News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Hey hey, gdawson!

I don't see what your first paragraph (no afterlife) has to do with the rest of your post. People who believe they can walk on hot coals without burning their feet can do it just as the Buddhist monks heated their bodies (some denominations can even commit self-immolation without feeling a thing). Using belief to accomplish (seemingly) superhuman feats does not require belief in a deity. A prime example here is the one you used. Buddhists do not believe in a God or for that matter a creator. So they're employment of belief to demonstrate amazing feats is the same as believing you can walk on water and then doing it. There's no god involved in this picture.

I could be a true blue atheist and still do what the monks and suffi mystics do: by believing that I can.

My first paragraph had nothing to do with the rest. Sorry for the confusion. I was just stating that at one time I was a firm believer that death was the end. I am no longer that way. I wasn't afraid of death before, I am not afraid of death now. Experience was what made me change my beliefs.

Buddhist monks and Yogis who walk on hot coals both commonly believe in reincarnation. That is a lot different than believing that death is the end. Tibetan Buddhists are also polytheistic...having many gods they worship.

The power of belief is incredible...but is that all there is? Are these monks who conquered the elements still fooling themselves with false beliefs about enlightenment and reincarnation?

Hi Mordred,



I accept the existence of the planet Neptune but I've never experienced it. I accept that the earth has an iron core which produces its magnetic field but I've never been to the earth's core. We look at evidence for and against to weigh the likelihood of something. This, in my opinion, is true skepticism, which requires an open mind. Dismissing everything lumped into the category of "the supernatural" out of hand isn't skepticism, it's dogmatism. I myself am an agnostic, as I think you are too, so often my own beliefs about the nature of the world are on a spectrum of uncertainty and subject to change depending on the emergence of new evidence.



Near death experiences have been so commonly reported that I think it's logical to accept that the phenomenon occurs. Like I said about ghosts, we don't understand much (if anything) about what's really happening, but something is happening, or else all of these people are mistaken or deluded. Some would have us believe that it's nothing more than neurons and electricity in the brain. It's comforting, scientific, completely anti-mystical. But can we know that this is any more the truth than that someone really has seen God if they claim they have? And how would you explain experiences people have had where they can describe what other people were doing in the room, and in other rooms as well, when their body was lying prostrate on the bed? There's just a lot we don't understand and I would be careful about coming to premature conclusions.



I think that if a person sits back and tells the world to come to them, they will be sorely disappointed. Spirituality seems to be an aspect of life which offers its rewards to those who go looking for them. I myself have never had an "enlightenment," I've never physically seen angels or been offered a revelation or anything like that, but then it's not always that dramatic for many people. My own way is through meditation. I'm not even Christian anymore, but I still believe there are things we can get in touch with which transcend mudane sensory experience.



I enjoy considering the possibility that bigfoot might exist. Not helped, of course, by the frozen rubber suit recently in the news Hoaxers like these ensure that serious science doesn't get done because people don't want to risk their reputations.

You seem to be more open-minded than most rational people, which I think is a very positive thing. Like I said, I think this is the true spirit of skepticism and the scientific method even, because it requires you to set aside what may seem impossible and consider the evidence. Plate tectonics is one theory that went through this process.

I think this may be another example of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this therefore because of this"). The assumption here seems to be that the monks are able to do what they do because they believe in the right things.

My feelings are with RAZD's as I understand them to be. There seems to be a common experience of human spirituality which gets filtered into different religions. You might be able to accomplish some amazing things because of your deep faith, and other adherents of other faiths can do the same. At the core of this seems to be something about the nature of spirituality and faith, and the different rituals people go through in order to put themselves in the right mindset to accomplish extraordinary things. Does that mean we have to believe in reincarnation? No more than we have to believe in Noah and a global flood. These are bits of dogma which accompany different religious beliefs; in my opinion they don't have much relevance in regards to the "big picture" or the core of human spirituality.

Well I actually assumed the monks were able to do this because they knew techniques to tap into the unseen forces in the universe...but I was just asking the question if it was purely the power of belief or is there something more?

I was asking this purely because I think its foolish not to be open-minded to things just because science doesn't think they can happen.

I agree -- though I'd be mindful about using the word "science" as you have here. Some scientists would be open-minded about this, some would not.

I wonder why people who can do these things haven't been studied more? It would be interesting to find out what's happening in their bodies. But I also suspect there are things happening which can't simply be reduced to neurons firing.

LL:

I think that if a person sits back and tells the world to come to them, they will be sorely disappointed. Spirituality seems to be an aspect of life which offers its rewards to those who go looking for them. I myself have never had an "enlightenment," I've never physically seen angels or been offered a revelation or anything like that, but then it's not always that dramatic for many people. My own way is through meditation. I'm not even Christian anymore, but I still believe there are things we can get in touch with which transcend mudane sensory experience.

Jeanie: Yes! Actually in my opinion we are the ones being tested, not God. He knows he's there. I think I may have a lot of the God gene or something if there is such a thing... I could also see that if you look at astrological signs. Technically, for instance, pisces are deeply religious as are most water signs (or at least spiritual or in tune on that level). I don't run my life with that by any means, but know enough I think there is something to it. God even runs his universe by the planets. But, for instance, someone with saggitarius thinks like "I see" and might be the type to pick up more on surrounds or whatever. (Aries is I am (which I also am - an aries pisces cusp actually with capricorn rising and...the other next influential one, etc.), Taurus is I have, Cancer I feel, Virgo I dissect, Leo, I command, Scorpio I desire, Pisces I believe, Capricorn I use, Gemini I think, Libra I balance, Aquarius I know, Seriously, I've always been spiritually minded and those things are not hard for me to understand or feel. Doesn't mean I'm always at my spiritual best!!! But it has been something very instinctual since I was a wee one.. : ) Through the years, though, I have had one confirmation after another that I am being watched out for and am loved by who I consider to be our literal Father in Heaven. Of course that also includes Jesus the Christ.... I have always instinctively loved Him and understood his role except, of course, that understanding has been expanded as I sought to learn more. My husband, a musician, has had some profoundly spiritual experiences more on a literal level. (Scorpio). But the times I've felt the love I've mentioned or had reassurances they were with me have been times after the trial of my faith...or when I was the one doing the searching. And the times I do not feel them are when I myself am far away.

Sorry if the astrology talk offends any Christians. I don't base my life on it at all...but some day intend to ask God what it is about. I don't go by readings or make decisions based on it, but it does help me put some things into pespective. Tendencies, I guess, etc. (My brother was into it when he was 14 and I was 12...) I suppose my point is that all of us have our ways of making sense of the world, but I agree with what LL said....

I think there is power to having faith GDawson : )

OK, gotcha.



I'm not a firm believer one way or the other. I like to think of myself as an agnostic with atheistic tendencies. Consequently, if I were a betting man I have a pretty good idea where I'd place my chips - and that's with death being the final ending for us. I openly and freely admit I could be wrong though.

I can, however, conceive of a world where such supernatural phenomenon as ghosts and even gods (or god-like entities) exist yet we still die the final death when we meet our end. For that matter, I can also conceive of a world where a creator god is responsible for all life around us and yet still we die the final death. God does not presuppose an afterlife, IMO.



Nevertheless, their ability to do these things is not based on their belief (or lack of belief) in an afterlife. They tell themselves they can do it, and that's how they accomplish these things. Additionally, just to point out, Tibetan Buddhists and many other denominations do have gods, yes, but not in the conventional, Western sense of the meaning. Their gods are not creators and they are not immortal. According to their religion, you or I could become a "god" in our next life ... and then a squirrel in the one after, and we may have been a god in one of our previous lives. I think a more suitable definition of their use of the word god here would be powerful spirit or entity.



I don't think it matters what the truth is because it's very evident to me that whatever the real answer to this is, whatever form of afterlife awaits we are specifically not meant to know now. So in this sense, it really doesn't matter what the truth is for Buddhist monks and Suffi mystics to accomplish amazing feats. Knowing the unknowable would only impede their ability to do these things.

All IMHO, by the by

But it is infinitely easier for me to deduce that Neptune exists or the earth has an iron core and so on with available connecting information. There is no connecting information, or any information or evidence which makes me conclude that ghosts and such exist. I can only say that I think these things are a possibility. I would never say that I believe in them. From where I stand, saying I believe in ghosts means only one of two things: either a) I have seen one first-hand and that's why I believe or b) I am deluded or simply want to believe in them. However, I have not seen one and I do not believe I am deluded, so I say that I have no reason to accept the belief in ghosts (I simply don't deny them as a possibility).

Though from the rest of what you said regarding agnosticism, etc., it sounds like you agree with me on that. I know what you mean about deducing the possibility just as we can deduce things not directly visible to us (earth's core, or Neptune's core for that matter) but I do wish to differentiate certainty from logical deduction with accepting something as possible. I can perform tests to conclude what the core of our planet must be comprised of, I can't do anything beyond acruing anecdotal evidence to conclude the existence of ghosts.



I see nothing comforting about explaining away mystical experiences with neurons and brain activity. I don't think scientists, even, feel comforted by these conclusions. (That isn't to say it makes me uncomfortable, however, it's just that I think religion and belief in the supernatural fall under the category of comforting, if you follow me.)

Anyway, interesting topic

I know, I'm spamming the board today. And now by replying even to myself!

But my point above about unknowable things sprung to mind a famous quote from Roger Zelazny's book, Lord of Light.

It is the difference between the unknown and the unknowable, between science and fantasy - it is a matter of essence. The four points of the compass be logic, knowledge, wisdom and the unknown. Some do bow in that final direction. Others advance upon it. To bow before the one is to lose sight of the three. I may submit to the unknown, but never to the unknowable. The man who bows in that final direction is either a saint or a fool. I have no use for either.

I guess this is my point about agnosticism and what I will accept as possibility versus what I will accept as fact. I won't bow before something which I see as a vague maybe. Consider, yes. Accept wholly, no.

Did anyone see the episode of House (Season 4, Disc 1 to be exact) where he sees a kid in the ER who had died briefly in a car wreck. He was so happy when he died that he went in a week later and stuck a knife in the plug so he could finish the job. (Don't know why he did that in a hospital?? But he did end up dying. Maybe it was so they could keep him comfortable? He'd had so much internal bleeding the final trauma was not recoverable). Anyway - then someone else has an experience which piques House's curiosity so House actually experiments by sticking a knife in a plug, too, doing it just as the Dr. he'd called shows up (to bring him back) and kills himself briefly. I guess we could try that??? (Just kidding). Actually there is a Mormon Dr. he's looking at hiring he is endlessly tormenting as well...who ends up punching him out too : ) Anyway - he doesn't see anything when he dies, so concludes there is nothing afterall....

But there are lots and lots of people who do have experiences when they die temporarily which tell them there is, indeed, something after life. Personally I have lost a father when I was quite young...and just recently my big brother and the year to the day (by 1 day) my grandmother. My grandmother has made herself known..... I am not going to disclose the entire experience, but she has definitely visited and for periods of time.... We have almost all her journals here at the house and I even have her wedding ring from her first marriage. She knew I loved her. It is my opinion she waited to die till I came back from Alaska. I asked her to!!! I have felt my brother's presence as well. His death has been very hard on my and one day while I felt unconsolable he came to me. I KNOW he is there. I also had a visit in dream form from my father when I was pregnant with my 2nd daughter. He reached out and touched my belly when I said, "look daddy, I'm pregnant." No one could convince me this was an ordinary dream. After that I also had a visitation from a prophet who had passed. The dream told me of an event to come. (And it came!!!)

I don't think God hates those of you who don't believe in him...or know for sure. I would hate to think you would have to have some kind of very serious event happen to convince you of His existence. The truth is....we all knew him before as spirits. The spirits inside us know..... We are spirits inside of an immortal body. Its the spirit's entrance which gives the body life. And when it leaves, the body is left without life. Nothing could be simpler. Our spirits are eternal....That is hard to comprehend. But because of Christ overcoming death, we will all be resurrected. There are approx. 1/3 of the original spirit children who did not receive and will not receive bodies due to rebellion in the premortal life. (luficer and his followers). They won't have bodies to be resurrected to and are, most definitely, eternally damned. Those of us here on the earth already passed our "first estate" and earned the right to have bodies. Now, though, we are being tested....and are required to use faith which is belief in things we can't see or touch. Our present bodies or brains have no memory of this pre-earth life (except if you tune in and listen close...). When we died we either go to what is called spirit paradise, or spirit prison. It may reflect the states of our mind. Some say it is right here on the earth but not sure about that. Perhaps its the spirit prison which is?? (In a spiritual dimension, obviously). We will eventually be assigned to one of 3 degrees of glory, Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial. (Or the glory of the sun, moon or stars from 1st Corinthians.)

I'd gone to church my whole life, but after my dad died started really looking into what I had been taught in the various churches. I wasn't finding any real answers to my questions... Now I have them. We still don't know exactly how long the creation took, though. It hasn't been revealed yet at this time and isn't considered as pertinent to our salvation. I hold that the earth, since I believe it was organized from pre-existing materials, could be made from very old materials.....But don't think the creation itself took millions of years to happen. But we don't know how long each creative "day" or period was exactly. I believe in adaption and evolution in that sense, but not that higher forms evolved from lower forms. As I tried to state....the kinds are limited in their evolution with their own "kinds." (Birds, fish, fowl, beasts, creeping things, insects, etc. as specified). We are a higher creation and were created as such...

What do you think about Dinosaurs?

Of course, I don't know, but believe they could've existed with humans before the flood when men were giants and lived hundreds of years themselves. I know that sounds ludicrous with what is believed about them. But the earth was very lush and it makes sense they could've grown and lived long periods, too. Once the flood happened, the earth which had been one big piece of land was separated and my theory is that things were not so nutrient dense at that point. Its also possible, that they were here long before and in the ground to benefit us. Obviously....I don't know : ) Its interesting to contemplate though.

Hi LindaLou

What about natural phenomena which are currently unexplained?

What about them? There are plenty of things we don’t understand, phenomenon by the million that we can’t explain but leaping to conclusions beyond all evidence seems to be an approach to such problems that is fraught with danger especially with such emotionally charged questions as this. I prefer to say that I simply don’t know though I am yet to see any reason to believe there is any truth to any claimed supernatural phenomenon. Maybe I’ll be shown to be wrong in the future but that day is not now I would suggest. So till some good evidence appears the only reasonable position is to not believe but leave open the option to change your mind if ever some evidence for the supernatural comes to light.

You seem to be suggesting that you will not accept the existence of something unless you experience it yourself.

No I accept many things I have not experienced myself from the idea that it’s not fun to be run over by a bus to the idea that black holes exist and that our universe is very very old, even the idea that America exists. I’ve never experienced any of these things but there are good logical reasons to accept them and none of them breaks any of the laws of physics, though black holes stretch them to their limits, unlike the supernatural.

Yet we both have said here that while some things cannot be directly experienced, we can study the clues that point to their existence.

That’s very true but we are stepping into an area that is inherently uncertain when we approach the likes of ghosts. The best evidence presented so far is anecdotal yet we both know I’m sure that people lie, are deceived, apply wishful thinking and flawed reasoning to the things they experience. That they suffer from delusions and hallucinations, that they fall for illusions purposeful and accidental, that they make up stories and that they are very bad at remembering details accurately. Given all that we must treat all ghost stories with at least a good grain of salt, add to that the problem that ghosts appear to break the laws of physics which is unprecedented and that they don’t produce any good physical evidence and you are left with a very shaky foundation for any belief.

There is an enormous anecdotal body of evidence, stretching back thousands of years, that ghosts exist.

Of course and there is an enormous body of anecdotal evidence stretching back at least as far that the earth is flat and that the sun moves over it, does that make it true? That people have believed something for a very long times has no bearing on it’s truth. Many of our longest held beliefs are wrong.

What they actually are, we don't really know, but how can you be so sure that all of these people are simply mistaken or deluded?

I don’t know what your family have experienced so I can’t really comment.

Again, why are you so sure? What would your evidence for this statement be?

For the same reason that I don’t believe in Zeus or Santa Claus, there is no evidence in favour of these hypotheses and they all break the laws of physics which is something that has never been shown to occur in properly controlled and monitored conditions. I stand to be corrected on any of the above if someone can provide some good evidence of course. It seems plainly clear that, wishful thinking aside, when we died we’re gone, our bodies rot and our brains, which were the source of our minds, are irrevocably destroyed. I wish it were otherwise but I’d rather the truth to a comforting fairytale so I don’t accept that it is so.

All the best LindaLou

Russell

Hi All

The first question I think we should all ask when someone tells us of something supernatural is to get them to prove that it really happened before we try to explain it. I have no idea how the Buddhist monks could do what is claimed for them but then I have no idea if they actually did do it. There is much hype on TV, ghost stories that are faked but made to look real, amazing feat stories which appear to border on the impossible but in fact owe more to TV magic than any real amazing or supernatural abilities on the parts of those involved. Just because the reporter tells you he’s freezing his toes off in a -30 rated thermal suite while the Monk is steaming in wet blankets in a sub zero wind doesn’t mean that’s what’s really going on.

Near Death Experiences (NDEs) are a fascinating area, they can be induced artificially chemically or by GLoading the body when there is no danger of death so being near death is optional in them and what is seen by the experiences comes form their own minds, Hindu’s commonly see Hindu gods, Christians see Christian figures, sceptics have even been know to see famous historical sceptics. One reasonably common thread is meeting your dead relatives except in children when the people they meet are generally living friends as most don’t know any dead people. There’s no clear evidence here that NDEs are anything but the misfiring of an anoxic brain I would suggest though again I stand to be corrected. That being said I fully believe that these are real experiences, that many at least of these people really experienced what they claim to have I just suspect that it comes from within their own misfiring mind with no external source.

In Reason

Russell

I have to agree with this sentiment as well. For the sake of argument these NDEs people are reporting could very well be what they claim. Yes. However, for the sake of argument these NDEs people are reporting could very well be functions of the brain. It's easier to prove something like string theory than to prove what's really happening in the instance of NDEs. And given the way nature works, given that all things expire (including planets, stars and the universe itself), I see no evidence or even suggestion within the natural world which would lead me to believe NDEs are what many claim them to be. Again, if I were a betting man I'd have to say these are brain reflexes/responses. It'd be neat if they were otherwise, but the likelihood of such a thing seems dim.

And even if we do have a soul, why should we be under the impression that it is immortal if everything in nature expires? What evidence in the natural world do we have that would even suggest such a thing is true?

Hi Russell,



With respect, what conclusions do I seem to be leaping to? I think it's safe to say that if a phenomenon like ghosts has been reported regularly for thousands of years, something is going on here. That doesn't mean we can be sure we know what ghosts are or what physical rules are involved in their manifestation. They could simply be psychic imprints on some kind of invisible medium which sensitive people can "pick up." (Though personally I think there's more to it than this because a number of manifestations are interactive.) I would like to see scientific investigations into this area but it's a tricky one because you can't make a ghost appear inside a lab at will.

I've attempted to do my own part by going on "ghost hunts" with small, serious groups of people, hoping to get physical evidence. I personally did not succeed with that and in fact it honed my skepticism because I learned that "orbs" and "vorteces" which are reported on some websites as paranormal phenomena, are dust specks and camera straps respectively. It's going to take cleverer and more technically-minded people than me to study these things properly.



I would claim that black holes break the rules as we understand them. No one is able to describe what a singularity is, and all equations break down when one is reached. I don't see many people claiming that black holes are therefore impossible though. And heck, string theory -- where's the evidence for that? Why do some people accept string theory as a possibility yet reject something like the possibility of the existence of ghosts?

Maybe ghosts would help us understand more about how the world works. Maybe our picture isn't complete. Science has often advanced by doing this -- adding to the picture of what we already know. I don't believe ghosts are magical any more than I believe that the rotation of the earth is magical. They are a natural phenomenon which we do not understand. I don't have a problem with saying this because I've spoken to people I know well or can trust about experiences they've had, and I've done research, and I do not believe that 100% of these people are mistaken or deluded. Even if all of them but one are . . . that one should be enough to spark serious investigation.



I've also spoken with self-styled skeptics who think that accepting the existence of ghosts, or NDEs, or telepathy, is on a par with believing in Santa Claus or purple unicorns. It's frankly an insult to people's intelligence. There is evidence that the former three things occur and they don't have to involve magic, scattered and strewn laws of physics, or wishful thinking. I've heard it all and what it seems to boil down to is that some people will not accept even the possibility of these phenomena being real. And I don't think I can say anything to persuade them otherwise. For my own part, I'm simply happy to watch and learn and hope that some open-minded scientists will get some answers.

Rupert Sheldrake has done some interesting work on telepathy in humans and animals. He is a scientist and a fellow of Cambridge University. Dawkins and other self-styled skeptics hate what he does. I think he has the necessary open-mindedness to make some interesting contributions to science. I recently wrote to him regarding his morphic resonance idea, because I thought that the local synchronisation of flying ants emerging from their nests might be an example of it. Funny little things like this, which are difficult to explain, could end up telling us a lot. I got a reply from him, which I didn't expect, and he said it was an interesting phenomenon which to his knowledge has not been investigated.



What I'm talking about, though, is the simple acceptance of reported phenomena as genuine and not all hallucinations or mistakes. If you wanted to claim that a ghost was the spirit of a dead person, then that is a belief. A flat earth was also once a belief, but the observations this mistaken belief were based upon were empirical, e.g. it's difficult to see the curvature of the earth without rising high above it, and it's impossible to measure the curvature without the right mathematical and geographical tools. The earth really did look flat, and that is not a mistake because it still does look flat to an ordinary person on the ground.

In other words, in the days when this belief was common (and no one had yet circumnavigated the globe or looked through a telescope), it was not the observations but the interpretation of those observations which was at fault.



I thought like this for a time. It wasn't wishful thinking that changed my mind. That's the nice thing about life, it's all about change and learning.

By the way, what interests me about NDEs is that some people who have had them have accurately described what people in the room were doing, and others have also been able to describe what people in other rooms were doing. These claims were confirmed by the people present, who also confirmed that the person experiencing the NDE was unconscious with their eyes shut. Even if they were "peeking," they would not have been able to describe events in adjoining rooms. The only way you can "get around" this interesting phenomenon is to dismiss it as delusion or lies in 100% of cases. I do not believe that is logical.

Nothing expires or is destroyed...it just changes. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, remember?

Point well taken. However, if I burn a dandelion into ash, it's dead ash. And if I scatter the ash it's even less what it was than before. If our 'soul' cannot be destroyed in the same sense that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only converted, what would our soul be converted to, would it be conscious matter or the same as the ash from a burned dandelion? I've considered that our 'souls' in this sense are effectively batteries and the energy gets released into the world when someone passes away. But that's a lot different than conscious thoughts and sentience. I don't think what remains of us is sentient.

RAZD:

So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.

Jeanie: Sorry.....but the way I see it (and believe its true) things can't evolve beyond their "kinds" and the fact that bacteria evolve isn't proof that they could evolve into a higher life form..... I know its thought to be gradual, but it doesn't prove anything in and of itself????? (I know you know that, too, but don't see the stretch or jump there???

Russell 2:

Near Death Experiences (NDEs) are a fascinating area, they can be induced artificially chemically or by GLoading the body when there is no danger of death so being near death is optional in them and what is seen by the experiences comes form their own minds, Hindu’s commonly see Hindu gods, Christians see Christian figures, sceptics have even been know to see famous historical sceptics. One reasonably common thread is meeting your dead relatives except in children when the people they meet are generally living friends as most don’t know any dead people. There’s no clear evidence here that NDEs are anything but the misfiring of an anoxic brain I would suggest though again I stand to be corrected. That being said I fully believe that these are real experiences, that many at least of these people really experienced what they claim to have I just suspect that it comes from within their own misfiring mind with no external source.

Jeanie: How about folks claiming they've seen their unborn children appear to them....and then when they are born they look just like the ones who they saw?? I've heard of lots of people having those experiences. No one could or can prove they've had such an experience...except in these cases unless they'd written it down or had some proof, somehow, it had happened before it was later proven. Another example: My husband has dreams he goes down in a plane wreck, for instance. (Different situation, but same principle). He has had these dreams at least 10 times since I've been married to him...probably more. He tells me of the nightmare when he awakens. Its very graphic, he smells the gas, completely "has" the experience. Then - and it has happened every time, we later hear (within a day or so) that a plane wreck has occurred! He also recently kept smelling a burning smell in his pillow. It happened a few nights. For some reason he went downstairs one night smelling burning and a lamp that had been left on was smelling like it was about to erupt. He unplugged it and once he got rid of the lamp, the burning smell in his pillow disappeared. He felt he had been warned for our protection. He has PERSONALLY had experiences with spirits which were very real and palpable - one of those experiences (actually a few) having to do with my grandmother who he barely knew. When he described it, it sounded like my grandmother's personality! Things he did not know! My husband is not *quite* as "churchy" as I would like. He is a rocker....not the classic religious type. (Not that there is a real type). But he is also very sweet and sensitive....puts a lot of feeling into his playing. He's comparable to Jeff Beck or Satriani. (Guitarist). The point is - I've witnessed HIS experiences as he related them to me. I had confirmations of the same only in different ways at the same times of what he also experienced. He was actually even possessed once, but a spirit along with a girl friend at the same time. Could he have been tripping?? I suppose its possible! : ) (At that time period). But he had psychic tendencies. We have actually been in each others dreams before. We have what I call a literal spiritual connection. In fact, I felt like I'd known him before when we met. I was exactly what he'd imagined meeting (a small town innocent) and oddly enough, though i grew up in a small podunk town, had always felt like I was going to be associated in some way with someone connected to fame. In saying that I'm not bragging. I was scared of him when we first met and he told me he'd been flown out to audition for KISS the year before we'd met. (Then found out he'd played on Wildflower..) Could sound like malarky, but I have met David Foster - had dinner at his house in Malibu. We saw him in 97, 2000 during the rehearsal for the Dem. convention, and then he was here in 2006 for the "Pure Fashion" show here in Atlanta. (Have met others, so its not B.S.). My favorite song is "Hymn for the Dudes" by Mott the Hoople. (Cross over shame, like the wise dove, who cares not for fame, just for shy love....,etc.) Great song. Just some examples....

Consciousness is a tricky subject...something I've always had fun with my entire life....

When I was 8 years old...I learned how to lucid dream (to be aware of the fact that you are dreaming and be able to consciously control your dreams) . Constant nightmares forced me to realize when I was dreaming so I could wake myself up and escape the terror. Then from that I learned to realize I was dreaming in normal dreams, and I started experimenting. After countless dreams I realized that no matter what I did, dreams never seemed less real to me than real life. I could have detailed conversations with people in my dreams, and do everything I could in real life...the only difference was that I could also do things that normally are impossible in real life.

Being somewhat of an extremist...one of my favorite things to do was jump off of the highest thing I could find in my dreams. I loved the rush I would get from free falling. Later in life when I bungee jumped, I got the same exact feeling from free falling...and it really made me wonder as I never fell from any heights before in real life to know that's what it really felt like.

For a while, even with lucid dreaming, I just accepted dreams as my brain making up a false reality for me to be in. But then I realized that I would never be able to prove that I'm not doing the same thing while I'm awake...and I knew that I could very well just be making reality up...and that's where it started getting pretty confusing. How could I ever prove that I'm really awake and not just dreaming? I would even tell people in my dreams that this was just a dream and they would laugh at me and not believe me...and I would argue with them trying to convince them but apparently I was the only one who knew I was dreaming.

I know this is a little off topic but I think it has connections with the soul and spiritual realms...as those are very hard to prove to anyone who didn't experience it for themselves...and even then it could be regarded as a hallucination...

Point well taken. However, if I burn a dandelion into ash, it's dead ash. And if I scatter the ash it's even less what it was than before. If our 'soul' cannot be destroyed in the same sense that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only converted, what would our soul be converted to, would it be conscious matter or the same as the ash from a burned dandelion? I've considered that our 'souls' in this sense are effectively batteries and the energy gets released into the world when someone passes away. But that's a lot different than conscious thoughts and sentience. I don't think what remains of us is sentient.

Jeanie: I would disagree with that. Our spirits (souls are what make up the body and spirit together) have intelligence and are in actuality more who we are than our brains....(At least when in tune with that self). The same sociality which exists in this life will continue. We believe you can have eternal marriage and family relationships. I've actually had times when I felt more my spirit self than my bodily self....the love I felt for myself was hard to explain...but it emanated out as well. It wasn't the conceited or self centered kind.... Sounds weird, happened inside a temple where its very very reverent and spiritual. I'll never forget the experience,though. I was seeing a different person in the mirror...only it was me - the real me.

I use to have regular dreams that I was flying....like just drifting around..

Maybe we all live in the Matrix

What we are talking about are two whole different levels of viewing the same process, the real difference between "micro" and "macro" evolutions. There is no stretch or jump.

One of these view levels is within a species population, such as one of the "lawns" of bacteria grown in the experiment. At this level we see change in hereditary traits in populations over time: an e.coli. bacteria that is susceptible to the T4 phage has offspring - later generations - that have evolved a trait the parent generation (of one) did not have: resistance to the T4 phage. But if this was all there was to the process of evolution, then you could never have more types of life in one geological age than you had in a previous geological age, and with extinctions, you would be fighting a losing numbers game. There is another key element that takes a larger view to understand.

The other view level is outside all the species populations, looking at all the different populations and the way they each evolve in comparison to the others (even though ALL evolution occurs within each species). At this level we see species evolving to be sufficiently different from older generations that they seem to be like a different species, what is called "arbitrary speciation", although we may not have concurrent populations with the older varieties to say for sure (hence arbitrary). This is useful in talking about long lineages where there are noticeable (to us) differences, however nature itself doesn't worry about such distinctions. We see this with the e.coli. evolution and then the T4 phage evolution, and if we keep the experiment going then we will see similar changes with each one, and that some populations the e.coli. may die out (go extinct).

But this is not all we see, we also, occasionally, see different populations splitting apart and becoming distinct different species, what is called "non-arbitrary speciation", because there is a clear division: in these cases we can clearly identify a parent common ancestor population, and two or more non-interbreeding daughter populations. There is now no force or pressure to keep these daughter populations similar, all the selection pressures will operate on each population differently due to their having non-common mutations since they diverged, and they are free to diverge more and more over time as they accumulate more and more mutations that are advantageous in their respective - but different - environments.

What is a "higher" life form?

Enjoy.

Not true.

Micro-evolution (which is not evolution at all but a form of adaptation) expresses attributes that are already expressed in the genes.

So, there is all the difference in the world between the two. In fact, they are as different as creationism and evolutionism.

If you're going to be intellectually honest, you have to—at the very least—admit that science does not know if these expressions already exist. Your position is (again) based on mammoth assumptions.

My position is based on simple logical deductive reasoning, not observation, so please don't bother responding that my position contradicts itself.

[b]Redefining Evolution: The Grand Retreat Begins (video)[/b]
This is a 10-minute video demonstrating how the compliant media is working together with pop-science to rescue evolution. This video reveals the blatant retreat underway from evolution's original claims.


"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."

—Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].


[b]Our Solar System: Scientific Evidence for Creation (video)[/b]
This video provides scientific information directly from a space sciences engineer that strongly evidences creation. He continues by providing statements by evolutionists that clearly reveal their inability to reconcile even the most fundamantal scientific information regarding our solar system. An excellent video for all to watch.

Thanks Russ, but wrong.

Curiously YOU are not a biologist, and biologist get to define the terms used in their science. We've been over this before: you get to use the definitions used in the science or you are talking nonsense. At best. Here is a refresher of what evolutionary biologists say that evolution is, with "micro" and "macro" included:

From The University of Michigan Biology Dept.:
Notice that these two definitions look at the same process from different levels, one genetic and one looking at the broad spectrum of life and all it's diversity.

Since you raise this subject, then it is fair to point out that if you are intellectually honest you will

(a) learn and use the biological science definitions of evolution,

(b) recognize, as many other creationists do (including AiG) that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generations to generations - is an ongoing process in all life today,

(c) recognize that speciation - the division of a parent population into non-interbreeding daughter populations - is a process that has been observed many times, in the field as well as in the lab,

(d) agree that the issue is NOT whether evolution and speciation are natural processes that occur in the world today, but that Common Ancestry is the issue: how many and how long ago, and finally,

(e) that the natural history of this planet provides information, objective evidence, that shows what actually occurred, so this can be studied to determine the reality of the diversity of life on earth.

And you might start making posts that aren't full of ad hominems and other logical fallacies, but that may be too much to ask for in one go.

Actually, experiments such as the ones Russel2 has discussed do provide that information, and the conclusion is no, there is no pre-adaptation reservoir of information to tap into. Some die and some don't, yet both come from the same parent, and the parent population dies when subject to the T4 Phage.

Again, this is false. Evolution Science is based on evidence: the everyday evidence of changing hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- the fact that there is not a species living today that is not undergoing evolution, and the historical evidence we have from the fossil record, etc.

Sadly such video's are absolutely worthless sources for providing information about the real world, as they have the factual foundation of science fiction, and anything can be made up to look convincing.

The way you judge the validity of theories is by testing them against the objective evidence of reality.

And this highlights another common misconception people have about science: that having evidence for a concept is enough. You can find evidence that the earth is flat, but that does not make it so.

Sadly, the problem is that you need to explain all the evidence, including the evidence that seems to contradict your position.

Tanned people having white babies contradicts your previous claim that tanning was hereditary. Instead skin color of offspring correlates with hereditary traits for skin color of the parents, showing that the skin color of the offspring is inherited in the genes from the parents.

You have an opportunity to learn something about reality. Will you take it?

Enjoy.

Hi LindaLou

With respect, what conclusions do I seem to be leaping to?

To the conclusion that natural phenomena which are currently unexplained are supernatural. I have no problem with leaving open the possibility that there may be some ‘supernatural’ things going on in the world but we need to keep in the front of our minds that such a finding would be absolutely without precedent. There are many phenomenon that we don’t understand at the moment but to date not a single phenomenon has ever been shown, by good evidence, to be of supernatural origins. Maybe that will change in the future but if history is any guide it’s at least highly improbable. The more likely outcome of this research will be that we find new natural phenomenon that we did not formerly understand.

Just as in the past lightning was shown to have nothing at all to do with angry god’s we will probably find that what underlies so many potentially supernatural phenomenon today will turn out to have a mundane cause that we simply don’t understand yet.

My experience with ghosts is about as productive as yours; the source of the phenomenon seems to be located within the heads of those describing the phenomenon IMHO at least among all of the ghost believers I have yet come into contact with.

I think it's safe to say that if a phenomenon like ghosts has been reported regularly for thousands of years, something is going on here.

I’m sure there’s something going on the question is is it going on in outside the heads of those reporting such encounters? I’d like to see some evidence for that before I put much time into exploring the idea of ghosts.

That doesn't mean we can be sure we know what ghosts are or what physical rules are involved in their manifestation.

I would suggest that is a massive understatement of the limitations of our knowledge of ghosts.

They could simply be psychic imprints on some kind of invisible medium which sensitive people can "pick up."

Does that statement actually mean anything? What is a ‘psychic imprint’ and what sort of medium do you suspect could be involved that can’t be detected by any instrument we have ever invented?

I would like to see scientific investigations into this area but it's a tricky one because you can't make a ghost appear inside a lab at will.

That’s true, it is difficult but if ghosts exist there must be some method by which they interact with our space time dimensions if they exist outside them or some way in which they hide their presence in it if they cohabit it with us. All of these are areas in which science (physics in particular) could be brought to bear but someone has to find some rational framework on which to base these investigations before they can even start. Do you have any idea how it could work?

I would claim that black holes break the rules as we understand them. No one is able to describe what a singularity is, and all equations break down when one is reached. I don't see many people claiming that black holes are therefore impossible though.

Beyond the event horizon they exceed the abilities of modern physics to explain in any great depth though we have some insights from the likes of Hawking on what goes on behind that mask. Outside the event horizon their behaviour is well modelled and understood, we can and have modelled them, observed and measured them. Ghosts on the other hand have no theoretical framework what so ever to explain them. While with black holes there are well defined limits beyond which we can’t explain their behaviour with ghosts it’s all outside the limits of our models and our understanding. That is a major difference I would suggest.

And heck, string theory -- where's the evidence for that? Why do some people accept string theory as a possibility yet reject something like the possibility of the existence of ghosts?

String ‘theory’ is a hypothesis, it has not been proven though people are working on it. People accept it as possible because it does accurately describe observable phenomenon though at this stage it doesn’t do so in enough detail to be tested verses the currently accepted theories. Ghost theory does not make any predictions that I have ever heard of and it certainly doesn’t explain the observations any better than many alternative theories based in human psychology. And psychology has the distinct advantage (ala Sir William) that we know people exist, that they are subject to illusions and delusions, that they lie and invent stories and that they like to believe in scary things that go bump in the night regardless of whether there’s any truth to them at all.

Maybe ghosts would help us understand more about how the world works. Maybe our picture isn't complete.

That’s true but science has often wasted a great deal of effort chasing crackpot ideas that have no basis in reality what so ever. How can we be sure that ghosts are not such an idea without first finding some evidence?

I’ve read a little of Sheldrake’s work and I suspect that there is a much simpler reason why he finds so much opposition to his work among main stream scientists. I don’t believe in the mega conspiracy theories that so many suggest are behind the opposition to such work, I don’t even buy the bias against supernatural angle, I think the real reason is far simpler, I suspect that the majority of scientists disagree with him because the evidence does not support his conclusions. Good scientists are very picky about such things.

What I'm talking about, though, is the simple acceptance of reported phenomena as genuine and not all hallucinations or mistakes. If you wanted to claim that a ghost was the spirit of a dead person, then that is a belief.

Let’s take NDE’s as an example for a moment and let me explain my position. I believe that people who claim to have experienced NDE’s really had the experiences they claim in at least many cases. I believe that the evidence clearly shows that the origins of these experiences is internal to the brain of the experiencer. They are not lying, they are not attempting to deceive us, they genuinely had an experience just not the one they may believe they have had.

Likewise with ghosts in many cases at least. Those people really believe what they tell you but then so do those who report orbs etc yet you know that these are, at least sometimes, of mundane origins. I have yet to see any good evidence that any ghost experience is of supernatural origin though the exact source of many is difficult to tie down.

The point of the flat earth example was simple, commonly held beliefs are not necessary based in truth. You are correct that people were reasonable to conclude, from the evidence they had to hand, that the earth was flat, but they were still wrong.

Many people have concluded that ghosts are real over a very long time, today we have some powerful scientific tools available to add evidence to these ideas. Many such tools have been employed yet no evidence is forthcoming. Like the gods of the gaps ghosts now inhabit less and less accessible realms as they attempt to hide from scientific scrutiny as more and more tests show that there is no evidence for them.

By the way, what interests me about NDEs is that some people who have had them have accurately described what people in the room were doing, and others have also been able to describe what people in other rooms were doing. These claims were confirmed by the people present, who also confirmed that the person experiencing the NDE was unconscious with their eyes shut. Even if they were "peeking," they would not have been able to describe events in adjoining rooms. The only way you can "get around" this interesting phenomenon is to dismiss it as delusion or lies in 100% of cases. I do not believe that is logical.

It is not illogical to suggest that a rarely reported phenomenon that would have to break many well established laws of physics if it were found to be real probably does not exist and those who claim otherwise are probably deluded or worse. I’ve read of a number of studies in which secret objects were hidden in emergency rooms out of sight of the people in the room but in plain sight of any disembodied spirits taking up the typically described top down viewing position. No one has ever correctly identified one of those objects. I’ve seen many claimed NDE viewings debunked by accurately looking at the circumstances and what was claimed. I’ve never seen any good evidence for people remote viewing the goings on in another room while they were apparently experiencing an NDE so I’ll have to leave that one till someone can show me the evidence. Do you have any good evidence for any of these claimed phenomenon?

All the best Linda

Russell

Hi Jeanie

I’ve never heard of people ‘seeing’ their unborn child unless they were lying on a bed with an ultrasound machine next to it. It should be easy enough to prove however, at least if they have any artistic abilities. The problem is that, given how our gene’s work, there’s a pretty good chance they could guess reasonably accurately what their child may look like so I’m not sure it would prove much.

Another example: My husband has dreams he goes down in a plane wreck, for instance. (Different situation, but same principle). He has had these dreams at least 10 times since I've been married to him...probably more. He tells me of the nightmare when he awakens. Its very graphic, he smells the gas, completely "has" the experience. Then - and it has happened every time, we later hear (within a day or so) that a plane wreck has occurred!

This is a classic case Jeanie. Do you know how many plane crashes there are in the US in any given week? It’s somewhere around 20 with around 20% of them being fatal accidents. If he dreamed that dream every night he would not account for all of them.

He also recently kept smelling a burning smell in his pillow. It happened a few nights. For some reason he went downstairs one night smelling burning and a lamp that had been left on was smelling like it was about to erupt. He unplugged it and once he got rid of the lamp, the burning smell in his pillow disappeared.

Or maybe he just has a good nose? Smells travel and warm ones rise so if the lamp was down stairs then the smell would rise up towards your bed room.

Of course none of that means that he isn’t getting messages from some supernatural source just that he wouldn’t need to be to account for these experiences.

All the best

Russell

Hi Russell,

I've had this exact conversation before. What it seems to boil down to is what someone is willing to consider as worthy of scientific investigation. I also believe there is a degree of closed-mindedness in some people which can be fronted with every skeptical argument in the book, thus explaining all "paranormal" experiences away as wishful thinking, delusion, etc. And to an extent this is necessary because yes, wishful thinking and delusion do happen. Interestingly, I often see these attitudes in ex-creationist-turned-atheists: people bitter about the pseudoscience they were taught all their lives and who want to distance themselves from that as far as possible. IMO it is the area between both polarities which tells us the most about the world we live in.

Notice you will not see me using the word "supernatural." I pointed out in my previous post that I think phenomena like ghosts are natural but unexplained. IMO the "supernatural" is a term which applies to the spiritual -- gods, souls of dead people, etc. I don't know if ghosts are the souls of dead people, I don't know what they are, but I think there's plenty of evidence of their existence, and that is something physical which can be studied. It's possible that at least some of the phenomena are generated by the minds of living people in some unconscious way, and it would be interesting to find out how that might occur.



I'm sure they must have appreciated being told that it's all in their heads and that you cannot accept their testimony

My husband's family's account is an interesting one. Unfortunately when I describe it to self-proclaimed skeptics, after some discussion they all decide that they won't accept the possibility that this is what really happened and they use all old excuses on the list, which is OK for them if they don't know the people involved. I do, and I've listened to all of their accounts, and I think something unusual did happen. I would probably be told I'm being too gullible or that I am employing wishful thinking. I would in turn say that an absolute denial of the possibility of such things is closed-minded dogmatism. At the end of the day, though, if a few people are allowed to study these phenomena seriously and without ridicule, it will do no harm and could possibly enhance our understanding of the world. People like James Randi and his own agenda don't help matters.



If such a phenomenon could not currently be detected by scientific instruments, this would not be proof of its non-existence. It is also entirely possible that the intruments we do have could give us some helpful information if they were actually in use when a ghostly experience occurred. Unfortunately, when someone experiences a ghost, it is usually an unexpected event and they usually don't have scientific instruments to hand to grab and use.

"Recordings ghosts" have been reported for millennia. These are cases where different people witness non-interactive ghostly scenes which are the same time after time, like a film being played back. One of my favourites is the Roman army observed in the York Treasurer's House. The young man who saw them most recently described their uniforms and his claims were initially dismissed by historians who said that he'd made some mistakes. Upon further research, it was discovered that the uniforms of the soldiers in that particular area were unusual, and that the description given by the young man actually was accurate. You could easily explain it away if you wanted to, you could claim that the young man knew all along what he was doing and that he was out to deceive. I think that's unlikely, but at any rate I would not hold up a single case as definitive proof. When you get thousands of similar cases, then it's maybe time to admit that something interesting is going on and that someone should try to study it.

How to study? It's a difficult one, and I'm not a scientist so I'm not the best person to ask. I did what I could myself, by going out and trying to find physical evidence -- but these kinds of phenomena don't tend to appear on demand.

I wouldn't mind seeing an old-fashioned table-turning seance set up in a lab. Under controlled conditions you could observe what happens, maybe measure people's brain waves, take EMF readings. I'd also be interesting in what happens to the body and brain of a poltergeist "focus" in their own house, while events are occurring. Also, the areas in which hauntings have repeatedly been reported could be investigated. They may have some similarities. Again, an idea of mine is that EMFs could somehow be involved, and possibly water. It's a shame I don't have the means or the knowledge to investigate these things myself. I am not mechanically inclined.



OK, accusations that he is a "crackpot" because his research is not mainstream, aside, it is incorrect to say that the evidence does not support his conclusions. He is a methodical and thorough scientist and has published all of his results and how he arrived at them. If you like I can give you some links to look up. He has had to be as transparent and painstaking as possible, in his randomization methods for instance, because he knows that he will be under intense scrutiny from "debinkers" wanting to rubbish anything "paranormal." All "paranormal" researchers deal with this kind of scrutiny and few other fields endure it in quite this way.

Why don't you look into one of Sheldrake's longest-running bodies of research: animal telepathy, the best known one being "dogs that know when their owners are coming home." Robert Wiseman, a self-proclaimed skeptic, has repeated the experiments himself and has come up with similar results to Sheldrake. He denied it at first and publicly lied that this was so -- which he retracted only a few months ago, after the world had already heard him declare loudly that it was all nonsense.

As for NDEs, that is an area I don't know a lot about, but again why dismiss it out of hand if there's a possibility of something to be learned? Maybe, maybe not, but we don't know until we investigate. Upon doing a search this morning, I found this site, which I thought was interesting. It mentions the idea of memories possibly being stored outside the brain and doesn't reference Sheldrake directly, but this is one of his studies as well, which ties into the morphic fields idea.

I have a bad habit of making these kinds of conversations get longer and longer until they are unwieldy for all involved, so I will stop there. I suspect we're never going to agree on this but what I would at least ask is to see a little bit of open-mindedness, a willingness to entertain the possibility that some of the phemonena often referred to as "paranormal" might be worthy of serious investigation, even if the result of the investigation is only to confirm that nothing unusual at all is happening and everyone involved really was deluded (which I freely admit can happen).

Hey hey, LindaLou.

I think the real problem comes in when other people are asked to accept the experiences of another. IMO even if what your husband experienced was a bona fide ghost visitation, the only people who can believe/accept your story, logically speaking, are people who simply want to believe/accept it. Having not been witness to the event myself I cannot accept your claims (I can only say maybe) any more than I can accept some other random story from anyone else. At the end of the day it's all anecdotal. Studying things like black holes on the other hand is a lot more tangible (by comparison) and the decision to study these things has a clear direction: that is, if I want to know more about them I have a credible outlet with which to pursue that avenue.

Ultimately none of it is a denial that ghosts and other such phenomenon may indeed exist and it's interesting that some branches of scientists actually make an effort to learn about these things. But as a personal rule I would rather explore things which have at least some answers and some measure of credible research supporting it (such as black holes).

One question to consider might be: in the pursuit of studying the phenomenon of ghosts and NDEs, based on what does a person decide to either research it as factual events or mere psychological delusions? (Arguably one could do both but they're two very different branches of science.)

Some interesting questions here, Mordred.

Anecdotal evidence . . . it's developed a bad name. It is, of course, fraught with difficulties. People might be hallucinating, they might be mistaken, they might remember incorrectly what they actually saw or heard. And even an entire group of people who insist they all saw, e.g. a statue of Mary weep blood, could be hallucinating or wrong about what it was they saw.

However -- that is not good enough reason to dismiss it out of hand, as many people do. This is because anecdotal evidence can also contain the truth. And if you dismiss all of it, you could be ignoring the truth as well. As tricky a business as it might be, I think it could well be worthwhile sometimes go to through that sifting process and try to find what might be the actual facts in the case. And indeed we do this in other areas. Witness testimony is accepted in court. The "soft" sciences such as sociology and psychology must also accept a degree of anecdotal evidence or else they would not be learning about the people they're supposed to be studying. It certainly has the potential to be worthwhile.

What's more, when the anecdotal evidence grows over a large period of time into a sizeable body with a great deal of internal consistency, that is potentially some very useful evidence. There's a website I like to refer to which refutes some of the usual claims of uber-skeptics and it contains a list of criteria you can use to judge whether anecdotal data might be valid. I can link if you like, or paste the list here. There's also a really good podcast on the subect, and they interview paranormal researchers and people from CSICOP. Fair warning, the host shares my opinions.

People also tend to claim that anecdotal evidence is the only evidence we have for certain "paranormal" phenomena, which is not true. There have been many studies done on the topic of human consciousness, ESP, telekinesis, that kind of thing. The Ganzfeld experiments are a good example. The usual CSICOP crowd have tried very hard to debunk these and like to fall back on their favourite card, not randomized well enough. However, if you look at the claims and counter-claims, you will see that no one has been able to poke a big hole in the findings of the experiments (that human telepathy exists).



If all you have to go on is anecdotal evidence, then the reliability of the witnesses is something you have to take into consideration. One reason why I believe my husband and his family when they tell me about what happened in this house years ago is because they are unassuming, down-to-earth, reasonable people. My sister-in-law is a geology professor. None of them tend to talk about these things unless you ask them, and then they will tell you that it was simply "odd."

The problem with not accepting the possibility of any "paranormal" phenomena until you experience them yourself is that many people do not experience them, and it does seem that it requires a degree of open-mindedness at the outset in order to do so -- maybe it helps a person have a receptive mental state. Is it then OK to ignore everyone else's experiences and say there's nothing worth studying because you personally have not had similar experiences yourself?

I just wanted to chime in about being open-minded to things we don't understand or believe possible.

We discussed earlier the power of belief...and how that the power of belief seemed to make impossible feats possible...

But what about the power of doubt and denial? Do you not think that doubt could have the opposite effect? That of making the possible become impossible?

This is why I think its very important never to rule things out even if you don't believe in them. Leave it open ended if you aren't sure...

Hi gdawson.

But no one in this thread, as I can see, has denied a thing.

Accepting things which cannot be proven is the only close minded thing, IMO. I know the type of person who says ghosts are non-existent, God is an imaginary friend comparable to Santa Claus, etc. But no one has made this kind of statement here.

Even if you experienced them yourself? I would call that very close minded if you experienced something and still weren't willing to believe that it happened, even if you had no way to prove it...

Wait, do you mean prove it to yourself or prove it to others?






Isn't that statement denying possibilities?

Well, I'm talking about other people's experiences. If something happened to me I cannot expect other people to simply blindly accept what I've said.



I don't really mean prove it to anyone, that's not the purpose of my previous posts. I'd like you to make sure you're understanding that I am not denying possibilities - I simply deny that they are certainties.



I believe the poster in question has also acknowledged that he could very well be wrong, so I don't see his statements as being on par with, say, a religious person, or someone stating something as absolute, undenial fact. What is certain however is that I am not closed-mindedly denying the possibility of anything. It is only that I wish to express a preference for investing time in things which I can verify with greater ease.

Hi Russ

Not true.

Actually it is true, the distinction between micro and macro is largely artificial though it is usually blown out of all proportions by creationists who misrepresent what it’s actually about. In short the difference between the two is not in the kinds of changes that they represent, both represent exactly the same sorts of changes, but rather when they occurred. Micro changes that occurred long ago and have since been overlaid by many more micro changes are considered macro today. The reason is simply that, while at the time they occurred they were not dramatic changes for the organisms involved today to make such changes would be virtually impossible while micro changes are observed all the time.

Let me give you an example, today it would be a huge change to alter a lion from 4 legs to 6 legs while maintaining it’s fitness but when these body plan’s were laid down the organisms involved were far smaller and simpler. They had repeating body segments in which the exact number of pairs of legs was variable so changing from 10 to 8 or 4 to 6 was a simple duplication/deletion event and occurred quite a few times that we know of. So at the time these numbers were set in the genomes they were simple micro changes. To make the same change today would be a major or Macro change.

Thus we see the true nature of the macro – micro distinction, macro changes are simply micro changes which occurred a long time ago and which have since been overlaid by many later changes making them seem improbable despite how simple they were at the time they actually occurred.

Micro-evolution (which is not evolution at all but a form of adaptation) expresses attributes that are already expressed in the genes.

OK if that is to be your definition of macro I can accept it for the sake of argument. By your definition then the evolutionary changes observed in those bacterial experiments I related earlier are macro changes as the genetic codes that have evolved under observation did not exist in the original organism. And yes we do know that as the entire genome of the progenitor of those organisms is known so we know what it did and did not contain.

If you're going to be intellectually honest, you have to—at the very least—admit that science does not know if these expressions already exist. Your position is (again) based on mammoth assumptions.

In the bacterial experiments I have explained we do in fact know that these ‘expressions’ did not exist in the progenitors as the genome was fully sequenced and can be resequenced if necessary as froze samples of the originals still exist for exactly this purpose. Further if these adaptations were programmed it seems improbable that every colony put through the process comes up with a unique answer to the challenges. Surely a programmed approach would come up with the same answer at least some percentage of the time. Further no one has ever observed an mechanisms by which such programmed changes could be produced. That’s not to say that such a mechanisms doesn’t exist just that we have no evidence for it’s existence so to postulate it as your answer to explaining the observed facts of evolution is leaping beyond the data at which point people should be asking themselves, why are you trying so hard to push this idea that is not supported by the evidence.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth."

—Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].

That’s a great quote but who actually said it. The original Charles Darwin, author of “Origin of species” could not have written it as he died before molecular biology came into existence so is it a false quote or is it some other ‘Charles Darwin’ who is being misleadingly quoted? It is very poor scholarship to site quotations out of context like that, you should always site back to the original source so that the veracity and context of your quotes can be examined in case someone doubts your sources. There’s a good reason why hearsay is not permitted in a court of law.

A little digging on Google produced a source for the above quotation, it was writing by N.C. Gillespie and was followed by an out of context quotation from Darwin that Gillespie used to illustrate his point. The latter by Darwin has been dropped in this citation of yours Russ and only Gillespie’s words are left yet you attribute them to Darwin. Interesting! You really need to be more careful of your sources Russ.

All the best Russ

In Reason

Russell

This from one who has a whole thread, and at least 3 unsmall sections of other threads dedicated to redefining 'evolution'. Not that I'd say evolutionism has anything other than an antithetical relationship with biology, now, but some try to paint quite another picture.

Anything on the internet, on TV, in books, uh, pretty much anywhere, can be made up to look like this or that. (Anyone who's even moderately familiar with conspiracies knows this quite well.)

That's where verification comes into play. The factual content in many of the videos Russ has posted can be verified to a high degree of confidence without too much trouble.

If you want confirmation, that'd be new evidence. Testing against old evidence is circular. Of course "theories" which fail against even pre-existing evidence are invalid. If only more folks had understood this in Darwin's day, a lot of waste could have been avoided.

Yes, you argue the creationist case fairly strongly, Bugs. If evolutionism could explain the planets, moons, and sun, the video would never have been made. But it cannot, and that excellent video does a good job of making it clear.

But your argument is somewhat flawed. If every theory is required to explain all evidence, we're in trouble. I don't think any theory can cut it. There are a lot of unexplained phenomena.

Now in the given context, you could have been trying to establish an impossible standard for creation science, or you could have simply meant "all relevant evidence". In the latter case you have no argument, so my interpretation leans somewhat against this. Indeed, rather than presenting even the most vague, rambling, pseudo-argument; you chose to change the subject rather abruptly.Has nothing to do with anything under discussion. Nothing whatsoever.

I suggest a less abrupt change of direction next time. This was just too obvious and awkward. Try to consider the kind of example you're setting for your follower.

Hi LindaLou

Yes I’ve had this conversation before too Linda. For the record I have no problem with anyone investigating anything at all that takes their fancy the problems I see appear when they present findings and ask for their acceptance while the evidence is lacking. Don’t present finding that appear for all the world to break the foundational laws of physics with limited evidence or worse yet mostly wishful thinking and complain when people reject your ideas. If you have solid evidence then please go right ahead and present it. I am always open to good evidence.

No I don’t put much stock in anecdotal tales as evidence for extraordinary claims and I won’t comment on individual anecdotal claims as that tends to upset people but show me the evidence and it’s a different story.

I’ve never been a YEC, I have nothing against them or their ideologies other than that their ideas contradict the evidence yet they want to present them as if they are actually valid.

The idea often presented is that the ‘supernatural’ is too weird for sceptics and scientists but I think those who say it have really missed the boat. Have you looked at just how weird some of the findings of Quantum Physics are? They make ghosts look positively ordinary in comparison.

So leaving out the word supernatural and simply putting in unexplained is reasonable. I just think we all need to avoid interpreting any such things in any way until we have enough evidence to formulate a real theory of how they work. That’s where the supernatural crowed falls down IMHO, they leap to conclusions beyond the evidence because they’d like it to be true while the real explanations are probably mundane as you have suggested just beyond our current understanding.

I'm sure they must have appreciated being told that it's all in their heads and that you cannot accept their testimony
True believers in ghosts don’t accept such as even a possibility at least those I’ve spoken too don’t. They are unphased by my comments they just think I’m crazy to think that way.

People like James Randi and his own agenda don't help matters.
I am impressed by what James Randi does though I know he can be abrasive but he really does put the money on the line for anyone who actually believes they can demonstrate something supernatural. And remember that they get to make up the rules so long as they can be tested. They get to say what exactly they can do and how someone could know that they can actually do it. Have you read through the results of his testing? The Australian water diviners tests were just brilliant for example.

They could simply be psychic imprints on some kind of invisible medium which sensitive people can "pick up."
Does that statement actually mean anything? What is a ‘psychic imprint’ and what sort of medium do you suspect could be involved that can’t be detected by any instrument we have ever invented?
If such a phenomenon could not currently be detected by scientific instruments, this would not be proof of its non-existence.
True but you are spelling out a theory of how it might work though I can’t fathom what your explanation actually means. Can you explain it in more detail? What exactly is a ‘psychic imprint’ and how do you envisage this ‘invisble medium’?

It is also entirely possible that the intruments we do have could give us some helpful information if they were actually in use when a ghostly experience occurred. Unfortunately, when someone experiences a ghost, it is usually an unexpected event and they usually don't have scientific instruments to hand to grab and use.
That’s possible though many claimed ghost hunters have taken a huge array of instruments to haunted places and have tried very hard to get readings, some even claim success though I’ve never seen any good evidence of it. Can it be that ghosts don’t want us to look at them with scientific instruments? Or is it more a god of the gaps problem that the more places we look and the more ways we look the smaller the niches in which they are claimed to hide from us. More and more the very very hard to find and the non existent look very alike.

What is EMF?

If you are talking about magnetic fields all you need is a volt meter (about $20 from most electronic stores) and a coil of wire (about $5 from the same store) and a few minutes to wind a coil onto a toilet roll or similar former. Then set it up somewhere and watch the readings as your ‘ghost’ passes or does whatever it does.

I’ve read a little of Sheldrake’s work and I suspect that there is a much simpler reason why he finds so much opposition to his work among main stream scientists. I don’t believe in the mega conspiracy theories that so many suggest are behind the opposition to such work, I don’t even buy the bias against supernatural angle, I think the real reason is far simpler, I suspect that the majority of scientists disagree with him because the evidence does not support his conclusions. Good scientists are very picky about such things.
OK, accusations that he is a "crackpot" because his research is not mainstream, aside, it is incorrect to say that the evidence does not support his conclusions. He is a methodical and thorough scientist and has published all of his results and how he arrived at them.
I visited his website and read a bit on his ideas of morphic fields and their evolution and inheritance in parallel with DNA and the first thing that struck me was that he’s using the word ‘morphic fields’ to account for the quite well understood chemical gradients that guide embryology and the building of nerve pathways within organisms. These are not fields they are simply chemical signatures produced in one part of the forming body and guiding the development of the rest. We can even alter them artificially and predict in detail what effect it will have on the resultant organism. Why does Sheldrake think we need to give a new name to this well understood chemical system and why does he think it requires a morphic field when proteins and DNA can already explain this. It’s not a good start when he misrepresents or misunderstands evolutionary biology 101.

He goes on to claim that morphic fields are heritable yet he has yet to even show that they exist and has given no hints as to how they could be detected or tested. Sir William would be turning in his grave IMHO.

‘fields’ that hold information are a common characteristic of ‘supernatural’ theories but the existence of any field that holds information in the sense it is used here has never been proven nor has any theoretical framework ever been invented to explain how such a field could work. In fact fields may carry information from one place to anther, radio waves are an example of this, but the information does not evolve, it is not active and it does not hang around in any sense waiting for some later events to allow it to return and do something, anything at all. If a morphic field is a true field then the information it contains would be leaving the earth at the speed of light never to return unless it has a physical repository but then we already have physical repositories for such information in main stream science, DNA, neurons etc which seem perfectly capable of holding all such information that we are currently aware of.

Will you do one thing for me Linda, get into some physics literature, not deep stuff just the layman’s stuff or introductory college level stuff, there’s plenty available on the web, and look for a field, any field, that can store in place information without a physical medium in anything like the way that morphic fields are supposed to according to Sheldrake? See if you can find anything that could do the job. I’m not suggesting that you will find Sheldrake morphic field rather I’m suggesting that you will find that no fields know behave anything like the ‘fields’ Sheldrake postulates. What he describes is woo woo in a box designed to flesh out his wild speculations not a field in any meaningful sense of the word.

I’ll keep reading but from the little I’ve done so far it seems very clear that the reason he is rejected by main stream science is because his ideas are not science. He ignores well understood explanations for some phenomenon and posits the existence of undetectable fields that defy the well understood laws of physics and behave in an unprecedented way to explain them. Does that seem a logical position to you Linda?

I have only briefly read through his telepathy experiments and the protocol’s seem very loose to me though I’d be interested to see any well controlled trials of such though all of those I’ve read to date, and it’s a long list, have been disappointing with the results being more and more negative the better controlled and larger the trials which is to me a very telling result. In smaller, less well controlled trials you would expect to get more false positives due simply to the effects of random chance but as the trials get larger and better controlled you would expect to get fewer and fewer false positives and so, unless the effect were real, you would expect the results to head towards zero which is indeed exactly what you find.

The modus operandi of such ‘investigators’ seems to be to run lots and lots of low quality trials then ignore all of those which produced no results and trumpet the findings of those which did. Given that in low quality trials you will get positive results from random chance alone and that you have ignored all of the negative results it starts to look like there really is something to it but this impression evaporates when you reinstate all the trials and weight trials based on the rigor inherent in their designs. It has always been the case with psychic research that the harder you look the less an effect you find in my experience.

I’ve read quite a bit of Dr Morse’s work in the past. There are many problems with his methods and findings I have to say. He finds some very interesting things though such as people who have experienced NDE’s are more generous and loving that those who have not but then that could easily be explained by coming close to death alone. That would surly make most people think harder about what’s important in their lives. Add to that the feeling that many report of the nearness of god and the power of this effect would be magnified many fold even if NDE’s are exactly what they appear to be, the misfiring of an anoxic brain. It’s interesting that many other scientists could produce NDE’s artificially in patients who were not near death yet Morse could not. It suggests to me that his controls were not good controls in that they did not closely mimic the condition of the test subject. Still you are correct, if there’s anything to NDE’s it would be interesting indeed to know what it was.

It mentions the idea of memories possibly being stored outside the brain
Though it cites no evidence at all in favour of this idea just the vague notion that it could fit into the framework that Morse is trying to put together for NDE’s.

and doesn't reference Sheldrake directly, but this is one of his studies as well, which ties into the morphic fields idea.
And of course Sheldrake too could not produce any real evidence for this idea though I’m sure he believes it is true.

Open studies of these phenomenon have already been done, tones of them all with ambiguous or negative results. None to date have shown solid positive results which to me is very suggestive but I have no problems with people doing more research along those lines so long as they do them with true scientific rigor and they are not using my money to do so.

All the best Linda

Russell

Hi Linda

The usual CSICOP crowd have tried very hard to debunk these and like to fall back on their favourite card, not randomized well enough.
Randomization failures cause false positives so if the trials were not randomized correctly then the results are as expected. Is it not reasonable to point out such a glaringly obvious and fatal flaw in a trial?

However, if you look at the claims and counter-claims, you will see that no one has been able to poke a big hole in the findings of the experiments (that human telepathy exists).
Well except to point out that the experiment was run in such a way that it would produce false positives and Blackmore’s observations of direct tampering with the results in one lab and the fact that duplicate experiments failed to produce the same findings in fact they produced the expected 25% hit rate that chance alone predicts. For a scientific paper that’s damning and would get you thrown out of any reputable scientific publishers office.

Russell

Linda, hi there.



I understand what you mean. Much like conspiracy theories earning a bad name. It's probably a lot easier to launch a conspiracy when most of the world will think you're a quack for exposing them. But I think it's a sheer case of numbers. Most instances of ghost sightings are false claims (be they due to delusions or hoaxes) just as most conspiracy theories are false claims. Because of this, any real claims which come into existence already have an uphill battle. When and if it happens to me I'd like to think I would steer my anger in the direction of the hoaxers and the deluded before I get angry for people not believing me.



I'll check it out. Admittedly it's something I know nothing about. Do feel free to drop me the other link you mentioned.



I understand what you mean. Often times it's clear who the basket cases are when claiming alien visitations, bigfoot sightings and so on just by watching them during their interviews. Then when someone completely rational and level-headed shows up with a similar claim it does indeed make one want to consider it.

But that's all I can do is consider. I cannot say "Yes, you are right. I believe you 100%." How can I? Anger and vehemence permeates the world of belief because nobody wants to be told they are wrong. If someone close to me told me (in person) a story like the one above I would have a hard time saying I think they are wrong or I think it was something else which is perfectly and scientifically explainable. The reason being, I don't want to insult them or hurt their feelings. But just as doubts that they are wrong linger in my head, doubts that they are right will also be there too. And I think that's the most open minded approach. For me to blindly accept someone's claims that they were abducted by aliens, regardless of how rational a person they may be, would be as closed minded as blindly denying them.

I subbed today, oddly enough, for the same teacher as last year the same exact day we showed the same video on Darwin..... It is simple and basic and talks about how all life is related. I'm thinking, so? How is this proof against the creation? Even the fact that little finches had different beaks...so? Then they mentioned how they didn't want it attached to any dogma or creed, yet it does seem to be turned into a religion to me. They finished it with how this is the best information we have and it keeps being verified in other fields (like molecular biology, etc.) That biology is pretty much evolutionary biology. I honestly still do not for the life of me see it as convincing. It makes so much more sense to think SOMEONE set it all up....We just happen to be in just the perfect place in the solar system to sustain life. Did the little bugs jump up and down and shift us there? I guess it all happened by chance? Call me simple, but it is more logical to me - it actually adds up in the big picture to believe in creation. The timing doesn't matter. It happened.....

Mordred: For me to blindly accept someone's claims that they were abducted by aliens, regardless of how rational a person they may be, would be as closed minded as blindly denying them.

Jeanie: I can't resist..... When I was about 13 in my experimental days, I was out in the country on what we called "hogmonster road." Honestly, we were smoking pot. (I dabbled but didn't stay in that lifestyle very long...could see it would take me nowhere and my brother just died last year from smoking all that time both pot and cigarettes...very sad). Anyway, we were sitting there and in the sky I saw this light that was moving around erratically. I freaked....I was scared to death I was going to be abducted. That same night it was in the paper. A lot of people saw it. I BELIEVE in extra-terrestirals : ) I'm convinced what I saw was one.

My husband saw one really close up down in FL at the same time there were tons of reports there, too. Something was gliding down through the waterways and zoomed off. His description is a lot more vivid and detailed.

You seem to me like you're caught up in a "cool" image to be honest. As much as you may deny it.

We could end up moving to Missouri!!! What part did you say you're from (if you did). I have mixed feelings but its so beautiful there. I would love rural after living in the Atlanta area. Just to keep it interesting, we actually believe the garden of Eden was originally in Missouri! And that the New Jerusalem (one of Jesus' headquarters, obviously the other IN Jerusalem...where He will rule) will be in Missouri. Oddly enough!! It is "God's country." Lush rolling hills. I'd live close to where my grandmother lived where I lived as a little girl, too, for a time down 44 W from St. Louis. (Rolla area). Hope you're doing well. Been subbing a lot. School must be starting soon, eh? Probably should've emailed you...

Not trying to be difficult Jeanie but...

Creationism might seem simple and more logical to you,

but Evolution seems more logical and simple to me

You gotta remember that we are trained to think what is normal and logical, we are not born with it...we are taught and learn to think in certain ways as we grow up and develop.

I'm not saying creationism is wrong, or evolution is right, but that logic will vary depending on the circumstances. I'm well aware that I've been taught evolution was the way it happened and it makes sense to me, but I know that I could have also been raised to believe just the opposite.

If something comes up that makes me feel like I need to drop my belief in evolution and believe in creationism then I would certainly do it, but for now when I imagine how life came into being I can easily imagine it going from very simple life and over eons gradually getting more and more complex...

Still trying to play "hide the pea," eh CTD?

Not "redefining" CTD, but providing alternative definitions that all mean the same thing. It is the meaning, after all, that is important, rather than how you say it, and it seems that many creationists (you and Russ included) don't seem to understand or use a proper definition of evolution, so one needs to try alternatives to help improve understanding.

We also have had a long discussion about how much difference there is in the definitions used, and you were unable to point out any differences. This failure on your part to demonstrate any difference in effect means that your claim is false. Perhaps you would like to try this time to do so, as without your provision of any actual differences it seems all you are left with is claiming something that is (a) nothing more than your misunderstanding of what evolution is, or (b) false.

Yes, you never try to insinuate, or imply by innuendo anything, rather than actually provide something of substance that you could actually substantiate with real evidence.

Anyone familiar with the falsehoods in advertising in general, and political ads in particular, knows this as well.

And yet, curiously, you don't provide any. Perhaps you would like to post some now, or do we again play the game of adding to the list (mountain) of unsubstantiated claims made by CTD that amount to nothing better than ad hoc fantasy so long as they remain unsubstantiated?

The claim about a lack of transitional fossils is false, and quoting Gould (and others) as done in one video is nothing more than standard creationist quote mining and misrepresentation.

Not quite true, CTD: testing against the evidence used to develop the theory would be circular, but any other evidence can be used to test it. Thus you can develop a theory based on observation of life existing today, and test that theory against the evidence of life that existed in the fossil record.

And, of course, every new fossil find is "new" evidence that did not exist when the theory was formed.

And, as you point out, new evidence, such as the whole field of genetics (which was totally unknown in Darwin's day), can substantiate or invalidate a theory. The problem for you is that genetics substantiates the evolution of species from common ancestors in a way that matches the relationships developed from the fossil record to an astounding degree.

There is no evidence existing today that contradicts the theory of evolution, none, and that is the test of theories: contradiction by evidence.

Perhaps you can provide some of this pre-existing evidence that you think invalidates evolution (keeping in mind that your understanding of evolution has not been shown to match what is used in the science of evolutionary biology).

But the fact remains that in considering the validity of any theory you need to look at all the evidence, because you do not know what will invalidate the theory by providing some contradiction. The explanation provided by a theory, though, is necessarily limited to what the theory says.

For instance the theory of evolution can be stated as the theory that the diversity of life is due to (1) evolution, the changes in hereditary traits in populations of organisms from generation to generation, through mechanisms that include mutation and natural selection, and (2) speciation, the division of life forms by reproductive isolation and the subsequent accumulation of different evolutionary changes in different environments.

You can look at a rock and test to see if it is affected by evolution: it is not a living organism, and so the theory of evolution explains that there are no offspring that have different hereditary traits.

You can look at the moon and test to see if it is affected by evolution: it is not a living organism, and so the theory of evolution explains that there are no offspring that have different hereditary traits.

Certainly, if rocks and moons did have offspring that showed different hereditary traits, then the theory of evolution would be severely weakened as an explanation of the diversity of life, as it could be due to the same process that was affecting the rocks and the moons.

But no, the theory of evolution does not explain the orbit of the moon, because the theory does not talk about orbits, but about the changes in living organisms. The theory of gravity explains the orbit of the moon, and it does not explain the changes in living organisms ... however the two theories combined explain the behavior of many organisms that, among other things, mate when there is a full moon, an explanation that is incomplete without both of these theories.

The theory of evolution explains that these objects are not affected by biological evolution because they are not living. Thus the sun giving birth to a sunlet would be a surprising development.

Which is what makes science so much fun: trying to explain what has not been explained before. Certainly the "job" is not done, so of course there are many "unexplained" phenomena.

Except that you do not get to "cherry-pick" the evidence. That is why you need to look at all the evidence and see (a) how it is affected by the theory (does the theory predict any behavior of the evidence that can be tested to see if it happens), and (b) how the theory is affected by the evidence (does the evidence contradict a prediction of the theory - do the behavior of rocks and moons and stars contradict the theory of evolution).

Except that it relates directly to a previous misunderstanding of evolution, a claim that was made by Russ (and supported by you), in spite of the fact that the concept was falsified long ago.

Here we are, again, discussing what evolution really is, and how it is misunderstood by many creationists, you and Russ included, and that such misunderstandings render the comments made about evolution irrelevant, and thus evidence of such misunderstanding is relevant.

Enjoy

Hi Jeanie

I agree that pointing out that life is related, even all related to a single common ancestor, is not an argument against creation just against a creator that specially created all ‘kinds’ separately. God could have created that first kind as Darwin suggested in Origins and left the rest to the evolutionary forces we now observe. Why not he’s claimed to be all powerful and all knowing so he has to be capable of getting things started then sitting back and watching it all unfold to his plan. By definition he must be. Is it not an insult to him to suggest that he could not have done so, that he must have created each kind individually, that he is so limited that he could not use evolution as his means of creation?

If evolutionary theory is a religion then so is gravitation. Do you really believe that? Do you know of anyone who is doubting gravitation?

And yes the ideas of Darwin gain support from a whole range of different disciplines of science all working from different sources of information yet all turning up the same answer, Darwin was right. It’s exactly what you would expect of a true theory. The levels of support that it has gained from so many disparate fields of science is way beyond the support we have for universal gravitation though I don’t see anyone calling gravity ‘just a theory’ well except for the flat earthers but then not many people take them seriously.

It makes so much more sense to think SOMEONE set it all up

Which of course raises the problem of where did this someone come from? Lets face it every someone that you or I have ever known came from somewhere so there’s good precedence for this question. It is our everyday experience and the most logical conclusion that everyone came from somewhere. Do you have any thoughts on who might have created god? And why and how they did so and who created them etc?

....We just happen to be in just the perfect place in the solar system to sustain life.

Well obviously, it would truly be a miracle if we were elsewhere now wouldn’t it. It’s hardly proof of god that we find ourselves in a life friendly location because we would not exist to notice if it were not so. If we did find ourselves in a location that could not sustain life now that would be good proof of god.

I guess it all happened by chance?

Please explain to me how it could be any other way? How could we evolve in a location that was not friendly to life? The only place we could possibly find ourselves in a naturalistic setting is a life friendly location. If there are such places in the universe then that’s where you would expect to find life if there was no god. If there were no such places in the universe then you would not expect to find life capable of noticing that it could not find a niece in the universe. It would only support the god idea over the naturalistic idea if we found ourselves in a location incapable of supporting life yet we continued to survive and thrive. That, obviously, is not the case.

Call me simple, but it is more logical to me

Sit down and think about what you have just said Jeanie? Tell me how it could be possible that we could find ourselves in a life hostile location? Even without god how could that ever happen? Tell me why you think, if this is a god less naturalistic universe, that we should be surprised to find ourselves in a location that is friendly to life? Do you see the glaring hole in the logic you have used here Jeanie?

A naturalistic view of the universe says that life will only arise in locations friendly to life and that’s where we are. Only with the power of a god could we expect life to exist in a location incapable of supporting it.

In Reason

Russell

Hi Jeanie

As far as the creation, Russell, there was, first, a spiritual creation and then physical.

I’ve heard this story before, true or not it doesn’t get around the obvious contradiction between the plain words of the bible and what we know today from modern science about the origins of this planet and the life it contains. The two can not be reconciled in any way that I have yet seen but if you have a better answer please present it.

Of course that isn't going to make sense to someone who doesn't even believe WE have spirits.

I can understand the logical idea of many things I don’t believe are real, fiction stories, especially sci fi would make little sense otherwise.

As far as the order and what can and can't be....I guess you were there???

Do you really believe that I needed to be? Is there no other way you can imagine for us to understand the past? That’s a very very limiting point of view given that the vast majority of this planet’s history and of the universe’s history occurred before there were any such thing as people according to all the best evidence. Reality is we have no choice but to look for other methods of understanding the past, methods no based in human records and memories.

And I don't think your interpretation is right anyway.

You’ll have to explain what you think I’ve interpreted incorrectly.

I just found an excellent article. Actually I've copied it on here before. If either of you care to read it....you must read it very carefully, but it goes into more of an explanation of the creation and its purposes. It's about a page long. Give it a go.....

I’ve read the ‘philosophy’ behind the LDS church before, I used to have neighbours who were LDS well they were till the met me, he dropped out soon after though she is still a member I believe. I can’t say I found any of it compelling. As with this article it explained why you’d like things to be a certain way but it doesn’t touch on the really compelling evidence we have that shows us that the world is not that way. That’s what I found when I was first presented with their publications, you have to ignore a whole lot of really solid, well established evidence, to see the world from the LDS viewpoint and I’m not that good at ignoring evidence, I just cant do it.

All the best Jeanie.

Russell

P.S. it is not at all sad to see the world from a scientific, atheistic viewpoint, it is uplifting to understand that we are the latest products of over 3 billion years of success. Not one of our ancestors for all that time failed to make a living, find a mate and reproduce. That’s quite a lineage. Further it is uplifting to understand that we are made of the stuff of stars that the matter we consist of was born in the heart of stars that existed billions of years before this planet came into existence. We really are star stuff that has gained the power to understand the matter of the universe which gave birth to us.

A man after my own heart.

That isn't to say people must believe the above words or look at life from this angle but it's nice when someone can see that it's not dark, mundane or depressing by any stretch of the imagination. I almost don't know if atheism is the right term here because for me the idea that that we, all of us, are comprised of the dust of long dead stars (celestial bodies) is so mystical sounding that it wipes away any of the mundaneness the word itself (atheism) conveys. It's downright beautiful, if you ask me. (And there's evidence steering us to this conclusion whereas there is none for the current religions of the world.) It's just hypothesis, it's just conjecture, it's just 'what if'. But I would really like to hear an answer from my fellow posters on this. How would you react if you discovered beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no afterlife? How would you choose to live from that time forward?

What I really think deserves hypothesizing is this. Let's imagine this is the truth and that we knew it 100%. If every true blue devout christian were confronted with this and unable to deny it, how would they start living from that day forward? How would any of you start behaving if you found out that this is the only life we have and you knew it without any doubt whatsoever? Would you run around like a madman, committing all sorts of atrocies because 'nothing matters', or would you embrace life to the fullest and make great pains to ensure the memory of yourself and your goodness as a person passes on after you're gone?

What do you mean by a cool image? You may be surprised to know my age. Though I've always been one for anonymity on the internet (ergo my use of the handle Mordred and listing my home as the imaginary Avalon) I will say I've lived through at least a few (if not more) decades in this world. The cute little quasi-anime image I've used in my avatar is not a good indication of my age, even if it is a bit juvenile looking. So, for what it's worth, at my age the idea of giving off the image of being 'cool' is the furthest thing from my mind. I'm not in high school anymore

Could I get you to elaborate on what you meant here and what prompted you to say such a thing? Was there a specific line I used, for example, which makes you feel I'm trying to give off a 'look at me, I'm cool!' type of look (or however you meant by cool image)? Thanks, Jeanie.

This is a busy thread!

Things have suddenly got very busy for me too. I'm getting through stacks of marking that are taking 4 hours each because we are being made to do a lot of paperwork -- that makes a lot of sense doesn't it. At any rate I'll reply to some of the posts here when I get a chance, though this is the problem when others and I respond thoroughly to each other's posts -- they get so unwieldy that large chunks of time have to be devoted to writing them.

Russell2, your credibility as an open-minded person has evaporated with the use of the derrogatory terms "true believer" and "woo woo." These terms say a great deal about the person who uses them.

And for a different view of Randi, his degree of professionalism and his agenda, have a look here at #43, "From the desk of James Randi."

Hi LindaLou

“True Beleiver” is a derogatory term? I guess you learn something new every day. I’ve never heard of it being considered such. It does suggest a degree of close-mindedness but that’s about it.

Woo woo also is not a derogatory term though it does belittle his ideas. I’m sorry if that offends anyone but reading his website I think that is the only rational position to take. That may sound uncharitable and close minded but it’s certainly not intended to be derogatory. The point I was making is that we have detailed knowledge of the behaviours of quite a few fields, electrical/magnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, electrostatic fields etc. What Sheldrake describes when he describes his morphic field is not a field in any sense of the word. He’s misusing a well defined term to describe something that is totally un-field like. His morphic field sounds more like an invisible, non physical form of DNA that can travel mystically from one organism to another. Fields don’t behave that way, not one of them that has ever been observed. Is it irrational to point that out? Fields simply do not hold information in the way he is suggesting and they do not act on information. At best he’s coopting the term field to something that is very un-field like to try to convey a foreign idea to his audience, at worst well I’ll let others decided what the worst ;possibility is lest I be charged again with being closed minded or unskeptical. If he can come up with some, field like, descriptions for his ‘morphic field’ then we’ll have something to work with but at the moment it really does sound a lot like woo woo designed to suck people into the idea that his thoughts are scientific. Now maybe much of the rest of his work is scientific but on this count he fall far short of it IMHO. If it’s unskeptical of me to look rationally at what he says and to point out that it’s illogical then so be it. Being open minded has to have limits; we don’t want our brains falling out do we.

I’ve read quite a few similar exchanges from Randi, he’s certainly a grumpy old man and more so in recent years but look at it form his point of view. The million dollar challenge has been running for many years now, it is looked after by a dedicated team not by Randi, and gets lots and lots of applicants, there are some very simple but specific rules around applying for the challenge the first of which is to fill in and submit an application form. From there it leads on through the steps of agreeing on the judges and designing the tests, setting up and conducting the simple, initial tests then going on to the full challenge test which carries the million dollars at the end. Many people have managed to get through this process and be tested though few have made it to the second round of testing. It’s not a very difficult process. Then we see people who believe they have a better way and demand that Randi run their test their way because they are too important to fill in the paper work and go through the process. Why does it surprise you that Randi is short with people who can’t fill in the application form and go through the standard procedure set down for the challenge?

In Reason

Russell

Because if you looked carefully, Alex was not applying for the challenge. He was offering to pay for the experiment himself and was inviting Randi to take part, since he'd been actively disparaging Sheldrake in the media.

Even some of Randi's fellow skeptics do not take the challenge seriously. You can read more about this here; just scroll down to Randi. Challenges like this in any field are very often nothing more than publicity stunts, and the inventors are usually the ones who get to make the rules and the judgements. There's another challenge out there that I'm aware of, for a doctor to drink a concoction containing all the adjuvants in common vaccines. This, too, is a publicity stunt, as is Kent Hovind's challenge to "prove" that evolution is a fact. Interestingly, while skeptics would be quick to point this out, they in turn tend take Randi seriously.

Secondly, about morphic fields. I have Sheldrake's seminal book which illustrates the subject, "The Presenece of the Past," but I have not yet completed it. I am not well and one of my symptoms is brain fog, and the book being a bit ponderous, has caused me some problems. I'm going to ask if we can postpone discussion of this particular area of his work until I can learn more about the specifics myself. What I do know about, however, is his "dogs that know" experiments. If you would familiarise yourself with the details of that, we could talk about it. If you would like some links, I will sort some out shortly.

Hi LindaLou

Yes I gathered they were trying to get Randi involved and I gathered he didn’t want to be suggesting that they should just sign up for the challenge if they wanted to involve the JRef or Randi. Like I said he’s a grumpy old man these days and definitely set in his ways. As a personality I don’t like the man but I think there is merit in what he does. Have you read the transcripts of some of the tests the JRef has conducted over the years? Interesting work.

And I have to agree with the Sceptics site you linked too. The Randi challenge is not a valid scientific test but then I don’t know of anyone who claimed that it was. The rules demand that the tests are set up to be rigorously scientific but, as was pointed out, science does not settle such questions on one test even if it is well conducted. That’s a show biz approach and Randi is a showman. I would suggest that the sceptics, at least those sited and the ones I am aware of take the Randi Challenge seriously but they take it for what it is and it’s not designed to be a scientific test of these claims. To suggest that the JRef challenge is a publicity stunt is overstating it, it is a showbiz styled contest not a scientific test but it is run with scientific rigor and it does present the very real possibility that someone who actually has ‘supernatural’ powers could claim the prize. That is not the case with many such challenges such as Dr Dino’s challenge to prove evolution which is worded in such a way that claiming it is physically impossible regardless of the validity of your claim. That makes Dr Dino’s ‘challenge’ a publicity stunt, I don’t believe the JRef’s challenge is. If you read the details no one from the JRef gets to judge, independent experts get to do that, and the rules for a given test are jointly written by the claimant and the agreed experts with controls added by the JRef to avoid cheating, that’s where the magician’s expertise comes in.

I’m interstate for work at the moment, have been for a couple of months, so I don’t get much time to put into this discussion but I’d be interested to see some details on the “Dogs that know” experiments. I’ve seen a couple of “dog’s that know experiments” run here with apparently positive results until the scientists got involved and pointed out the flaws in the methodology and it all fell to pieces. I’d be interested to see how Sheldrake’s experiments handle the issues raised here.

If you need time to get over whatever bug you’ve got please take it and get back to me. I’m not going anywhere and I know what a pain it is trying to get your head around difficult topics when your head is fuzzy.

All the best Linda

Russell

Russell: Is it not an insult to him to suggest that he could not have done so, that he must have created each kind individually, that he is so limited that he could not use evolution as his means of creation?

Jeanie: I would think that Him needing to evolve them would be more limiting to Him....but I'm not as die hard as the typical YEC's on the details. It just seems to me the MAJORITY (obviously we're all different as far as our individual differences) of evolutionists don't even think we have souls. I think all living creatures do. We are the highest of those beings.... I just don't think it was neccessary for us to be "evolved." There are no doubt differences for adaption purposes, but to me, just because bacteria can mutate for their own benefit (like becoming anti-biotic resistant) doesn't mean we evolved from them! I believe God has the power to command the elements and that would just not be neccessary!

Russell2: The first question I think we should all ask when someone tells us of something supernatural is to get them to prove that it really happened before we try to explain it.

Jeanie: The whole point of "supernatural" is that its beyond our 5 senses AS A RULE. (Not always beyond....some see things...hear things....FEEL things... I've had all 3 happen to one extent or another). The point is, you can't replicate or PROVE it. That is why you term it "believe." Some things take faith, too. You can also graduate from belief to knowledge on some unseen things..... Some "things" I no longer doubt. I've done my own personal experimenting and have proven what I believe in....to myself. No one can "know" or believe some things for others, though. One person can see a bonafide miracle as in when Christ was on the earth and still not see it for what it is. That is partly why things are sometimes hidden from us.

R2 (D2 : )
Do you really believe that I needed to be? Is there no other way you can imagine for us to understand the past?

Jeanie: How about history? Word of mouth through the ages? (Other witnesses).

R2:
You’ll have to explain what you think I’ve interpreted incorrectly.

Jeanie: Just referring to the way you are claiming the Bible is claiming things went down. LDS folk use, also, the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham as well as modern day revelation which sheds a little more light (without changing the Biblical version). The link I sent actually outlines it. I'm not going to post it cause I have in the past and most people's eyes gloss over....and they don't comprehend. (Not open).

Mordred: Could I get you to elaborate on what you meant here and what prompted you to say such a thing? Was there a specific line I used, for example, which makes you feel I'm trying to give off a 'look at me, I'm cool!' type of look (or however you meant by cool image)? Thanks, Jeanie.

Jeanie: Well, since we're so honest on here, yah, I had you pegged for someone about 21 - maybe 25 or 26. I was obviously wrong. You have been nothing but defensive with me and it reeked of adolescence which I deal with a lot with my own daughter and the teens at school. (When I play into it, I actually have quite a good rapport with the kids....getting better this year now that the freshman are use to me and accept my authority). Sorry about that. This online cloak and dagger stuff is kind of new to me. I see kids all day who identify with bands or whatever issue they feel strong about. Not meaning to be insulting or as you've said...condescending.

"Mordred" I almost don't know if atheism is the right term here because for me the idea that that we, all of us, are comprised of the dust of long dead stars (celestial bodies) is so mystical sounding that it wipes away any of the mundaneness the word itself (atheism) conveys. It's downright beautiful, if you ask me.

Jeanie: I am so biting back some seriously smart aleck remarks. Yah - so beautiful. And so limited.... I like star gazing, etc. myself but we are so much more than that.

May I ask your sexual orientation?

GDawson:

I'm not saying creationism is wrong, or evolution is right, but that logic will vary depending on the circumstances. I'm well aware that I've been taught evolution was the way it happened and it makes sense to me, but I know that I could have also been raised to believe just the opposite.

Jeanie: It's cool. I wasn't "raised" one way or the other. I've used my own little mind to figure out what I believe to be true. I can understand, actually, believing in evolution cause it is an "earthier" way to look at things....more tangible in a way. I've been confused about it before, but ironically being on this thread has clarified it for me. If you compare the two viewpoints.....no contest. To me the "science" being used does nothing but complicate things. Or maybe in a way it IS a simpler way to see it, but it takes God out of the picture and that does not ring true in the least to me. I have always believed. Its inherent (sp?). I do believe, too, that women are more intuitive and more naturally tuned to the spiritual side of things as a rule. Not always...but by nature moreso overall. We're more in touch with our feelings, etc. Your experiences have brought you to where you are.....don't doubt them!!! It took that for you, though, to get to where you are. I've sought more proactively. But I've done it with faith. You have to, at least, have an open mind. IMO Mordred goes on as the most open minded person.....but isn't. Appearances can be deceiving.

Still trying to reverse roles, eh RAZD? It is you who hide & I who reveal. I openly defy you to find even one example of me trying to make anything unclear.

In the broad sense, even Lamarckist evolutionism means the same thing: life made itself the way it is without God. But in specific cases there are differences to which some assign degrees of importance.

Really? My imagined "failure" is all you need to prove you're right? You overestimate my importance, and make other serious errors which do not help your credibility.

I can say 'dog' means the same thing as 'cat' because they both refer to mammals with 4 legs, but it won't make it so. I can then be silly and demand that you demonstrate either a cat or a dog doesn't have 4 legs, but it won't make me correct. If you won't spare me further attempts to revive discussion of your nonsensical quest, expect to be ignored or mocked.
Neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated that I misunderstand evolutionism. It may not sound humble, but I think by now it's pretty evident who has the better understanding of this false religion. I am firmly convinced that one cannot become too familiar with it and believe in it without making a long-term commitment to abandon truth.

This is as good a time as any to address a related issue. I've seen whining about "if evolutionism is a religion/belief system, why can't it be treated with respect?" The answer is that it can be treated respectfully by some. I choose not to treat it respectfully at all because it is utterly intolerant. I can respect individuals, but I cannot respect a belief system that hypocritically preaches "survival of the fittest" while it is itself unable to survive in competition.

When evolutionism is willing to respect others (when it becomes capable of respecting itself), maybe then I'll consider altering my approach.

Pretty much everyone knows things can be faked. So there's no need to pretend otherwise.

Any what? Do you seriously intend to fault me for failing to provide verification for every claim made in every video Russ has ever posted? Please pursue this further. You haven't been funny enough to suit me lately.

It would be a waste of time to even begin. People need to verify things for themselves, or ask someone they trust. You & etc. don't trust me, my sources, or even your own sources.

Maybe I'll just wait for you to post more evidence for me. Your habit of late is to present evidence that demolishes your own arguments, so it's actually a matter of simple efficiency to be patient.

That said, I think we all know whose beliefs are based upon fantasy. Some day I may actually count the number of times Darwin says "imagine" or "imagination" in his book on the preservation of favoured races. The appeals to imagination continue into the present as they must. For example, even the true believer has only a small handful of "transitionals" available, and must imagine all the rest. (Then they talk of Noah's ark being too small - such irony!)
I have to wonder if you've ever considered just how many "transitionals" there are supposed to be. Do you think some dino's egg hatched out even the most primitive bird? Do you think one of that tic-tac fish's offspring just up & was a salamander? If so, you might want to look again, 'cause that ain't what they say.

Evolutionists themselves have said that transitional fossils are severely lacking. Are creationists not allowed to agree with them on this issue? Please clarify: when are creationists required to disagree?

And I begin to wonder if evopushers even know what 'out-of-context' means? Not all quotes are out-of-context. ONLY quotes that have their meaning(s) shaded or by surrounding context can even be candidates. ONLY when the snipped portion gives a different impression than the full quote is this a fallacy (and a deception).

Quoting a double-talker or liar whose words did mean exactly what they appear to mean is not 'out-of-context' just because the speaker/author was disingenuous. If you were to apply the same bogus standard, you have no standing to call any politician on his lies because you knew he didn't mean what he said to begin with.
The history of genetics vs. evolutionism is clear, and fairly easy to research. The two have always been and always will be antithetical. Hegel's philosophy doesn't work even when it's "honestly" applied. Or maybe I should say "especially when it's honestly applied." No thesis can be reconciled with its antithesis. At least one of them must always be false.
My understanding is based upon actions. Evolutionism is defined by the actions of evolutionists. If it does not match their words, how does that diminish my understanding? Please present a standard which can apply equally well to politicians and used car salesmen, as well as evopushers.
Please tell me how I can look at a rock for billions of years. What's the secret? Does it involve imagination?

A couple of questions have I. Are you saying moons don't evolve? And are you saying nonliving things aren't subject to 'natural selection'?

Biological "evolution" and even biological science don't really say anything directly about planets, moons, stars, comets, or asteroids.

But if the "theory of evolution" says nothing about them, why are the findings of Guillermo Gonzalez in the field of astronomy such a threat?

I've asked this before, but nobody seems to be able to answer this simple question. I find it hard to believe the cat has got so many tongues. And I wonder what it is that evopushers are ashamed to say - is there some limit on the insults they'll offer to our intelligence? As an evolutionologist, I feel compelled to investigate this boundary.

What kind of silly tactic is this? Just up and say "you don't get to 'cherry-pick'" when I wasn't cherry picking anything at all!

Am I supposed to be impressed? What kind of impression would you make with this?

You have only strengthened the case in favour of my original evaluation.
Actually the existence of the planets in the forms our best evidence demonstrates them to have - each and every individual one, as the video makes clear, contradicts the doctrine of evolution. There isn't a single planet that complies.

Except nothing. You had no argument, so you attempted to change the subject. You failed. You just have to live with that. You can either learn from this, or repeat the same thing over and over.

Supported? You speak like a politician. I never said the claim was true. I declined to say it was untrue. There are new genetic mechanisms being discovered all the time, and there are some pretty amazing ones that have been known for quite a while, but are downplayed and denied because of the impact they'd have on a certain religious system.

You seek to justify changing the subject on the basis that your bogus ad hom is relevant? That's almost funny. Next time, please try a little harder.

But the history is clear. The evolutionists couldn't even play a straight game on the tanning issue. Russ never said children would be born tan, but time and again that straw man was asserted. Even now, you say I "supported" the claim, when we all know the truth. Bogus Bogus Bogus. You said I agreed with Russ, but failed to supply a mechanism; when in fact I did not agree with Russ but did discuss the mechanisms of gene expression and recombination.

You don't even know how to be right when you have the chance. And that actually is kinda funny, so thanks for reminding me.

Hi Jeanie

Given that the Pope has declared evolution to be more than a theory given that it is supported by such a mountain of evidence I suspect that there are more believers in evolution who also believe we have souls than you may realize. In fact most christians sects accept evolution yet I suspect they all also believe in souls. That someone accepts evolution tells you nothing about whether someone believes in souls. That I have declared myself an agnostic and an atheist tells you where is stand on this question but no my acceptance of evolution.

Logically I don’t think it limits god to suggest that he may have used evolution as one of his creation tools though it does logically limit him to suggest that he could not have. I never said that god did use evolution; I don’t believe that is true, but for an all powerful being he must logically have been capable of doing so. Of course he must also be capable of creating the whole lot yesterday with everything, including our memories, already in place. Logically he must be capable of doing that to be all powerful.

What we observe in the wild, in the lab and in the fossil record goes well beyond adaptation to suite a niche. Did you know that you would not recognise any of the creatures who lived during the Cambrian? Not one. There were no species alive then which is sill alive today, not one. There were no people alive then so we can’t use recorded history of any kind to tell us what happened.

Recorded history can be a very useful source of information but it suffers from a number of problems that physical evidence does no. People misunderstand, misrepresent, forget, lie, and just plain get it wrong. Physical evidence is incapable of doing these things. The other major problem with recorded history is that it needs someone to do the recording so it is useless once you step into a realm without people. Obviously many things happen when people aren’t watching even today but this problem becomes absolute when you examine the history of this planet before humans arose. What does human recorded history have to say about the Cambrian for instance? There were no people around at that time so we have no choice but ot look to other sources of information if we want to know what happened back then. IN fact the vast majority, well over 99.999% of the earths history happened before there was any such thing as human recorded history. Do we just ignore that time?

There certainly many ways to interpret the bible, most chrstians have no problem with the idea that science has the correct view of the history of the earth despite the fact that this view directly and unequivocally contradicts the plain words of genesis. I cited the bible in an earlier post to show you just how wrong it is, can you explain what the bible means and how that can be reconciled with the evidence we get from science that shows genesis to be so very clearly and profoundly wrong on so many details? Or do you simply write off the findings of science in favour of the words of the bible?

All the best Jeanie

Russell

I just scrolled up to have a glance at the dialog between us on this page. I didn't find any remarks you had made against me to which I was defending. Ergo, I do not see how my behavior could be construed as defensive, let alone a childishly defensive. I could be mistaken however and may have overlooked a much earlier exchange (predating 9/4/08) which I have now forgotten. If so, I'd appreciate if you pointed it out so I know to modify such behavior in the future.



I'm assuming you refer to my preference for anonymity. While I understand this may be a new phenomenon for you, it's the furthest thing from new for me. For decades people have gone to great pains in the internet world to keep their real identity confidential - and for good reason. Not everyone shares the same modus operandi but I would never ridicule someone for their choice in either openness or anonymity. I hope that you agree with me here.



Where have I used the word condescending? It isn't though I deny saying it (I may very well have) but I have no recollection of using it, or using it in any context of this discussion. Would you kindly show me where I've said this. Other people might think you're putting words in people's mouths.

I find it rather hurtful that just because I'm not religious you can so freely and openly trash my personal beliefs. I imagine if I logged on here and said christians are foolish and limited for having their beliefs (and, no, I do not feel this way) I would not hear the end of it. Why is it acceptable for you to stab at my beliefs? Do you feel that just because I don't believe in a god that I have no emotions? That I cannot get my feelings hurt?



No you may not. Since my arrival on this forum I have taken great pains to be as polite and civil with every poster on here, yet you have derided me twice now in what I consider to be a very offensive manner. You have put words in my mouth and described my personal beliefs as limited. I do not use my real name in an online forum and I do not reveal where I live. There are posters here I have exchanged private messages with and I've spoken about these things with but that is not in a public forum for the whole world to see. If I don't share these things openly why on earth would I talk about, of all things, my private bedroom activities with you and why are you asking in the first place? I'm here to discuss the topic of creation and evolution, and if there's something I disagree one of the two sides has claimed I intend to target that claim, not the person making the post. What about you?

Mordred: You have put words in my mouth and described my personal beliefs as limited.

Jeanie: Oh...and you haven't indicated as much to me....I guess putting in "not to be condescending....or..."not to be" anything makes it not so.

M:

No you may not.

J: which tells me what I wanted to know. No problemo...but makes sense. "Not to be offensive......"

Russell: most chrstians have no problem with the idea that science has the correct view of the history of the earth despite the fact that this view directly and unequivocally contradicts the plain words of genesis.

Jeanie: I think the Christians on here would beg to differ. The odd thing is.....I am LESS conservative in some respects than those on here. I just like to argue. Actually I'm tired of it, though, cause there is no reasoning with such reasonable open minded self proclaimed geniuses as yourself.

Back at your revisionist approach, eh CTD?

No, the "roles" have been pretty well defined for some time: I provide statements based on facts and science, and back them up with substantiation from objective reality, while you avoid substantiation and try to misrepresent what I said. You pretend it is a game to make fun of what I said, while you ignore the issues and fail to deal with the evidence.

Take the latest little gem "I openly defy you to find even one example of me trying to make anything unclear" - which is not what I said. Thus you either misunderstand or misrepresent what I said. Trying to be unclear and misrepresenting things are different.

That you do misunderstand or misrepresent things IS clear from many of your posts.

Take the issue of half-lives and your "quarter"lives, an issue where you clearly did not understand the mathematics and tried to make out that exponential curves were wrong. It was mathematically proven that you were false, but you have yet to acknowledge that fact (lots of little smilies as you danced around the issue not withstanding).

Or take the issue of the charts on the page about the link between alpha particle energy and the rate of decay, where you tried to claim that the curves were fudged because the scales were jimmied and the lines were straight - when clearly you did not comprehend that the graph was a log-log graph until that was pointed out.

Or take the issue of Darwin's definition of evolution as descent with modification, where you said it was substantially different from the modern definition as the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, where you said something was missing from the modern versions that was included in the original, that the modern versions were watered down, etc etc, yet you were totally unable to demonstrate any difference.

Or take the issue of "pre-adaptation" of e.coli. in the experiments that show that this cannot be so, yet we have your continued usage of this falsified concept.

Or take the issue of uranium halos showing that the earth is indeed old, and the related issue of polonium halos, where it was shown that they only occur where the polonium can be provided by radon decay.

We could also take the example/s from the Grand Canyon, and many other places, but the pattern is pretty solid.

No, it is all that is needed to show that you are wrong. If you were right you would be able to provide evidence that you were right, as you should be familiar with the evidence that lead to your claim. That is what substantiation means, btw, something you could do a whole lot more of if you wanted your arguments to have more credibility.

A rather facile example based on the logical fallacy of hasty generalization, and an empty threat based on the logical fallacy of consequences: empty, when your behavior has been consistently to mock what you don't understand anyway.

All your example of actually demonstrating that both dogs and cats have four legs shows is that it is possible to find evidence for any claim, but that the real issue is dealing with all the evidence, including the evidence that falsifies a claim.

Of course you can - you frequently do - say anything you like, but the issue is making your case by substantiation and dealing with all the evidence, including the evidence that contradicts your claim. For instance, I would point out that a dog is not a cat because (a) it does not have retractable claws, (b) does not have little "hooks" on its tongue, (c) has four toes instead of five, (d) has different dental patterns ... just for starters.

And yet this very statement shows that you misunderstand evolution. The fact is that evolution is observed to occur every day of every year, that evolution occurs in all living species, and that to deny that this is so is to deny the truth.

Part of that truth is also that evolution is not a religion by any definition, and that attempts to portray it as such are just more evidence of misrepresentation. It is a science, a fact that is substantiated by the massive numbers of people involved in doing science within the field of evolutionary biology.

Another misleading straw man.

I see no "whining" about evolution being treated with "respect" ... What I do see is evolution substantiated by evidence, evolution as a science being based on evidence and observation, development of theories and the testing of those theories by new evidence and observations, and it's discarding of false ideas, like Lamarkism and Haeckles recapitulation theories. Evolution is part of the science search for truth based on objective evidence.

If you want to disrespect and deny the truth, that is your problem, and your continued misrepresentation of evolution is just more evidence that you misunderstand and misrepresent it.

Curiously, science in general, and evolution in particular, is not in the business of "respecting" people or ideas. It is in the business of testing concepts against the objective evidence of reality and discarding any and all falsified concepts without any respect for who had the idea or what it was.

Nor does truth "respect" falsehood. If your concepts are false there is no reason to "respect" them.

So you agree that all the videos that Russ provides are essentially useless information, because they are easily made with faked, false, forged, or fictitious information. Substantiation of the validity of concepts would involve going to the original sources, sources where the content is reviewed in peer reviewed journals, or by repeating the study in question, looking at the original evidence.

We can discuss the Hovind video on the Grand Canyon in this context, where it fails to mention that the location of the canyon is not the low point of the ridge so that his argument is falsified by the actual topological evidence or by his own argument.

No, what I expect you to do is to substantiate your own statements, and in this case your statement that "The factual content in many of the videos Russ has posted can be verified to a high degree of confidence without too much trouble."

Note that you even claimed that it could be done without too much trouble. Time to belly up?

Cop-out. This from the person who claims to be the person who claims his "role" is to "reveal" the truth instead of hiding from it.

Strangely I don't expect anyone to trust sources, either, but I note that you need to actually provide sources so that they can be evaluated for validity. The issue also should not be affected by who posts the source, rather it should be about what the source says.

Even "someone you trust" can be wrong (the logical fallacy of appeal to authority), especially if the source is not an authority on the topic in question.

For instance, anyone who "trusts" your claim that 'decay rates changed' should be wary without any form of substantiation that rates can change. They should also be skeptical of this as a creationist claim, as it is not supported by any biblical reference (to my knowledge the bible does not mention radioactivity, uranium or decay rates anywhere). This amounts to a made up fantasy based on wishful thinking rather than any evidence, logic or reason.

Curious that the only thing demolished, then, is your understanding of the evidence. Shall we go over the log-log chart issue again? Of course I could ask for one (1) example of such an instance, but we all know that you won't bother with a straight answer.

Again, a logical fallacy of appeal to authority), which in this instance ignores all the factual basis for his theory of descent with modification. The fact that Darwin imagines various scenarios is part of the process of developing tests for theories.

The fact remains, however, that Darwin could imagine thousands of things and the science of evolution would be totally unaffected: we know that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - occurs, and we know that speciation - the division of populations into non-interbreeding daughter populations - occurs, so we know that evolution is a fact that can be observed in every day life. We know that mutation is a fact of life, we know that natural selection is a fact of life, we know that there are other mechanisms that lead to evolution and speciation. We also know that the fossil record is a fact of life, and thus we can test the theory that evolution and speciation can explain the diversity of life can be tested against that record. We also know that it is a fact of life that the DNA strands of organisms contain mutations, changes, that can be compared to demonstrate heredity of individuals from individuals, and of populations from populations, and thus we can test the theory that evolution and speciation can explain the diversity of life against that information.

These facts are not affected by Darwin's use of the word "imagination" no matter how you try to hide the pea,

Actually, this again betrays a misunderstanding of evolution and a misrepresentation of what the theory of evolution proposes versus the evidence of the fossil record.

According to a proper definition of evolution, the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, evolution is constantly occurring, and this means that every fossil is part of the transition from one life form to another, and every fossil thus is a "transitional" fossil. Every fossil lineage shows such change over time occurring, with intermediate age fossils being intermediate in form from previous ages and forms to later ages and forms. This is what the theory of evolution predicts we should find in the fossil record: intermediate forms at intermediated ages in the lineages.

Again, this betrays a false understanding of evolution and what evolution proposes for the diversity of life. This is a standard creationist straw man misrepresentation, one that is easily dispelled by any real fact checking with evolutionary biologists, studies, books, etc etc etc.

Creationists keep trying to compress generations of accumulated evolution into single generation events, and this just is not the way evolution occurs. There are intermediates between dinosaurs and birds, of which Archaeopteryx is but one, just as there are intermediates between fish and amphibian, of which Tiktaalik rosea is but one ... ignoring the reality does not make it go away, and nature and reality are both curiously unaffected by such ignorance.

This picture shows several intermediate forms between australopithicus and Homo sapiens

Each one of these skulls is a transitional fossil because it is intermediate between the one before and the one after. Furthermore, each of the species represented by a skull has numerous fossils associated with that species, and these fossils also show change in hereditary traits from generation to generation, with the early ones being similar to the previous species and the later ones being similar to later species. Many times there are controversies over which species some of the fossils found belong to because they lie between the existing (arbitrary) species classifications.

In addition, evolution predicts that IF the theory is true, that THEN intermediate forms will be found between any two closely related species separated by time: that every hereditary lineage that is known will be filled in by more intermediates. This is what they did with Tiktaalik rosea, where they predicted that an intermediate form of organism in the transition from fish to tetrapod would be found in the area that had the right age sedimentary deposits and the right environment for such an intermediate.

This image from Transitions: the Evolution of life, "Tiktaalik roseae[/i] and the Origins of Tetrapods" shows the intermediate form of Tiktaalik as part of the transition from fish to tetrapod:


This image from Transitions: the Evolution of life, "Dinosaurs Among Us" shows the intermediate form of [i]Archaeopteryx as part of the transition from dinosaur to bird:

Wikipedia also discusses the various feathered Dromaeosaurids that show development of feathers before flight, and from egg laying dinosaurs.

Curiously more transitional forms are found every year, from amphibians in Iowa and Pennsylvania and "Frogamanders" in Texas to feathered non-flying dinosaurs in China and elsewhere.

Anyone who claims there are few transitionals either does not understand what a transitional is, or is living in the past.

Creationists are not allowed to cherry pick some comments about some transitions and then ignore ones about transitions in the fossil record, particularly when made by the same evolutionist, as that is not confronting all the evidence. Such selection of evidence is just one more example of the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

Gould for one, specifically states that there are transitional forms, for example, but you wouldn't know that from reading creationist sites that quote his evidence for "Punctuated Equilibrium" speciations as if it was a universal condition.

Such as creationist quote-mining of Gould comments on transitionals. The evidence is that evolutionists understand this much better than creationists, due to the number of posts where evolutionists debunk the quote-mining of creationists.

An example of this is The Quote-Mine Project, dedicated to showing the false impression of creationists sites by such misrepresentations.

I don't see any comparable project launched by creationists to (a) clean up their side and (b) show that evolutionists misquote/misrepresent creationists.

Are you now claiming that all evolutionary scientists that have been misquoted in general, and Gould in particular, are double-talking liars? If not then this little digression is just another CTD attempt to divert the argument from the issue of creationists providing misrepresentative quotes in a manner to imply and insinuate that evolution is wrong. It's just another attempt to evade the issue that the creationist quote-mining of Gould in the video is a falsehood.

Curiously Hegel's philosophy has nothing to do with the reality that genetics shows change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and that populations of non-interbreeding species are related by common ancestors. Of course it is also your claim that they are antithetical, not Hegel, and reality is not kind to assertions based on fantasy either.

Just as your words and actions demonstrate your antipathy for reality and for hiding from truth rather than revealing things, your lack of substantiations for your many claims demonstrate that you are not interested in finding the truth but in hiding it. You equate evolutionists with car salesmen, double-talking liars, and drug pushers in what amounts to a desperate attempt to deny, disparage and denigrate reality.

Curiously this is just another way of your demonstrating that you don't understand evolution, because you don't base your understanding on the scientific facts. It appears from what you have said here that you prefer to base your opinion on your trust of people, and while this may be how faith works, it is not how science works. In science truth is independent of people.

By studying geology.

They are not subject to biological evolution, so "the theory of evolution explains that there are no offspring that have different hereditary traits." It is really a simple concept.

So we agree on this point.

They aren't. His "findings" are not anything new either:

Just more old hat creationism and the argument from incredulity based on the anthropic principle. Reality is strangely unaffected by such assertions.

He was dismissed because he didn't measure up to the Department of Astronomy requirements for performance as an astronomer:
Evolution did not come into the issue at all.

And yet what you still demonstrate is a misunderstanding of evolution. Even if Guillermo Gonzalez were correct it would not affect the fact that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - and speciation - the division of populations into two or more genetically isolated breeding groups - occurs every day and in every species.

Your "evaluation" is irrelevant. The fact remains that you need to look at all the evidence, and that anything else is "cherry-picking".

Yes, the power of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy to explain that things are like they are because they are like they are. Impressive.

And yet what you still demonstrate is a misunderstanding of evolution. Even if the video were correct it would not affect the fact that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - and speciation - the division of populations into two or more genetically isolated breeding groups - occurs every day and in every species.

Your denial is interesting, but ultimately pointless. The fact remains that you and Russ do not understand evolution, do not use the definitions as used in the field of evolutionary biology, and that your comments based on your false understandings are still false.

Yes, you argued that there were genetic mechanisms that would make it possible.

Curiously the subject is still your and Russ's misunderstanding and misrepresentation of evolution, as demonstrated many times by this one post alone.

Yes the history is clear. Russ could not defend how tanning would be transmitted or when and how it would be expressed, whether it affected newborns and whether children would be born with tan-lines and the like. All he had to say was that it would be:

A total non-answer that avoids the issue. Then he backed down and offered this piece of information:

In other words, he admitted to not being honest about his post of tanned skin being hereditary, ... and in the process demonstrating (again) that he does not understand evolution.

Yes, you suggested a mechanism for how it would work. That is support. Nor did you state your disagreement then (only after he dissembled?).

Funny that this still does not show that you understand evolution.

It's very simple: you start with a scientific definition of evolution, one used by evolutionary biologists. Then you apply that definition to observations of objective reality to see if - in fact - evolution occurs by that definition.

Enjoy.

If someone were to ask me this question in this way, I would also tell them words to the effect of "not your business." I'm not sure what you're getting at or why you are cryptically hinting that Mordred's reply has told you anything other than what he has openly stated.

Again, I'd appreciate a direct quote, preferably with a post number so that this can be verified, and so that I can make sure my words aren't being taken out of context.



It tells you that I am not here to discuss my personal life. You asked where I lived once and I also refused to answer (on that occasion I didn't say no, I just didn't reply). If you ask me what State I'm from and I refuse to reply will you also say 'That tells me what I wanted to know'? I suppose if what you want to know is that I don't yield personal details about myself then, yes, it tells you what you wanted to know.

The fact of the matter is, Jeanie, in every post I've tried to be careful not to offend anyone, yourself included. And on the occasions that it happens I demonstrate a concern for those feelings involved and try to reword what I am saying. You cannot seem to return the favor, nor are you the least bit concerned about my feelings being hurt on this issue. I wonder what your reply would be if I had come to this forum saying I believed in God from the very beginning.

Russell2, the soonest I will be able to add to the "unexplained" discussion in detail will be Tuesday. I'm thinking the posts are going to get swamped here in "Evolution The Big Joke," which is more like a night at the pub at the moment. Can you see another area of this forum where a specially dedicated thread could fit? I'm not sure if it's really got anything to do with evolution and creationism, the core of it to me is more to do with epistemology and the nature of skepticism.

Thank you though for your more tempered recent response. I've spoken to some very acerbic people who were calling me a "true believer" full of "woo woo ideas" before I even knew what on earth they meant. It looks like we can at least have a reasoned discussion here (or somewhere).



4 years of depression . . . not too likely it's going to suddenly lift, though it isn't for lack of trying. Actually I'm clear-minded enough to read Sheldrake's book now but I don't have the time because of school and family commitments. I have read "The Sense of Being Stared At" (gotta love these titles), though that discusses more general aspects of the extended mind, and evidence for that. I'll have a look for some links about the "dogs that know" experiments. There are Skeptico podcasts about Sheldrake's own work, as well as the experiment going on without Randi's help -- though I can understand if asking you to listen to one of those is on a par with asking me to listen to Stephen Novella.

I'll pick back through the posts here in a few days' time, LOL.

Holy Hindu cow, where the heck did THAT come from!?!

Like LindaLou has said above, if someone asked me a completely unrelated question like that out of nowhere I'd probably refuse a reply as well -- with a none too pleasant tone too.

You seem to be indicating that you know the answer just because the dude isn't saying. Hell, I'm an adult heterosexual married man and if someone asked me the way you did, I wouldn't answer either. I'm not so insecure in my own sexuality that I'd worry about what conclusion NOT answering draws. We're all mature posters here, right, Jeanie? Surely you agree how Neanderthal it would be to think you know the answer to a question just because they say they're not going to answer it.

Jeez, man. Maybe Ikester shoulda stuck around to moderate this forum after all.

Well I don’t know about the rest of you but I know Jeanie and CTD will agree with me when I point out that it says in the bible, in no uncertain terms, that homosexuals are to be treated as demons – and be destroyed. Anyone, therefore, who does not immediately deny that they are one, when asked, MUST be one. We can draw no other conclusion, the bible tells us this. And make no bones about it, the bible does not tell lies!

We do not destroy demons in this day and age because we are better than the Devil but we know that such acts have sense to them and we fully understand and respect our Christian predecessors who did what they had to do to rid the world of sin in the past via conflagration and inquisition.

He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.

Leviticus 24

It also clearly reads, for those who have an eye for scripture and know how to interpret it properly, that homosexuals are sub-human. Thus, they are animals. Thus they are not human.

You've heard of animals chewing off a leg to escape a trap? There's an animal kind of trick. A human would remain in the trap, endure the pain, feigning death that he might kill the trapper and remove a threat to his kind.

Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam

Evolution is sin. It is the enemy of God. And we few, we happy few, are the angels of light sent to usurp your pseudo-science and bring order to the world once again, to let Christianity rule while all other faiths (the ways of the heathens) perish. This entire forum is a testament of just how wrong evolution is. All one has to do is read the posts supported by creationists to see how heavily documented creation science is and how weak and brittle evolution is. The bible is science. Trying to prove how monkeys turn into men or rocks turn into thinking organisms overnight in a laboratory is not -- and it is a sin besides.

M: The fact of the matter is, Jeanie, in every post I've tried to be careful not to offend anyone, yourself included. And on the occasions that it happens I demonstrate a concern for those feelings involved and try to reword what I am saying. You cannot seem to return the favor, nor are you the least bit concerned about my feelings being hurt on this issue. I wonder what your reply would be if I had come to this forum saying I believed in God from the very beginning.

J: Wrong. I like a lot of the people on here who aren't as "open" as you claim to be about such things. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Just like you, not meaning to be hurtful.

Actually.....I wouldn't agree with that Alia. Not in the least. I do NOT think gay people are demons. I just think, personally, that they are confused or out of balance. I'm just tired of the gay sounding skipping around the stars crap. Whether you are gay or not Mordred, its my personal opinion that it sounds gay....or effeminate. Excuse me if you aren't... (And if you are, that is your business although I don't think its healthy emotionally or physically or obviously spiritually). I personally like men who are men... All you do is act like a victim (baby). You say anything you want whether its insulting to me or not. What's the difference? Does the smiley face make it seem nicer? I'M SICK OF THE HYPOCRISY.

However, I don't think what Alia is saying is Christian if you want to know the truth - I think its fanatical. Those statements are extreme.

Hey LL, I hope you are feeling better soon. I'm sorry if my rants of late offend you at all. I think we both kind of stand on our own in a respect and it gets old dealing with the constant opposition from all directions. Personally I'm tired of it. You take care. Save your energy for your kids : ) I'm phasing out.

Stuff it Pwcca.

CTD - I understand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alia, Christ did not die on a cross for "animals". Christ died for all human beings, so that no matter what a person has done and fallen into, they have hope in Christ for redemption. We were born with a conscience of right and wrong and free will to choose. He died on a cross for each and every human being, however deeply they are in sin. Otherwise one might as well tell every homosexual that Christ did not die for them, because they are "animals" or "demons.....this is incorrect. The behaviour of people can indeed be "demonic" however. We see this in many crimes committed today, as well as unspeakable sexual sins. But even those people, so long as they are still alive, have Christ's offer of forgiveness through the suffering and blood He shed for all on that cross.

It's no wonder that the old testament ways dealt so harshly with sin on earth because Christ had not yet come. The spread of sin, even from one human being to others was so damaging that the death of one such person was preferable compared to the loss of many souls through corruption. Yet even then, God was exhaustively patient. Consider all the warnings given and were often ignored.

Let us not forget that sexual sin includes the sin of fornication and adultery also (how many of us can be accused of this?). There is hope for even the most wretched of sinners (including you and myself) because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross and this includes every homosexual. If they are without hope, then so are the rest of us. And this is the "good news" for all sinners. The new testament preaches hope and forgiveness, as well as Justice. Neither of those things should be "ommitted".

I looked up Leviticus 24. To interpret scripture to mean something that it hasn't said at face value, can be the danger of twisting God's Holy word. The bible states the sin of homosexuality elsewhere in the bible CLEARLY, without even a need to "interpret". So I'd be very wary of taking something else and changing it to mean this or that to make a point that the bible may not have made.

Much of the bible can indeed be accepted at face value, so that even a child can read, learn and be saved. Yes there are other areas they may need more discernment and interpretation, but even some of those should be treated with an air of caution also, because they too can be subjected to human error/flaw and bias and such a person may not be inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.

Don't get me wrong Aria, I admire your faith and standing your ground on sin, which is a refreshing in this day and age of liberalism. And Christ did not mince words and tickle ears. We know this. The bible makes it clear about the dangers of sexual sins and where they would lead a person should they persist in them without repentence. But let us not forget that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was not done with "favouritism" in mind. It was done for ALL.

The act of sin itself maybe "bestial", but let us not forget that every human being is made in the image of God. Should any of us die in such a state of serious sin without repentence, even upon hearing the warnings of Christ, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. For the remedy and grace of forgiveness was offered to us all free of charge.

Well said, Bex. God's laws are for our own health and safety - emotional as well as spiritual and physical. If anyone ever really looked at the way we are made.....to think of how that is perverted or misused - it AIN'T right nor natural. (Throwin' in a little southern twang there). I don't care to get technical, but I know some gay people. I've never seen one who was truly happy.... And it isn't cause others can't accept them. Actually most people are very tolerant around here. Not all by any means. But I did not even intend to get this vein started. I think me and Mordred just rubbed each other the wrong way from the start. And obviously I don't know if he is even gay. I am, probably, going to feel the need to apologize at some point. Or at least get off for a while. Or permanently. I got on my own high horse about how a few creationists were treating the evolutionists for a while, but there is no way most people can just take and take crap without feeling like reacting back. I am generally a pretty patient person, but then to have people like Abishag ALSO sit there and tell me I don't know who Jesus is just cause I think He and God are two separate beings???? Mordred....now that I think about it, part of what I'm reacting to is her - so in doing that, I have actually over reacted to you. So I do, now, apologize.

I'm sorry. I'm very emotional today and, obviously, reactive. Full moon....You know. Star stuff : ) Seriously, though. Please forgive me. Could we maybe start over? I shouldn't have asked the personal question.....

Have you forgotten who I am? I most certainly do not misrepresent what people say.

And thanks for demonstrating your idea of "hiding the pea". When you presented a graph of curves jimmied to make the curves appear as straight lines, and I tricked you into revealing the truth, I was "hiding the pea". I have a hunch you're still stinging from that one, and putting me down just doesn't soothe the pain.

You have recourse to lists of logical fallacies. Rather than employ them to detect falsehood and double-check arguments, you use them as a recipe list. Why should I not make fun of the results?

You said I was playing "hide the pea". This is clearly and blatantly an attempt at role reversal, and everyone knows it.

What? Backtracking up the same curve demonstrates that it matches an independently calculated curve? NOT! Or didn't you think I figured that out? (Due to believing your own anti-CTD hype, no doubt.) Of course I did; I just don't have time/resources to spend creating graphs, registering on a filesharing site, and all that; so I haven't demonstrated it. Big deal. I don't think anybody expects it of me, but you can continue making demands if you want.

You & Linear's claim is just like claiming interest compounded annually = interest compounded weekly merely because you can take the annual rate and backtrack it to any given week and produce a result. The results will not be the same, and anyone who really cares can find out for themselves. This isn't hard at all.

As for the rest of your antihistory, I find it satisfying that you are unable to produce any actual examples, and have chosen to resort to composing more fiction.

No it ain't. Even if it were true, it wouldn't suffice.

Say for example I claim the night is darker than the day, and you claim the day is darker than the night. Say I'm 3 years old and don't know why. Do you really think this makes me wrong, and you right? Get real!

I might or might not be able to demonstrate a given thing. You might or might not acknowledge it if I did.

I dare say I've contributed my share of evidence. I've also looked at evidence presented by evolutionists and found discrepancies. But it never seems to matter. They just goggle up & pretend it never happened, or trot over to talkdeceptions for some poorly thought-out lies that cannot withstand any scrutiny whatsoever.

Now, as ever, I'll not have the pace and extent of my participation dictated to me by members of the forum.

Did that one really go over your head? Or do you merely pretend it did? Can you not see that dog and cat are symbolic of different versions of evolutionism?

I suspect you can, but you have no meaningful response. This could be wrong, and I feel like I should hope it is. The more of evosickness one sees, the uglier it gets.

Now take the same approach to all the different little definitions of 'evolution' floating around out there, and...

Aw, why do I bother?

I never said I didn't understand the retreat to the newer definitions, did I? Nor did I say (or demonstrate) that I didn't understand the bait & switch tactic of which you're so fond. Does this irritate you? Do you really expect me to buy into normal everyday life (which has always been observed) = evolution = everything came from some single-celled lifeform that lived x billion years ago? Or is that just the limit of your sorry little game?

Which is why I use the term 'evolutionism' to distinguish the religion from the god. I suppose evolution-worship might be an alternative, but it takes longer to type, and does not appeal to me.

'Evolution' is a science? I don't think so. Even most evolutionists claim it is a "theory" or "fact".

Well, it's happened more than once. Were I to link to examples, it would be rude, and some would think I was just picking on one or two parties, now wouldn't they?

But we have more cases than one can shake a stick at of evolutionism's intolerance. Proponents of ideas that can withstand questioning don't have to ban those who question them. They don't have to demand that lies be illegally retained in textbooks, either.

I represent 'evolutionism' as that which evolutionists demand that students be indroctrinated with. All of it. Lock, stock, and barrel. The only misrepresentation is done by those who only want to defend select pieces of their religious propaganda, and don't have the guts to openly confess their agenda. (And the peons who follow them, naturally.)

Nonsense. "Evolution" cannot be in the business of rejecting itself, but if it were about rejecting falsified concepts this is just what it'd do.

This assumes one is not a devotee of the anything-but-the truth philosophy. Do you not care for your flock?

No. Your words will not fit in my mouth, and you really shouldn't try. Or maybe you should put more effort into it. Would it kill you to take a little pride in your work?

All sources are potentially bogus, at least in theory. But this does not mean all sources are actually bogus, does it? If this were so, nobody could ever learn anything, and that includes your dearly cherished evolutionism.

Daring move, bringing up "faked, false, forged, or fictitious information." Very risky. And a risk you may regret taking. I have need of only one word in response: history.
Now we disagree. I think people have sense enough to figure out how to verify things, and your methods differ from mine.

You can go to the NASA website and view the pics of the planets & moons yourself. That'd be a start. Or if that's not enough, you could get a telescope and see some of it for yourself. What's hard about that? What's hard to figure out? Nothing, that's what. You're just being argumentative, and hoping I'll be fool enough to waste a few hundred hours on a vain project.

So let me explain something. I'll spend time on anyone interested in how science relates to origins. I'll go out of my way to make extra time for the activity. But this ends the instant they indicate they're not interested in learning the truth. From that point on, I'll discuss things as much or as little as I want.

You act like it's a big deal to work a search engine. I'm sure most folks can manage on their own. If any can't, they're welcome to PM me, okay? No need to post such a potentially embarrassing question.
You just got done saying I had agreed that no sources were valid. What's to evaluate?

I've seen it go both ways. Some evidence ignored because of who posts it, and some is ignored because it is contrary to evodoctrines.

Speaking of trust, I don't trust your memory. Myself, I don't recall making the claim.

How do you come up with this stuff! Have you any single example of anyone arguing that the decay rates have changed based upon scripture, or is this just another addition to the Straw Legion? Have you any plans to attack this straw man, or will he roam around at large?

There are hypotheses about changing decay rates, but they're investigated as science - not doctrine.

Your argument thus far is an odd one. Would you claim nothing can happen that isn't documented in the bible, or something along those lines? What you've written concludes "This amounts to a made up fantasy based on wishful thinking rather than any evidence, logic or reason," based upon not finding these things in scripture. My shoes aren't mentioned either, but I wear them almost every day.
Wrong twice. The book is not an authority on Darwin; it is what Darwin himself wrote.

Or did you mean that appealing to Darwin is a fallacy? I hope you read your own link before providing it, but I'm not altogether confident.
I think Darwin's an authority on Darwinism, one of the major sects. There was (and is) little disagreement that events and lifeforms and a whole lot of other things must be imagined. I have not heard that Darwin was drunk, and sadly it does not appear he was joking either. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. Wouldn't help matters much, but it sure would be funny.

The book is predominantly about imagined things. Searching for "imagin" within the text yields so many hits even I was surprised the first time I tried it. Next to little words like 'it', 'the' and 'a', this has to be the most common term in the book. It's everywhere!
We know that bogus definitions are easy to come by; we know that those who habitually employ them are not attempting to communicate clearly; we know that real scientists tend to employ specific terms with well-established definitions in order to avoid even the potential for confusion (but they're not trying to hide things and dupe people).

It isn't hiding anything to point out that the book is about imagination, and the religion depends upon imaginary things to this day. But denying the imaginary nature of the myth, that'd be another story.

* For purposes of full disclosure, some of the hits on "imagin" are not about just conjuring things up. Some are part of legitimate phrasing, in situations which more modern authors would tend to use phrases like "hypothetically speaking". But these are still using imagination, and they're not nearly all of the hits, either.

And the second wrong is that I have ignored no facts. Darwin attempted to explain quite a few facts. Then they turn right around and give us these same facts any time we ask for evidence. I have a whole thread about this practice, so I don't think you'll persuade anyone I've ignored them. If you ask nicely, I can think of one who'll happily pretend to be persuaded, but that doesn't count.
So go find them and be a hero.

I didn't say it was. I clearly said "that ain't what they say". Can you not read?

But unless this is the way it works, you're missing 99.99999% of the "transitionals", as your own pics clearly demonstrate.

And one needs to keep in mind how much even of those pictures is pure imagination as well.

So why has nobody found anything "transitioning" into a bat? You state that these must be found "IF the theory is true". Where are they?

You present your great prizes as if they mean something, but they've only ever ginned up "transitionals" for very few species, and these aren't without controversy. By your own words, the prediction applies to all lifeforms.

Maybe when I have time I'll post a small list of ancestorless creatures; but anyone playing at home can research this easily. Just think of a critter. Is it there a famous evolutionary series related to it? If not, you probably won't find any "ancestry" for it. And this is the case with almost anything you care to try!

For my purposes, I'm content with the bat. You see, bats make up 20 to 25 per cent of all mammalian species. And there are a lot of them. They live in caves, where they could easily be trapped & fossilized. There is no excuse for a lack of batcestor fossils.
How come you present a line-up of skulls as if one led to the other, when your own experts say it ain't so? How is this "confronting all the evidence"? How is this not cherry-picking on a grand scale? (For almost every single one of those skulls has plenty of reasons to be excluded, even by evostandards.)

So he decided it was politically expedient to change his position? How does this alter his original position? Which statement is more likely to reflect his actual opinion?

So making false accusations is a virtue? I haven't seen any true accusations of this type, but I freely confess I quit verifying after a few turned out to be lies. Really, it's a bit much to falsely accuse someone of deceit a dozen times, and then expect the 13th accusation to be taken seriously.

But if one checks the context, it is more often than not the case that the false accusation is merely a ploy to divert the discussion. It is hard to respect those who practice these things on a regular basis.

Interesting. Without even following the link, I can confidently predict at least 7 of the first 10 accusations will be false. I do not rule out the possibility that they've actually found one or two cases. Although it is remote, we must keep in mind that people are fallible, and there are moles that one may not be able to handily expose.

For your part, I wonder if you've bothered to read their junk. I confess I have seen it it the past, so my guess isn't totally blind. But as you seem to have overlooked the contents of your own links a time or two, and you've been stressing the importance of verifying sources... and we know talkdeceptions' agenda, and many of us know about their credibility issues all too well... It's just a brazen move providing such a link after what you've said about Russ' video links. Without work, I can't think of a better way to describe this act than 'flaunting dishonesty'. Can you suggest one?
Is there a need for one? I really don't see how creationists would profit by falsely accusing each other. As for debunking evolies, I'm sure they can crank 'em out faster than anyone can debunk, so why enter such a race?

Does it look like I'm claiming that? I made no claim about all evolutionist scientists, but I have called Gould a double-talker in the past. This is my honest opinion. Do you have a problem with it?
Clarifying isn't diverting. Leave it to you to claim otherwise.

I didn't see any standard proposed by you which would exempt evolutionist liars from being quoted, just because one knows they're not telling the truth. So I hope we won't encounter such complaints in the future.
It is the directly implied claim of the founders of the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis". It is also a readily apparent fact, and you yourself have lent confirmation to this by your continued attempts to confuse people about genetics. Your actions aren't consistent with those of a person who is ignorant of the fact, so I proceed on the conclusion that you are very familiar therewith.
If that's anyone's honest opinion of my actions, so be it. But I'm not the least bit concerned that this is the case.

I do not equate evolutionists with any such persons; but I'll make an exception for individuals who require it, like yourself.

Denigrate reality? LOL! I almost missed that. Please segregate in the future the funny stuff from the false accusations.
My words won't twist there. I derive my understanding of science from facts; evolutionism isn't science. Since those who push it frequently are found acting contrary to their words, I evaluate their intentions by their actions. This is the most valid method available.

Now they say they have no need of abiogenesis and big bangs; but their actions are not consistent with these statements. By every definition offered by evolutionists on this forum for their own beliefs, they have no need whatsoever of abiogenesis. But propose that this debunked concept be omitted from a textbook, or not taught as fact, and see what happens!

Would you have me take everyone at their word, and overlook deeds?
More funny. Thank you.
Your "evaluation" is irrelevant. The fact remains that you need to look at all the evidence, and that anything else is "cherry-picking".[/quote]I'm still unimpressed. When I cherry-pick, you're welcome to call me on it. When I don't, these accusations are unwelcome. Well, in a sense. But I'll gladly put up with them for the sake of the overall good.
That's not what I said. You're a regular one-man scarecrow factory.

What? Do you think my sentence is too long for folks to understand? Certainly you wouldn't have included it in full if you thought otherwise. Or (surely not ) is it too complex for you? I can break it down if needed.
Hold on a minute! You yourself have published many a definition, and not all of them (I'd bet not half) are "used in the field of evolutionary biology". You have also complained that they're not sufficient.

Do you now argue that because we don't use stupid trick definitions you yourself find deficient, we cannot understand evolutionism?
Even the simple difference between 'would' and 'could', even this you will try to exploit in order to distort the situation.

Who said it did?

Again, you just think you can change subjects willy-nilly, and everyone must stupidly comply with your wishes and become distracted. This demonstrates that you have ignored the advice I just got done giving you.

So I guess there's no point in coaching you on how to be right, on the rare chance that you'll ever have another opportunity. If you do encounter another chance, feel free to squander it away just like the last one.