Question for people who have had very many psychedelic experiences

[Incunabula]

at burn out

Hi, first off, thanks for your nice answers. In regards to my criticism of your original post, it all comes down to "what you intended to write vs. what I understood you wrote", so there's really no point in discussing it further imo. But I have to say I still read your first post as kind of sanctimoniuos and arrogant. Maybe we can both learn something here. I know I've just realised I don't have the respect for other people beliefs that I thought I had.

Look into yourself, are you sure that I am not at least partly right on what you were thinking when you wrote parts of you original post. You really don't have to answer this. Just think about it.

You're missing the point. I am not claiming the Ram Daas story is true or untrue. My faith in psychedelics is not dependent on some Ram Daas story. My point was, Ismene is deliberately misleading people by not sticking to the facts of the story. I am saying, let people decide for themselves.

I don't think I'm missing the point, I think you are . Did you understand the wiki article about confirmation bias? It's very relevant here, because it pertains to humanitys fickle relationship to reality, and our ability to make our reality conform to how we wish it to be.

On purpose I was trying to not be blunt about it, but In regards to the "Ram Dass saw the LSD melt on the tongue of the guru" part of the story, it's very probable that it's a little white lie on Ram Dass behalf. And he probably even believe the lie himself today - it's how he remembers it. I find that much more likely, than I find it likely that some guy could eat 1200 ug of LSD and not feel it. I was offering a version of the story that lies halfway between you and Ismene, in a way. But I don't think Ismene was missleading or lying, he just speaks his mind, and has his feet firmly planted on the ground.

I'm no claiming it happened or that it didn't happen either, but extraordinaire claims demand extraordinairy evidence. In lack of evidence, the scales tip towards a "it probably didn't happen like that". It's called sceptical thinking (that sounded condescending, but it wasn't meant to be.)

I can't believe the amount of people who uncritically believe in miracles because of an anecdote from their idol.

Again its your interpretation, but even skeptical folks like Sam Harris agree the self is an illusion watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0. I disagree with Sam Harris on many things, but the point is, seeign the self to be an illusion can come about without believing in lots of wacky far out spiritual stuff. It actually makes a lot of sense from a scientific viewpoint.

I too believe that the self fundamentally is an illusion, we agree there, but imo it's not only the ego which is an illusion, but consciousness itself. I think that consiousness came about as a biproduct of intelligence, intelligence came to because of evolution.

I don't believe we have souls either, there's a lot of logic that fails if you ponder an eternal soul imo, but I don't want to get into that here. This is all really off-topic, so I think, that if we want to discuss that, we should take that part of the discussion to S and P. Although I really don't spend my time there. I've been told it's not for discussing science, only philosophy and spirituality - So I stay away.

Nothing beats subjective experience, period.

I disagree. Subjective experience means nothing. We can't trust our senses and we particularly can't trust our minds. If there is a "true" reality, it's beyond our senses. This is kind of my whole point. More on that under the next quote.

This entire world could simply be your dream which you will wake up from tomorrow, thus you have nothing to base any knowledge off other than your own experience. Not saying you cant pay attention to what others say about their experiences or books or what not, but at the end of the day, you must decide whats real and whats not. No one else, not the best scientist or even a guru, can do it for you. The role of the guru is merely to point out where you're tripping yourself up, or give you a framework or tool to work with. Not to tell you how you should see everything. Its ultimately entirely up to you.

Solipsism and relativism are trivial fundamental truth of no importance, that has been debated in philosophy since Descartes.

I say it's trivial, because of cause it's true at some fundamental level. And even Scientifically speaking it is true as well, that each and every one of us perceives our very own subjective version of reality. Because the world we perceive is an image constructed by our brain from the signals sent from our limited senses. But does that mean that there is no objective "true" reality? Not neccesarily. It's very likely it's just beyond our grasp as humans to experience it as it is - for practical reasons. I think it's this "true" reality that science is trying to describe with mathemathics. But science isn't describing reality as it is, it's more like making a painting of a very complex landscape with symbols. I always liked the Niels Bohr quote: "Physics isn't finding out what nature is, but what we can say about nature".

The nice thing about physics experiments is, that they always give the same result, no matter who does it and were they do it. It's not so with subjective experience. Even NDE's vary greatly, though there are some recurring themes. If there really was a spirit realm, wouldn't people be visiting the same place in a NDE?

I say it's of no importance, because if someone came to your house and broke your face, stole your money and your girlfreind – it would hurt, alot. It doesn't matter if you truely are the only person alive, and the rest of us are just parts of your dream. It's going to hurt.

Let's face it, concensus reality is here, and tommorow morning you have to get up and go to work like the rest of us. That is, If you want to earn some money to buy some more stuff of cause, or take some time off so you can go to that meditation retreat, or what ever your thing is.

This is why the scientific method was such a big break through in the 1600-century, because it's a method to discern what is real and what is not. Even the Greek philosophers 400 BC thought that they could "think" their way to the right answers. They made some advances by thinking critically, but most of their ideas were nonsense. Like Aristotles theory about the firmanent for instance, pure fantasy. I'll believe anything there is evidence for, while still being sceptical of it, because any "truth" is rarely the whole picture (Newton vs. Einstein come to mind here) But if scientists at CERN found evidence of a "soul-field" or a "soul-particle", I'll believe it. I actually find quantum mechanics based theories of consciousness enticing.

But I digress, it all actually ties back into why I'm saying, that it's much more likely that Ram Dass might be retelling a story completely different from how it actually happened, but still without consciously lying .

Us humans aren't born with the ability to experience reality as it is, and we are always very biased, even when we think that we aren't. As I've already said once, just ask any experienced policeman, and he will tell you that any witness account always should be taken with a rock sized grain of salt.

Mods, if this is all too off-topic, you should move the off-topic posts to S and P (but not only mine, okay! thanks!) But I doubt I'll be posting anymore in this thread, because I don't have the time. And I expect to be greatly missunderstood anyway, not that constructive criticism isn't wellcome.

Very much on topic:

Hasn't burn out's question been answered? People are different, and psychedelic drugs affect different people differently. There's really only two other options, either some people can't take psychedelics without having a spiritual experience, because they are born more aware of the spiritual nature of reality. Or maybe there is no spiritual nature of reality, and some people are just born more sceptical of nonsense.

I doubt we'll ever get any evidence of either, and it’s kind of pointless to discuss.

 

[Kl519]

Holy smokes, I've been busy all week and didn't notice the "party" in here...wondering if there are other "parties" around here...

From what I just read, the two sides couldn't be more controversial than it has been, which is exactly why it resulted into this. The thing is, nobody can tell you what you experienced or what you have taken away from your experiences, psychedelic or not; they are your own! Meditation or what not; why let others define your own personal experiences? Just brush it off and people will understand that they can only, truly define their own experiences, and NOT others! That is pretty much impossible to do with any sort of accuracy (irony). All the semantics aside, simply let people believe what they want. Allow others what you allow for yourself.

Your reality, or however one wants to define it, is all anyone has and isn't anything to really question imo. What choice does anyone have? Completely giving in to rejecting everything but your own thoughts can be a disastrous form of skepticism, and that ironically creates a deeper illusion than one made by people who spend a shit load of time refining our perceptive abilities. Though it has its limits, you can improve your view and even the ability to recall memory with tests, as well as augmenting and improving what we perceive simply by keeping an open mind and trying to learn every day. With this, reality does change, and unfortunately what we perceive as our reality will always be inaccurate in some ways. But is it useless? Of course not. Looking at our history and up to now, I'd say we all did a damn good job as a species. Unless people think the hunter/gatherer era is better...or killing others instead of cooperating, back when wars for territories were considered the "in" thing (good job all countries).

The fact that none of us are omniscient has given us this burden, but that doesn't mean we cannot know what is real and what isn't. Anything too complicated, depending on the person, maybe so.

Everything is hopeless for someone when that someone believes it is. Everything is hopeful when that someone believes it is. You can make a solid argument for opposite cases and both people can be right and wrong at the same time. It's called a dichotomy, and not a false one. Much of this applies to this entire thread.

Allow others what you allow for yourself.

 

[Ismene]

So you TRULY believe that meditation can't do ANYTHING for ANYONE??

I wouldn't say that no myco - there's always someone who can get benefits out of pretty much any activity. I've read about people who get benefits from laying under a glass table while another person defacates on it. It's just not for me.

But perhaps the reason you think meditation can't do anything is because you probably don't suffer from anxiety.

No I've suffered anxiety a lot - particularly as a teenager when I spent countless hours "meditating" in the hope it might help. It never did me a blind bit of good.

It's like weight lifting with your brain: you practice clearing your mind or focusing on one thing day after day and you are BOUND to EVENTUALLY get better at it right???

Why do you think having an empty mind with no thoughts in it is of benefit? Why not just fill it with enjoyable thoughts? Or sit and learn a musical instrument and fill it with learning thoughts?

So now that you have considered these kinds of things, do you STILL think meditation "doesn't work" and is useless???

It's certainly completely useless for me. I'd question how much use it is for other people too - if I hadn't come across psychedelics I might've spent my entire life following this meditation bullshit and wasted my whole life for absolutely no benefit. I tend to tell people "try meditation if you like but if you get nothing from it, give psychedelics a try instead".

 

[psy997]

Go to dhamma.org, find the nearest Vipassana center near you, sign up for a 10 Day Course, and then afterwards let us know if meditation isn't for you.

 

[Vediog]

As has been stated already, this argument is largely semantic, as it seems everyone uses the word spirituality slightly differently. You could argue that psychedelics have made me more spiritual because they have increased my awareness of other people, changed the ways I think about myself, and made me appreciate nature in ways I'd never considered before. The word "spirituality", to me, refers to the idea of a soul or some part of you beyond your body that defines who you are. But I will continue to question the idea of any sort of existence beyond this body until someone can show me proof. It seems that applying Occam's Razor to the question makes the answer quite obvious to me.

I've always been of a sceptical and scientific mindset, so when I finally experienced LSD it mostly confirmed my pre-existing notions of spirituality. In retrospect, even my intensely "spiritual" ++++ psilacetin+mdma trip strengthened my scepticism. Why? Because I realised that I had taken a very strong drug, which did strange things to my brain and body. If I had a spritual side apart from the physical, why would drugs have such a profound effect on my entire being?

 

[koalabear135]

What you need to understand is that once you experience a lot of different chemicals and such, the spirituality seems tedious. Psychedelics have just confirmed the minds ability to stretch and alter reality. Through seeing these things that some see as "spiritual" I can only smirk

I see the minds ability to see whatever it wants to if it wants to, that a chemical is able to stretch and warp reality, that all these notions we have as people are just minds doing similar things without the help of drugs.

As the drugs don't really add anything to your mind, but simply utilize the different chemicals in your brain to release and create the state you are in.

Spiritualism is just as bad as ignorance to me, it's using information in an altered state to assume an objective reality. Just silly.

 

[Xorkoth]

Can I ask what your view on what "this" is is, then? Do you find any meaning in life?

Honest question, I'm curious. I agree with you (I think this is the point you're making) that psychedelics have the ability to create all sorts of states that are simply a reflection on your own brain's ability to perceive in different ways. Yet I have had experiences that seemed beyond myself. Just a few out of many hundreds, and trust me, I keep conscious oversight of my thoughts during trips (these days anyway) and discard most of what I experience as being on a drug. But my initial introduction into psychedelia was something incredibly profound which I did not in any way have a clue I might experience (oneness with the universe)... I do believe I received a genuine insight there, and I do believe that genuine, objective insights can be gained from psychedelics.

 

[LlewellynDrury]

Hello burn out,
I had an oneness experience in 1972 during my first LSD-25 experience. I was at a Woolworth lunch counter in a North American suburb watching wild eddies of cream in a coffee with my buddy. While staring at a swirling display of Elvis’ “50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong” the Cool Golden Buddha took me by the hand, my ego disintegrated and I was propelled in the infinite Pure White Light. The Origin of everything, the Tao…

The 14 years old teenager I was had the course of his life changed forever, this trip is still going on… I never came down.
I became a biochemist, worked in a Neuroscience research laboratory for a while and dropped out disgusted by academia and pharmaceutical business. I’m still deeply interested by theoretical physics, neurobiology, and of course psychedelics (most recent trip: 100 µg of 1p-LSD last Tuesday) but I now listen to ambient psytrance.
All religions and spiritual traditions are nonsense to me. These are just ways to avoid the ontological vertigo when you face the Existential Mystery. God and spirituality are dirty words loaded with the personal agenda of the priests, gurus and believers who use them.
I’m convinced the ultimate nature of objective reality and consciousness are unknowable; we tend to believe the mirror image of our mind being the objective reality. Notably, the psychedelic experience goes down mind filters to fit our little mental framework. I’m also convinced consciousness is the product of elaborate neurological systems made of neurons networks, it is an emergent property, the mind/body continuum being similar to a Moebius loop.
I currently use micro-doses and full on doses of various tryptamines, phenethylamines and lysergamides for: self-psychoanalysis, experimental philosophy, creativity and aesthetic appreciation stimulation, increasing social skills, enhancing sex life, psychomotor function improvement, self-healing, immune system stimulation, lowering anxiety and compulsive behaviors, maintaining a positive view towards life, living like an animal in nature and having fun. Occasionally I’m graced with a trip back into the Pure White Light and come back as a new born.
Amen

 

[LlewellynDrury]

 

[burn out]

It is making your brain crash so you can take over, but if you can't you have a bad trip.

I agree.

All religions and spiritual traditions are nonsense to me. These are just ways to avoid the ontological vertigo when you face the Existential Mystery. God and spirituality are dirty words loaded with the personal agenda of the priests, gurus and believers who use them.
I’m convinced the ultimate nature of objective reality and consciousness are unknowable; we tend to believe the mirror image of our mind being the objective reality. Notably, the psychedelic experience goes down mind filters to fit our little mental framework. I’m also convinced consciousness is the product of elaborate neurological systems made of neurons networks, it is an emergent property, the mind/body continuum being similar to a Moebius loop.
I currently use micro-doses and full on doses of various tryptamines, phenethylamines and lysergamides for: self-psychoanalysis, experimental philosophy, creativity and aesthetic appreciation stimulation, increasing social skills, enhancing sex life, psychomotor function improvement, self-healing, immune system stimulation, lowering anxiety and compulsive behaviors, maintaining a positive view towards life, living like an animal in nature and having fun. Occasionally I’m graced with a trip back into the Pure White Light and come back as a new born.
Amen

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except I disagree that spiritual traditions are nonsense. I came to the same conclusions you are speaking about, largely via those traditions. Yes, I was greatly aided by psychedelics but religions and spiritual traditions helped me free myself from various delusions and traps and keep from going insane.

I’m convinced the ultimate nature of objective reality and consciousness are unknowable; we tend to believe the mirror image of our mind being the objective reality.

Yes I agree 100% but isn't this what religion teaches? For example in Christianity, God is unknowable. Orthodox Christianity teaches we can't really know anything about God, we can only know the mirror image as you are saying.

 

[Incunabula]

......but isn't this what religion teaches?

No, that's not what religion teaches Were did you get that idea? religions mostly always work with absolute truths. That's why religion demand "faith".

Can I ask what your view on what "this" is is, then? Do you find any meaning in life?

Honest question, I'm curious. I agree with you (I think this is the point you're making) that psychedelics have the ability to create all sorts of states that are simply a reflection on your own brain's ability to perceive in different ways. Yet I have had experiences that seemed beyond myself. Just a few out of many hundreds, and trust me, I keep conscious oversight of my thoughts during trips (these days anyway) and discard most of what I experience as being on a drug. But my initial introduction into psychedelia was something incredibly profound which I did not in any way have a clue I might experience (oneness with the universe)... I do believe I received a genuine insight there, and I do believe that genuine, objective insights can be gained from psychedelics.

Maybe you did, but you have no way of ascertaining if it truely was an objective insight. That said, it would seem very weird indeed, if everything didn’t arise out of the same movement somehow.

On the meaning of life. I think that assigning life or the universe any meaning, always causes contradictions, paradoxes or raises more questions than it ultimately answers - in the end, the explanations have to become more and more elaborate and absurd to fulfill the meaning that was assigned - that it becomes obvious it's just fantasy.

The universe is indifferent, random and meaningless. It's the only way it makes sense.

Moral and ethics, fair and unfair, these are human concepts. It should be clear that the universe doesn’t operate with these. Trying to explain why things happen or why they exist, by anthropomorphizing nature will always end up at some fallacious contradiction. Although it seems a very human thing to do.

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” - Euthyphro’s dilemma

and

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus.

Just to name a few, and “God moves in mysterious ways” just doesn’t cut it, in my opinion.

To make it clear, it doesn’t even have to be about God, it’ll be the same with any other meaning that one intend to assign to life/nature/the universe. Be it the question of an afterlife or an eternal soul, reincarnation, moral and ethics etc etc

I just recently fell over this video which is kind of funny, but has some very good points.




And I always liked this one too.

 

[MetanoiaMan]

right on brother...

 

[MetanoiaMan]

That stephen fry video is moronic. It's like a religion for imbeciles who know nothing of reality.

 

[ark9]

I don't consider myself an expert meditator. Not sure if you are either Ismene. My experience with breathwork does lead me to extrapolate that there are fundamental similarities in some of the peak experiences, though I wouldn't say they overlap entirely. I've experienced things on psychedelics I don't think I'll ever experience meditating. Some form of meditative practice can help trips immensely. I stand by that and think any tripper who learns a bit of meditation alongside will benefit both practices and some of the experiences will overlap. Gandalfe has that perspective on both and I'd rather learn about it from him. Ram Dass may be a great example that is still quoted today of showing how mistaken this notion is. Maybe, but if an experienced meditator can tune out a noisy mind and other bodily sensations (this much has been shown with countless demonstrations and studies), perhaps maybe they can tune out trips too. Does 't sound so crazy though the Ram Dass story may be a classic example of delusional thinking. I know with my own experience tripping I can now trip in situations that would have caused panic attacks when I first started. I once walked through Walmart while tripping on 5 mg DOC and bought some milk while my friend angrily waited in the car; this would have never been possible without some experience. I'll stop there, this is getting pretty off-topic

wait what's wrong with Ram Dass

 

[Jabberwocky]

^ I was asked to comment on a story by Ram Dass regarding his guru being unaffected by 900 ug dose of LSD and whether the story happened or not. My reply was vague, neither confirming or denying since I have no expertise. If you're asking me do I like Ram Daas, I think he's an inspiring guy from the short things I've read online and his role in the history of psychedelics. Never read one of his books.

 

[ark9]

Oh ok. Now I see you did remain neutral, saying "may" and "maybe"
My bad

 

[burn out]

No, that's not what religion teaches Were did you get that idea? religions mostly always work with absolute truths. That's why religion demand "faith".

I got the idea from years of studying religion. When you say religions work with absolute truths, you are speaking about the outer aspects of religion, ei. religion as a social institution or group of people united under a shared set of beliefs and assumptions. There isn't anything wrong with that, in fact it is often beneficial for humans beings to come together in this way. The same principle is at work in a coference of scientists, the scientists come together with a shared worldview and discuss each others finding under a shared set of assumptions. Radical ideas receive great opposition from the scientific establishment the same way they do in religion.

However, there is another side to both science and religion that goes beyond mere social cliques. There is the side of the great mystics, philosophers, prophets, saints and inventors like Einstein, Tesla , Meister Ekchart, St John of the Cross, , Jesus Christ, Buddha, Schopenhauer, Plato, etc.

What did these people all have in common? They all had deep insights into the nature of reality. They were all revolutionaries in one way or another.

So as one studies religion, you might start out by learning basic beliefs but as you progress into studying things like sacred scripture, and the writings of great mystics and theologians, or great yogis, zen masters and shamans, you come to realize religion is not about agreeing with a bunch of stated beliefs but bringing your entire organism into harmony with the principles on which existence is founded. Harmony with nature is probably the simplest way to understand this, which the main aim of the native american religions.

Anyway, my point is that you will frequently come across ideas such that God is unknowable, that there aren't any hard rules, etc in Christian writings. Obviously I am not talking about your local ministers Sunday school letter, but the more celebrated writers. A lot of philosopical concepts which you might not think have anything to do with religion, are frequently discussed in religion, although using different terminology.

 

[psy997]

Great post burn out.

 

[Incunabula]

I got the idea from years of studying religion. When you say religions work with absolute truths, you are speaking about the outer aspects of religion, ei. religion as a social institution or group of people united under a shared set of beliefs and assumptions. There isn't anything wrong with that, in fact it is often beneficial for humans beings to come together in this way. The same principle is at work in a coference of scientists, the scientists come together with a shared worldview and discuss each others finding under a shared set of assumptions. Radical ideas receive great opposition from the scientific establishment the same way they do in religion.

However, there is another side to both science and religion that goes beyond mere social cliques. There is the side of the great mystics, philosophers, prophets, saints and inventors like Einstein, Tesla , Meister Ekchart, St John of the Cross, , Jesus Christ, Buddha, Schopenhauer, Plato, etc.

What did these people all have in common? They all had deep insights into the nature of reality. They were all revolutionaries in one way or another.

So as one studies religion, you might start out by learning basic beliefs but as you progress into studying things like sacred scripture, and the writings of great mystics and theologians, or great yogis, zen masters and shamans, you come to realize religion is not about agreeing with a bunch of stated beliefs but bringing your entire organism into harmony with the principles on which existence is founded. Harmony with nature is probably the simplest way to understand this, which the main aim of the native american religions.

Anyway, my point is that you will frequently come across ideas such that God is unknowable, that there aren't any hard rules, etc in Christian writings. Obviously I am not talking about your local ministers Sunday school letter, but the more celebrated writers. A lot of philosopical concepts which you might not think have anything to do with religion, are frequently discussed in religion, although using different terminology.

Just the usual homespun-pantheist ideas imo. I was going to write a long answer, and then found out that I couldn't be assed about it. So I will only say this, trying to keep it short:

It’s so typical (and trivial imo) for religious and spiritual people to think that "science" is just another worldview. It's not. Science isn't a worldview - it's a method. Just goes to show how little you got out of my earlier posts.

I'm sure you can find christian thinkers who agree with you about "not knowing the mind of God", but I'll still hold that you'd have the majority of the 2.2 billlion christians in the world against you on that. Both the new and the old testament claim very much to know Gods mind.

“Do this, don’t do that, wear this, don’t wear that, Sacrifice this or that, or don’t sacrifice this or that. Kill and slaughter those, or thou shalt not kill, or thou shalt not fornicate with your neighbors wife blah blah blah and btw, don't masturbate or have gay sex. And did I remember to say:Thou shalt not kill. Why? Because I say so...That's why!”

There are certain things that define a christian, like believing that jesus Christ was the messiah prophesied in the old testament, and that he is the son of God. And that he died for our sins. He also needs to read the new testament as holy scripture, and believe what Jesus is supposed to have preached.

Of cause, if you define religion so loosely, that you can be a christian without believing in those fundamental tenets of christianity, then yes, then everything goes and then christianity isn't absolutist. But otherwise it is, in the sense that it demands absolute faith in jesus Christ, with all that entails. With absolutist I mean a dogma that works in absolutes, presenting an absolute worldview - you either believe, or you don't believe.

See, this is getting to long already.

By the way, you're still sporting that sanctimonious and arrogant "holier than thou"-attitude, know it's just "I've read holier scriptures than thou". You never supply arguments for why you believe what you believe, it's always just "I think it's like this, so it must be like this". Were's the arguments that are supposed to make me agree?

Claiming to be learned or knowledgable on a topic is no argument in itself. neither is claiming to be "enlightened" for that matter.

That stephen fry video is moronic. It's like a religion for imbeciles who know nothing of reality.

That's a very strong and well articulated argument, against the fallacy of using logic on a topic like the eternal soul.

 

[Rorthron]

It’s so typical (and trivial imo) for religious and spiritual people to think that "science" is just another worldview. It's not. Science isn't a worldview - it's a method. Just goes to show how little you got out of my earlier posts.

There is just one thing more aggravating than religious people trying to proselytize. It is people without any knowledge of what is science trying to convince others of their view. They jump on their supposed intellectual superiority to brag and insult others, which is just a sign of their insecurity and fear. You obviously have no idea what is science, but if you try hard you may get it, although you require more time than other people [do not let this deter you!]. I suggest you start with Popper and try to give it a shot. Afterwards you may continue with Feyerabend and, if you feel brave, you may go backwards in time to good old Wittgenstein (which incidentally opposed Popper in some of his views).

But as per what I've seen from your arguments, I honestly doubt you can understand a word of these gentlemen and will continue your fundamentalist and baseless assertions, shouting " This is SCIENCE!" to everyone.

Finally, this will probably not be understood, but I end with a quote by old Ludwig "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." You should take his words to heart!