|
|
|
|
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/10/2005 8:34:05 PM | | The atmosphere 200 million years ago has no effect on carbon dating. As I've said, carbon dating can be made accurate up to 100,000 years because we can calibrate it with independent measures of atmospheric content from that time period. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/10/2005 8:37:46 PM | | Science is not a system of worship. Where do you get such silly ideas? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/11/2005 3:26:33 AM | This is a religion thread. Therefore spirituality may fall within this realm, (though for some folks religion is all about rhetoric and not about the spirit) Spirit and consciousness are related, not body mind consciousness, as in the genetic programing of the DNA, but the observer, that person, for example, who knows who's calling before they answer the phone. If you can't believe there is more to us than our bodies you can stop reading here.
"Argue for you limitations and they are yours".
Here's the leap. We are able to influence as the observer and therefore cause a determination, dead cat, or live cat. It is your world, you decide. Then if a person is conducting an experiment with amino acids, methane, ammonia, water - - - they may find what they are looking for. Consciousness influences reality, certainly perception, and on a personal basis perception is reality, no matter how diluted we may judge that other person. (present company included)
The altering of consciousnes is a gradual thing. Remember the earth was square, and man would never be able to fly, and the moon, well, I'm told someone walked on it. I've certainly had a few eye openers on these pages and am thankful for it.
kinda late don't cha think - nite | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/11/2005 3:48:00 AM | | The atmosphere 200 million years ago would have an effect if the concept of uniformitarianism is applied, as it currently is. What if the earths atmosphere were not the same as it ever was. What if the earth was enveloped in clouds? Say 30 some thousands years ago? Wouldn't that have an influence on the amount of ultra violet radiation entering the earths atmosphere? This would certainly alter the half life computations. | |
|
| |
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/11/2005 10:26:24 AM | Sure, ......now we recreate, please.
Share with us the scientific experiment that supports your contention, ...for independant verification.
Siliviros, trying to find semantic loopholes in the descriptions of existing proven forms of instrumentation, in order to create specious arguments that go nowhere is not a scientific experiment.
-----
Dryad is a very, very smart person. Try reading what she said one more time. | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/11/2005 10:36:01 AM | | I'm still waiting for someone to explain the scientific data that exists for intelligent design. Keep looking for God's signature somewhere on my body, is it in code? Is there perhaps a codon sequence that can't be explained by science that lends validity to intelligent desing? I'm really lost as to where the science in intelligent design exists. | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/11/2005 10:41:19 AM | It lies in the fact that people who hold to it are far less destructive and combative to science than people who are strictly new-earth creationists.
People who hold to intelligent design are very unlikely to burn people at the stake for witchcraft or heresy. Some of these other groups have a different sort of reputation in history. | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/11/2005 11:13:04 AM | Ok, so they won't burn me at the stake, very kind of them, but forcing my children to learn religion as science is burning their minds at a metaphorical stake. Where is the evidence for intelligent design, I ask again.
Given the fact I have an appendix that serves no real purpose, why do teeth grow in the back of my jaw that I will never use and will only cause me pain? Why do whales have hip bones that simply float in their body also serving no real purpose? And a number of other inconsistencies in nature, I think there may be an argument for unintelligent design, but not for intelligent design.
Maybe God was just having a bad day when he designed some life forms. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 285 | |
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/11/2005 11:21:13 AM | Hey Silvanos :)
Richard Bach’s book Illusions has always been one of my favourites. I’m beginning to see where you’re coming from.
What’s your perspective on double-blind experiments? (I need to see how far our common ground extends to decide where to begin from.)
It’s good to test assumptions, even the assumption of uniformity (in science though the principle of uniformity is generally taken to mean basic physical laws; not changes in solar radiation-sun spot cycles, cloud cover, etc, which are expected to vary over time). The impact of fluctuating solar radiation on carbon dating is well understood. It is why the carbon dating curve is calibrated to known points in time. Furthermore, there are situations where carbon isotopes are useless for aging, such as the shells around oceanic vents, because the carbon source isn’t atmospheric it violates the assumption of the test. Additionally, there are methods of dating using various radioactive materials. Carbon tends to be most useful in the short-term, others are used in geological ageing (many which don’t have the same calibration issues carbon dating does).
Paley’s argument for intelligent design is rather brilliant … a bit old-fashioned language, but well worth the read of “Natural Theology” if you have time. http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/p/pd-modeng/pd-modeng-idx?type=HTML&rgn=TEI.2&byte=53049319 | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/11/2005 1:43:18 PM |
Ok, so they won't burn me at the stake, very kind of them, but forcing my children to learn religion as science is burning their minds at a metaphorical stake. Where is the evidence for intelligent design, I ask again.
Given the fact I have an appendix that serves no real purpose, why do teeth grow in the back of my jaw that I will never use and will only cause me pain? Why do whales have hip bones that simply float in their body also serving no real purpose? And a number of other inconsistencies in nature, I think there may be an argument for unintelligent design, but not for intelligent design.
Maybe God was just having a bad day when he designed some life forms.
Robikus.
Realistically, religion is always going to be with us as long as civilization exists. In fact, without religion civilization would spiral into corruption and finally anarchy. This is because most people need it in their lives. Most people who have religion use it in a constructive way. However, when their religious leaders tell them to make their minds impotent and weak and to encourage the same in others, that belief system threatens civilization nearly as much as it benefits it. Any religious stand point that resembles theistic evolution or intelligent design really doesn't threaten to turn people's minds into mush. The way I see it, it is the far lesser evil.
I do agree that the government absolutely should not legislate faith. One of the founding concepts that makes a Republican Democracy function is the seperation of church and state. There has always been a psuedo-association between the two as basically a token of respect for the important role of religion in society, but that is all that it is. The government should support religious intstitutions but not legislate their beliefs into law.
People have the right to their own beliefs, no matter what they are, as long as they live in a free society. As soon as the government begins to legislate a faith, this will erode and eventually evaporate. | |
|
| |
| |
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/11/2005 3:23:32 PM | | There is no assumption of uniformitarianism. We know the atmosphere was different 4 billion years ago. We know C-14 dating _on its own_ isn't useful past several thousand years. We know climate changes. We know that catastrophes happen (e.g. cometary impacts). | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 290 | |
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/11/2005 4:01:55 PM | Oh dear Count! Analogies have to break down somewhere.
… although… something about turning the cat/elementary particle into an observer seems to be catching on something in my mind.
…hmm I need mull a bit and bounce an idea off a physicist friend of mine | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/11/2005 10:37:43 PM | MLR - Whats that thing about parachutes and minds. Semantic interpretations are not what I'm dealing with here. I've recently been reseaching a paper on alternate earth timelines, and have come up against this same closed minded rightous indignation when I question the validity of an assumed concept. ie: the accuracy of carbon dating, uniformity principle, continental drift theory.. Most of these theories are based upon a small window of observation and a convenient circular reasoning. Much of the foundation of earth’s evolution theories were formulated during the last two hundred years and have been adapted to fit new scientific input. Instead, science should use new data to formulate new paradigms.
Again, is science the best thing we got going? Im my opinion yes, but far from perfect. That is why we continually have research, and it is mostly the blind ignorant fanatics - (yes science has them as well) that hold religiously on to a trendy truth that limits further advances in the scientific fields. The quantum field is opening up new archetypes of thought and the scientific community is finding that what is slowing down the acceptance of these new concepts is the stringent adherence to outdated belief systems. Perhaps one can see the similarities between the scientific community and the religious community when one tries to introduce new ideas. The reactions tend to be the same. A perfect example of this might be this thread. | |
|
| This is now dead theory folks BIG difference from Truth......
Posted: 9/11/2005 10:50:39 PM | | Hey dryad, imput this into the computer. What is mass? - coalesced energy, pardon the simplicity but I'm cutting to the chase. (another leap ;->) What forms that energy into mass? Conscience intent, the observer. Brain waves are measurable. Bat that around with your physicist friend. :-) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2005 6:02:05 AM | | Evolution is a fact of life. It is a complex academic study often watered down by people who do not understand its principles.It took me ten years as a lay person with little scientific background to understand what Charles Darwin had to say. His proposals during the mid 19th century were in fact based on older studies, commencing with Plato and Aristole. To understand evolution you must have a heterogeneous understanding of all branches of science. Lets face the facts 99% of people who beleive in the creation story have never fully read the bible, but only bits and pieces. They rely on the word of a priest or some whore chasing preacher. Most people haven´t the time to read books about evolution, only short clips from the newspaper. It is mush easier to beleive a myth than reality. Mr. Darwins Theory was nothing new to the world, he was the first person to have written it in a book that was easy for people to understand. His book completely sold out throughout the world. It finally gave people with brains a rationale answer to their roots. Darwin´s theory was first confirmed by the famous Catholic monk, Mendel, by accident. Mendel´s genetic study of the pea plant was the first piece of evidence to prove that succeding generations can replicate themselves.That was the first piece of the puzzle. If you do not beleive or understand evolution then you might as well beleive that the sun rotates around the earth. There is no doubt that ancient man existed. Here in Mettman,Germany, you can visit were the first Neanderthal man was discovered. Evolution can explain their existense, but silly religious books cannot. Sorry for any typing mistakes but I am using a French typeboard. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2005 9:40:34 AM | something about turning the cat/elementary particle into an observer seems to be catching on something in my mind. Ha, the question of defining an observer. Merely something which responds to the collapse of quantum superposition? A photographic plate responding to the impact of photons? Where is the border between quantum states and classic states? Cells control subatomic particles (protons and electrons), so are they quantum machines? How does quantum physics affect life - and evolution? Has God been observed yet, or does he exist in the limbo of quantum superposition, like Schroedinger's cat? In the quantum world, all possibilities have the potential to exist. Will evolution win because that is what we choose to measure? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2005 11:44:07 AM | | Maybe it "is" god that is doing the observing. evolution is change, change in consciousness. The combatants look at only the the physical change in the argument, perhaps where the focus needs to be is in the mind. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2005 12:22:45 PM | Maybe it "is" god that is doing the observing.
Evolution is change, change in consciousness. The combatants look at only the physical change in the argument, perhaps where the focus needs to be is in the mind. If the consciousness of the mind changes, then the body has to follow. This makes sense in the animal kingdom as well. If the prey keeps getting caught by a faster predetor than the remaining prey , if there are any, must adapt by evolving into something a little faster, or more wary, or both.
In body - mind consciousness the genetic code is the blueprint of your ancestors body. The sum total of their consciousness manifest into mass. This and Kharma is what is meant in the bible "The sins of your fathers will be passed on" If there is a change in consciousness during a lifetime then that change is encoded within the DNA to evolve the body. Of course, if you don't change your consciousness, you will come back time and again living the same type of life, having to learn the same stuff over and over again, until you get it.
I saw this quote in a school a few years ago, seems apropos.
"If you continue to think the way you always thought. You'll continue to get what you always got." | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 297 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2005 12:30:55 PM | Empirical evidence is needed to support theories. Supposition gets you only so far.
Simply, prove it.
What forms that energy into mass? Conscience intent, the observer.
Likewise, provide evidence conscience intent forms energy into mass.
PS: sorry about my tangent… it’s taking us way off track from the topic (Count's statement just gave me a sudden thought about something and I blurted. Although, I’ll take inspiration where I find it, then test the living daylights out of it. So thanks.  ) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2005 1:46:38 PM | | But theories drive measurements - which can alter reality - even in the classical world - as in the quantum Zeno effect and its inverse. So where do observations get you? At least sometimes down the path you have invented. Do we invent our own evolution? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2005 7:57:34 PM | | One thing to keep in mind is that whenever we talk about QM we presume the "Copenhagen Interpretation" is true (e.g. observations mysteriously collapse wavefunctions). That's not necessarily the case. There's at least a dozen other interpretations and they don't require the metaphysical absurdities of the CI. I think they're mostly ignored because absurd is more interesting. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2005 9:53:25 PM | Ah, Count, looks like you have your demolition hammer out again! How about some construction - maybe some other interpretations and their consequences? A pilot wave travelling infinitely fast and without attenuation? A superposition of universes for every quantum event which split every time a quantum choice is made? Information travelling backwards in time (Transactional Interpretation). Less absurd?
The CI is interesting in that reality belongs to the observer - maybe even the conscious observer. When did consciousness come into the world? If all God had to do was observe, maybe he could have 'seen' the universe into existence in only six days!
TI can help out evolution by signalling back in time what it needs to do to construct the future - but only quantum events, or I may be able to predict the future! (Maybe some people can do that). | |
|
|
| Page 12 of 156
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
