conspiracy to lie about knowing that evolution isn't true, it's Faithbased bias gone crazy.

[1213]

...You suggest (as an analogy) that climate change might be a conspiracy by a businessman who wants to sell electric cars? But why not a climate change denial - cult by a businessman who wants to keep selling fossil fuel? (1) You see how this can work both ways?...

If the fossil fuel sales man is losing the game, because can't steal oil from other countries anymore, he can switch to sell the climate change totems, windmills, and lobby his politicians to make them mandatory.

[TRANSPONDER]

...You suggest (as an analogy) that climate change might be a conspiracy by a businessman who wants to sell electric cars? But why not a climate change denial - cult by a businessman who wants to keep selling fossil fuel? (1) You see how this can work both ways?...

If the fossil fuel sales man is losing the game, because can't steal oil from other countries anymore, he can switch to sell the climate change totems, windmills, and lobby his politicians to make them mandatory.

Doesn't look like they are doing that plan.Instead, they appear to be putting their weight and cash behind the winning of the party that will allow fossil fuel companies to do as they like. And that may be my perception and wrong but it would make sense. Of course, it would make sense for the oil and coal companies to buy up all the wind and electric power groups and kill them. But first, the Right Party has to win to ensure no government support for wind farms and electric cars.

[boatsnguitars]

The alternative energy industry is worth about $2 Trillion. The Oil industry MAKES $4 Trillion per year.
Yet, it's the Alternative energy people doing it for the money...
Apparently, Global Warming Deniers love paying lots of money for energy, instead of grabbing it free from the Sun and Wind... They must love putting oil executive's children through college while partying on mega yachts!

The truth is:
1. Anthropogenic global warming is real. It's real bad. It's going to get worse.
2. The industry is changing, regardless - because it has to, and because there is a good business reason to change.
3. Renewables are the future, as they - renew. Oil is finite.
4. Global Warming Deniers are wrong and know they are wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

Isn't it interesting how it has become socio -political shibboleths. You can still have a religion -debate with Philosophy (or rather semantics -sophistry) getting dragged in sooner than politics, but politics is always there waiting to become the talking point. Before it was stem cell research as well as the eternal evolution - denial. Now there is a political divide where (as we saw) Climate change, electric vehicle and vaccination denial appears to have become part of Christian apologetics. Why is this?

Perhaps our pal 1213 can enlighten us. The topic was Unknowns - goddunnit. But why do corporate conspiracy theories now supposedly form part of the religious apologetics debate. Let's hear just what the point is.

Can't really be science denial as all corporations hire scientists to do research. Why is politically motivated economics suddenly part of Religious apologetics?

Actually, I know why, but let's see whether our pal can face up to the motivations.

[1213]

1. Anthropogenic global warming is real. It's real bad. It's going to get worse.
2. The industry is changing, regardless - because it has to, and because there is a good business reason to change.
3. Renewables are the future, as they - renew. Oil is finite.
4. Global Warming Deniers are wrong and know they are wrong.

And everyone should believe that, because then Al Gore and John Kerry can get more power and money.

If global warming really happens, it is not bad and it is not necessary because of humans. If it really happens, it probably would happen even if humans would not do anything. And most certainly it will not change by paying more taxes and giving more power to the worlds tyrannical leaders.

Oil is not finite. It may be that is formed in nature slowly. But oil, or hydrocarbons are the best energy system, because it doesn't require as much destroying of earth as for example batteries for cars. It is natural part of carbon cycle. And with carbon cycle I mean in this, living beings use O2 produced by plants and plants use CO2 produced by the beings. In this natural cycle carbon goes around and it is essential for the system to work properly. If the level of CO2 would be higher, plants would grow faster and people would have more food. If we don't want to be genocidal maniacs, we don't try to lover the level of CO2 and cause famine by doing so.



It can be said that collecting oil and transporting it is also not good for nature, not because CO2, but because it wears earth. Not as much as what the mining of battery material, but still substantially. Wisest move would be to keep systems that use oil/gas, but produce oil/gas in more reasonable way, in same principle as here:



The same waste could be also used to make fuel. And it would be the best way, because that organic material goes circles in nature anyway and it is easy to acquire.

I think it is pure evil to trick people to believe that world is going to be destroyed because they produce CO2 and that only way to be saved is to give more power and money to the governments. It makes taking care of nature look deranged. It is good to take care of nature, but it should be rational.