|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2007 11:46:23 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Captain's log, year 188... still waiting for the wickedness to die off. The carnivores are getting restless..." |
No longer pre-pubescent, eh? |
|
|
|
11/10/2007 11:56:35 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Captain's log, year 188... still waiting for the wickedness to die off. The carnivores are getting restless..." |
The hits just keep on rolling. This thread should be sticky'd to the top of Rant. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 01:01:43 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Both Science and Religion exist to convince us that they are unilateral entities; when the evidence clearly points to the fact that they are inseparably intertwined. |
What evidence is that? |
Areas of human consciousness, for example. Dreaming, Out of Body Experiences, Near Death Experiences, Precognition....I think there is sufficient evidence that dreams exist, yet science is unable to prove the exact mechanisms involved. |
You said that science and religion are inseparably intertwined, suggesting that one cannot exist without the other (correct if wrong). In support of this, you primarily offer dreams as evidence that science and religion are intertwined.
You seem to be suggesting that because something is not currently completely known, it must have a mystical element to it. I'm sure you'd agree that this isn't the case (you even suggest it somewhat). History and diligence have shown that given time and the appropriate application of scientific theory, once mysterious, supernatural, or otherwise misunderstood events can be explained. For example, there is an interesting theory on the true nature of the mysterious Oracle at Delphi.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
However, it's also proposed that there may be a paranormal element to these experiences that we cannot comprehend in our present state of being. |
I would have to ask, proposed by whom, and why? What evidence is there that dreams will never be explained away by scientific method?
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Another would be the subject of UFOs. Whatever the explanation for this, no one can deny that something is happening. Some scientists are interested in proving specific mass hysteria, which is almost as intriguing as the idea of otherworldly visitors. Others are happy to contend that humans are responsible. Religious believers are all over the map on it. Regardless, scientific and religious beliefs are intertwined on such subjects, at least for the foreseeable future.
|
I'm sorry, but I really don't see how science is "intertwined" with religion on any subject, and most specifically on that of UFOs, as you state here. You even suggest that both work at crossed purposes, or at least that religion has no one clear presentation on the subject. So I find this difficult to accept as a solid argument for much of anything. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 02:05:52 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Both Science and Religion exist to convince us that they are unilateral entities; when the evidence clearly points to the fact that they are inseparably intertwined. |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm sorry, but I really don't see how science is "intertwined" with religion on any subject... |
I can, but I had to think about it a bit. Essentially, religion = belief. Whether it's lightning or solar eclipses, humans turn to religion to explain the paranormal until science can offer a better answer. You don't need any facts to believe something, but it certainly helps the cause if there are enough nuggets of history or common knowledge to make it sound plausible. That's the science in belief.
Science requires evidence BUT... you must believe you know how something works (an hypothesis) before you can test it in the first place. That's the belief in science. So, people may not believe for long without a few supporting facts, and science might not have any hypotheses to test if not for belief in a particular principle. In that sense, at least, they could be considered intertwined.
Message edited by author 2007-11-11 02:06:07. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 08:04:13 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Christian theology is 100% compatible with all known science (not guesses and fabricated explanations, but real true observable science). |
This doesn't seem to be entirely accurate, Hawkeye. Christian theology is rife with miraculous events that defy known physical laws. Virgin birth, resurrection, the sun standing still...Matt 27:52-53 is also particularily problematic for anyone wishing to make this assertion.
Matt 27:52-53
52 "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life."
53 "They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."
What known science explains this passage?
|
|
|
|
11/11/2007 08:18:22 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
If there's one thing our history teaches us, it is that mankind has a built-in need for "God", in whatever form he may manifest. Not all individuals have this need, or are willing to recognize/acknowledge it at any rate, but mankind as a whole is driven by it as much as by our need to explore and learn. |
I would respectfully disagree. Mankind does not have a built in need for "God". Our history teaches us we seek for answers to that which we cannot explain. That need had been only adequately filled by the notion of a supernatural force (else, why so many diverse notions of the divine?). With advancements in technology, communication and better understanding of the physical laws of the universe, the gaps that God(s) used to fill are shrinking every day.
I honestly believe scientific inquiry is driven by a desire to better the human condition and understand our place in the natural world, rather than any theological notion to reveal the divine. The cynic in me feels it is also driven, in no small part, by the Almighty Dollar.
I don't mean to discount the numinous or the transcendent (not that I'm an intellectual by any stretch, lol)...I've experienced it myself on occasion. However, I'm quite content to attribute those emotions to a human experience, rather than a connection to a higher power.
Message edited by author 2007-11-11 08:18:55. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 09:03:39 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
These arguments are placed in the context of our frame of reference. As history has proven, this framework is constantly shifting. The physical and metaphysical have been shown to overlap on countless occasions. Until something can be explained to the human senses as perceptible to the human senses, it is discounted as supernatural. That's human nature.
Something about the human brain encourages us to sort these phenomenon into separate piles. Both Science and Religion exist to convince us that they are unilateral entities; when the evidence clearly points to the fact that they are inseparably intertwined. |
And in my mind, that's something that leaves room for growth over time and the latitude for change.
A friend of mine wrote this in a thread with, oddly enough, the same title, that someone started on another forum I participate in.......8>)
"OK-think about this: pheromones. We all emit them. We unconsciously smell and taste them. There is some research I recall that suggests these
chemicals are meant to suggest genetic compatibility between mates.
Now, that's not love--just a tuned approach to our instinctive drive to
reproduce.
"Love" grows from this. Love grows from shared experiences. Love is the
tool we have developed to provide us psychological support. It's a
punishment/gift for being sentient.
Just like God."
Man, do I ever love this thought!
I used the example of bumblebee flight before......for years it was thought from a physics standpoint that they shouldn't be able to fly; I think someone mentioned that they saw evidence since, but if you've ever had one land on your hand, and just look at it, their beauty and structure IMO has noting to do with anything logical and definable.
So I just accept it that they can fly 'cause I see them, and that they're beautiful.
That's what I meant when I said that I don't have to know the why of everything.....in this case, who cares?
It's like the pheromones and natural urge to procreate thing......we're made attractive to the opposite gender for that reason.
But explain to me why some people are so beautiful that they literally sytop traffic and every head turns, of both genders, when they walk by.
Beauty IMO, is inexplicable, subjective too to a point, but real, generally accepted beauty?
That's evidence of a benevolent God, IN MY OPINION.
I don't have to have anything more than that to make my life complete.
If that makes me less of a reasonable, real-world guy in your eyes, so be it, but when it comes to needing a resourceful, all around general talented and educated guy to help you deal with a problem, I'm not half bad!
Edited for fat fingers......
Message edited by author 2007-11-11 09:05:35.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2007 09:20:24 AM · #83 |
OHMIGAWD!!! What a stone HOWL!!!!
|
|
|
|
11/11/2007 09:56:29 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Both Science and Religion exist to convince us that they are unilateral entities; when the evidence clearly points to the fact that they are inseparably intertwined. |
What evidence is that? |
Areas of human consciousness, for example. Dreaming, Out of Body Experiences, Near Death Experiences, Precognition....I think there is sufficient evidence that dreams exist, yet science is unable to prove the exact mechanisms involved. |
You said that science and religion are inseparably intertwined, suggesting that one cannot exist without the other (correct if wrong). In support of this, you primarily offer dreams as evidence that science and religion are intertwined.
You seem to be suggesting that because something is not currently completely known, it must have a mystical element to it. I'm sure you'd agree that this isn't the case (you even suggest it somewhat). History and diligence have shown that given time and the appropriate application of scientific theory, once mysterious, supernatural, or otherwise misunderstood events can be explained. For example, there is an interesting theory on the true nature of the mysterious Oracle at Delphi. |
I'm suggesting that there will always be something that is not completely known. Once we know everything we will become "God", ourselves; which is the point I believe science (knowledge) and religion (worship of the "All Knowing") come together.
Thanks for the link to the Oracle of Delphi hypothesis. This is a perfect example of what I'm getting at. It's a pretty good bet that someone sitting around breathing "vapors" is going to get high. Science is interested in discovering the origin and composition of the vapors. Assuming scientists had a time machine and could definitively prove what they were; would that satisfy them? Because what interests me is proving whether or not she was faking it, or was the priest actually psychic? Was it all a hoax to get ratings? (That's my guess). And if it were proven that she was using a trance state to get that information, where did the information come from? How was she able to access it? What else is there, and how could we get to it? Until science can satisfy all of everyone's questions, it is tied with religion to explain.
See, my frustration with science is that it seems content to explain the sources of physical stimuli, but doesn't often delve into the mysterious. This is left to the parapsychologists, who are then subjected to ridicule for their methods and bias. Science may have the best tools for exploring these things, but it doesn't sell textbooks or help develop things for corporations.
I would like science to explain how my "psychic" friend came up to me and told me that something "huge" and "life changing" was happening to me at the VERY moment my father had passed on. Mind you, my father was not ill, and my friend never made any predictions before or after that. I didn't even know he had those abilities.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
However, it's also proposed that there may be a paranormal element to these experiences that we cannot comprehend in our present state of being. |
I would have to ask, proposed by whom, and why? What evidence is there that dreams will never be explained away by scientific method?
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Another would be the subject of UFOs. Whatever the explanation for this, no one can deny that something is happening. Some scientists are interested in proving specific mass hysteria, which is almost as intriguing as the idea of otherworldly visitors. Others are happy to contend that humans are responsible. Religious believers are all over the map on it. Regardless, scientific and religious beliefs are intertwined on such subjects, at least for the foreseeable future.
|
Originally posted by Louis:
I'm sorry, but I really don't see how science is "intertwined" with religion on any subject, and most specifically on that of UFOs, as you state here. You even suggest that both work at crossed purposes, or at least that religion has no one clear presentation on the subject. So I find this difficult to accept as a solid argument for much of anything. |
Some people believe that UFOs have always been here; and that Jesus himself my have actually been an ET. Archaeologists have found unexplained carvings and models, that could be interpreted as flying machines and ET likenesses, in ancient cultures. It's thought that perhaps these were religious items.
If the personal accounts are accurate, these beings may have the ability to transcend time and space; and therefore have access to the information we seek. Yet, it's hard for me to believe that any being knows all of the secrets of the Universe. Since the Universe is infinite (I believe), it would take infinitely long to acquire that knowledge. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 11:19:23 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
I'm suggesting that there will always be something that is not completely known. Once we know everything we will become "God", ourselves; which is the point I believe science (knowledge) and religion (worship of the "All Knowing") come together. |
I don't think it can be said that there will always be something that is not completely known. You don't know that. ;) And, I don't think knowledge makes anyone a god, not that I know what a god is supposed to be. Regardless, I don't think it's been demonstrated that these two positions lead to the conclusion that science and religion share properties (not to nitpick, but if that's your argument, that's how I see it).
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Because what interests me is proving whether or not she was faking it, or was the priest actually psychic? |
You would have to ask what "psychic" is. If you came up with a satisfactory definition, you would then have to analyze each prophecy for its relevance to the person it was spoken for, the likelihood of a "good guess", generalities that lead to reasonable conclusions (think cold reading), and much else. In other words, you must put the priestess' already mysterious utterances to the same scientific test that has caused many a latter-day psychic to fall on their own blade.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
And if it were proven that she was using a trance state to get that information, where did the information come from? How was she able to access it? What else is there, and how could we get to it? Until science can satisfy all of everyone's questions, it is tied with religion to explain. |
What is a trance state? How does one prove such a state? What is the likelihood that it is a physical condition such as frontal lobe epilepsy? And so on. Yes, religion attempts an "explanation", but as we have already acknowledged, it is filling the hole left by a mere lack of facts, and rather poorly. Given time, those facts can be discovered. By the way, I think some of the more virulent fundamentalists around here would take exception to associating religion in any way with paranormal phenomena. Just a friendly warning. ;)
Originally posted by rox_rox:
See, my frustration with science is that it seems content to explain the sources of physical stimuli, but doesn't often delve into the mysterious. |
Hm? Sure it does. The Pythoness is a perfect example, as we have seen. True scientists have indeed studied the data collected by parapsychologists, and have concluded that the methods of such collection are faulty, making the data useless. Any phenomenon is worthy of scientifc study, but if the conclusion doesn't fit an accepted scientific model, what good is it? That's the parapsychologists' problem; their methodology stinks, but because they are biased in the direction of what they believe in, they don't want to accept that. It really has nothing to do with a "certain kind" of scientist stepping up to fill a desperate need.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
I would like science to explain how my "psychic" friend came up to me and told me that something "huge" and "life changing" was happening to me at the VERY moment my father had passed on. |
Given the right tools, environment, and lettered individual willing to throw you a freebie, I'm sure it could be done. ;) In short, your friend is not "psychic" because of a good guess. Note your friend didn't offer any specifics.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Some people believe that UFOs have always been here; and that Jesus himself my have actually been an ET. Archaeologists have found unexplained carvings and models, that could be interpreted as flying machines and ET likenesses, in ancient cultures. |
Could be interpreted perhaps, in view of what's in the popular culture right now. They could also be interpreted in vastly different ways. What looks like a ufo-like metal dome on a tripod to you could be a bushel of grain in a clay pot. A bug-eyed alien face could be a priest in a mask.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
If the personal accounts are accurate, these beings may have the ability to transcend time and space; and therefore have access to the information we seek. |
Beings? What beings? How did they gain the ability to transcend time and space? What evidence is there of beings in the first place, and their transcendant abilities in the second? Etc.
Message edited by author 2007-11-11 11:22:42. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 01:51:26 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by RonB:
From an article in the New York Times called Rethinking What Caused the Last Mass Extinction about findings in a New Jersey Riverbed:
"Dr. Landman said he had since become increasingly confident that the iridium layer at the creek remained where it was deposited. It is presumably a true marker of an asteroid impact with global repercussions, and this further complicates understanding of the mass extinction. Why is there no evidence at the creek for the almost immediate post-impact destruction, as assumed by the standard theory?
. . .
After the event producing the iridium residue, and the occurrence of any accompanying disasters, Dr. Landman said, the extinctions were not immediate everywhere, certainly not among marine organisms off New Jersey.
âThis is what I imagine happening,â he said. âStorms of biblical proportions and a heavy discharge of river floods might have buried sediments rapidly. These marine communities may have flourished immediately afterward as a result of a lot of organic material, such as plankton, dying and settling to the depths for their consumption."
Science ASSUMING? Storms and floods of BIBLICAL proportions? RAPID sedimentation?
Who'da thunk? |
Wait. Wait. Wait! A creationist selectively quote-mining a newsmagazine article to suit his own position?! Why, egad, Iâve never heard of such at thing! LOL!
Here are some other snippets from the article which you neglected to include:
âSplashing through a shallow creek in suburban New Jersey, the paleontologists stepped back 65 million years to the time of the last mass extinction, the one notable for the demise of the dinosaurs.â
âDr. Keller, who had no part in the New Jersey discovery, has investigated the K-T boundary in Brazil, Mexico and Texas, finding evidence that she says indicates multiple asteroid impacts occurring at the end of the Cretaceous. She reported that the one that gouged out the Chicxulub crater at the tip of Mexicoâs Yucatán Peninsula, which had been the prime suspect in the extinction, struck at least 300,000 years before the dinosaurs died out.â
Like we continue to say, theories are revised to incorporate new data. If the data stands up, the theory is modified to conform to the data. The age of the earth is a conclusion reached using the scientific method and not an assumption.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2007 01:51:36 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't think it can be said that there will always be something that is not completely known. You don't know that. ;) And, I don't think knowledge makes anyone a god, not that I know what a god is supposed to be. Regardless, I don't think it's been demonstrated that these two positions lead to the conclusion that science and religion share properties (not to nitpick, but if that's your argument, that's how I see it). |
True, I don't know that. OK, let's assume that the human brain could evolve to be capable of knowing everything, including a simultaneous awareness of the happenings of every atom (or smaller thing) in the infinite Universe. Imagine the power of that knowledge. Wouldn't that be godlike? In my mind, the ultimate goal of science is to know everything; and if you know everything then you also know how to make everything do anything you want it to do.
And if you want to present yourself to a small segment of society on one miniscule planet as an old man in a white robe, well that's your perogative. Who knows, maybe you are bored and think it's fun to watch people explain how you've gotten them to believe in something that's physically impossible within their frame of reference?
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Because what interests me is proving whether or not she was faking it, or was the priest actually psychic? |
Originally posted by Louis:
You would have to ask what "psychic" is. If you came up with a satisfactory definition, you would then have to analyze each prophecy for its relevance to the person it was spoken for, the likelihood of a "good guess", generalities that lead to reasonable conclusions (think cold reading), and much else. In other words, you must put the priestess' already mysterious utterances to the same scientific test that has caused many a latter-day psychic to fall on their own blade. |
I was about to go into paradigms and the observer effect when it occurred to me that Dr. Pamela Heath expresses this much better than I can. (Scroll down)
"We are now in the middle of a paradigm shift. The classical paradigm, which has been held since Descartes, is based in the underlying assumption that the observer is separate from the observed. In essence, duality. It says that there is a fundamental subject-object (or mind-body) split. This presupposes that there are objective ways to define and measure the fixed external world--which the proponents of this paradigm would say is the only world that matters. The classical paradigm favors experimental research design, which presumes to measure the world in an objective way.
Anyone who has grown up in today's school systems might be justified in being a little confused at this point. We are taught that the double blind controlled experiment is the gold standard research methodology. What happened?
Physics.
The emergence of quantum theory started a fundamental shift in how we understand the world. Physicists suddenly realized that there is always some indeterminacy in our measurements. This is because the act of measurement itself can define and change that which is being measured. This means that the experimenter is always part of the experiment, and all our 'objective' facts are, in fact, potentially flawed. This insight led to the idea of a paradigm based on nonlocality. Somewhat amusingly, people who are unaware of this revolution in physics often become confused at this point, and accuse scientists of going off the deep end, falling for the trap of religion. Not true, although the ancient Hindu and Buddhist literature is in agreement about the oneness of the universe. This is science. Physics, to be specific. And while not all physicists agree, the new paradigm that is emerging is one in which the universe is a single whole, within which every part is intimately connected to every other part. Thus, the so-called objectivity of the classical paradigm is the true illusion, as an 'observer effect' is inevitable in any observation. The experimenter is a part of his or her experiment. This new paradigm does not, in itself, 'prove' psi exists (which I believe has already been done using meta-analysis of Ganzfeld studies). However, it is quite compatible with the possible existence of psi, and may lead to our better understanding the phenomena."
Forget the cold reading John Edwards and Sylvia Browns of the world. There are common, everyday people coming up with extremely accurate information and no desire to seek fame or fortune. In my assessment, the more famous the psychic, the less credible. Unfortunately such showboaters have caused many serious scientists to form bias against parapsychology.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
And if it were proven that she was using a trance state to get that information, where did the information come from? How was she able to access it? What else is there, and how could we get to it? Until science can satisfy all of everyone's questions, it is tied with religion to explain. |
Originally posted by Louis:
What is a trance state? How does one prove such a state? What is the likelihood that it is a physical condition such as frontal lobe epilepsy? And so on. Yes, religion attempts an "explanation", but as we have already acknowledged, it is filling the hole left by a mere lack of facts, and rather poorly. Given time, those facts can be discovered. By the way, I think some of the more virulent fundamentalists around here would take exception to associating religion in any way with paranormal phenomena. Just a friendly warning. ;) |
Hey, at least I'm good at something. It's not everyone who can piss of the scientific and religious community in one post;)
Originally posted by rox_rox:
See, my frustration with science is that it seems content to explain the sources of physical stimuli, but doesn't often delve into the mysterious. |
Originally posted by Louis:
Hm? Sure it does. The Pythoness is a perfect example, as we have seen. True scientists have indeed studied the data collected by parapsychologists, and have concluded that the methods of such collection are faulty, making the data useless. Any phenomenon is worthy of scientifc study, but if the conclusion doesn't fit an accepted scientific model, what good is it? That's the parapsychologists' problem; their methodology stinks, but because they are biased in the direction of what they believe in, they don't want to accept that. It really has nothing to do with a "certain kind" of scientist stepping up to fill a desperate need. |
"'It is not easy to change a lifelong, strongly held belief, even when there is strong evidence that the belief is wrong, so the publicly proclaimed skeptics are not likely ever to admit that psi per se is genuine ... The core assertion is the tired claim that after one hundred years of research, parapsychology has failed to provide convincing evidence for psi phenomena. This argument follows a certain logic. Skeptics refuse to belief that psi experiments, which they admit are successfully demonstrating something, are in fact demonstrating psi itself. By acknowledging that the results are real and unexplainable on the one hand, but by stubbornly insisting that those results could not possibly be due to psi on the other, then of course they can claim that parapsychology is a failure.' (Dean Radin from The Conscious Universe, pages 210-211)" (Dr. Pamela Heath's website)
Originally posted by rox_rox:
I would like science to explain how my "psychic" friend came up to me and told me that something "huge" and "life changing" was happening to me at the VERY moment my father had passed on. |
Originally posted by Louis:
Given the right tools, environment, and lettered individual willing to throw you a freebie, I'm sure it could be done. ;) In short, your friend is not "psychic" because of a good guess. Note your friend didn't offer any specifics. |
Actually it was much more specific than that, but the back story is long, and I'm not going to spend my time trying to convince anyone how extraordinary and unusual the experience was. And, I really can't say it any better than Dr. Heath has, already.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Some people believe that UFOs have always been here; and that Jesus himself my have actually been an ET. Archaeologists have found unexplained carvings and models, that could be interpreted as flying machines and ET likenesses, in ancient cultures. |
Originally posted by Louis:
Could be interpreted perhaps, in view of what's in the popular culture right now. They could also be interpreted in vastly different ways. What looks like a ufo-like metal dome on a tripod to you could be a bushel of grain in a clay pot. A bug-eyed alien face could be a priest in a mask. |
Exactly, and how scientific is an interpretation?
Originally posted by rox_rox:
If the personal accounts are accurate, these beings may have the ability to transcend time and space; and therefore have access to the information we seek. |
Originally posted by Louis:
Beings? What beings? How did they gain the ability to transcend time and space? What evidence is there of beings in the first place, and their transcendant abilities in the second? Etc. |
Who knows? Sometime between now and when science is in complete agreement on everything, we will have the answers.
I do have to wonder if the Sentinelese have similar discussions about us.
Sorry to everyone for this long post. I'm way to busy to be doing this anymore, but it's been fun and interesting and I'll check in later to find out how unpopular my opinion is.
Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
Message edited by author 2007-11-11 15:46:03. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 06:09:07 PM · #88 |
I don't know how so-called psychics ended up being discussed in this thread as they are neither Scientists nor Theologians. Most of them are just money-makers. Over the past fifteen years I've visited mediums, fortune tellers, and psychics and I've tried (yes, really) to keep an open mind to see if there was anything at all worth investigating or looking at from a more scientific viewpoint.
What I'll say is that they know how to play statistics, and they are brilliant at marketing and presenting themselves. They are mostly capitalising on grief and misfortune, but in some cases play a dangerous game of giving false hope.
The only area worth investigating scientifically is whether psychics/mediums actually believe they have a gift or if they really do hear voices in their head (i.e. if they are mentally ill), or if they are fully aware they are conning people. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 06:32:54 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
I don't know how so-called psychics ended up being discussed in this thread as they are neither Scientists nor Theologians. Most of them are just money-makers. Over the past fifteen years I've visited mediums, fortune tellers, and psychics and I've tried (yes, really) to keep an open mind to see if there was anything at all worth investigating or looking at from a more scientific viewpoint.
What I'll say is that they know how to play statistics, and they are brilliant at marketing and presenting themselves. They are mostly capitalising on grief and misfortune, but in some cases play a dangerous game of giving false hope.
The only area worth investigating scientifically is whether psychics/mediums actually believe they have a gift or if they really do hear voices in their head (i.e. if they are mentally ill), or if they are fully aware they are conning people. |
Just so you know, I didn't know my friend was psychic until the moment my father died. He never mentioned it before or after that instance, and certainly didn't capitalize on it. I agree with you 100% about those who pretend to be psychic and take advantage of people. Feel free to take the thread back in whatever direction you see fit. |
|
|
|
11/11/2007 06:46:46 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
From an article in the New York Times called Rethinking What Caused the Last Mass Extinction about findings in a New Jersey Riverbed:
"Dr. Landman said he had since become increasingly confident that the iridium layer at the creek remained where it was deposited. It is presumably a true marker of an asteroid impact with global repercussions, and this further complicates understanding of the mass extinction. Why is there no evidence at the creek for the almost immediate post-impact destruction, as assumed by the standard theory?
. . .
After the event producing the iridium residue, and the occurrence of any accompanying disasters, Dr. Landman said, the extinctions were not immediate everywhere, certainly not among marine organisms off New Jersey.
âThis is what I imagine happening,â he said. âStorms of biblical proportions and a heavy discharge of river floods might have buried sediments rapidly. These marine communities may have flourished immediately afterward as a result of a lot of organic material, such as plankton, dying and settling to the depths for their consumption."
Science ASSUMING? Storms and floods of BIBLICAL proportions? RAPID sedimentation?
Who'da thunk? |
Wait. Wait. Wait! A creationist selectively quote-mining a newsmagazine article to suit his own position?! Why, egad, Iâve never heard of such at thing! LOL!
Here are some other snippets from the article which you neglected to include:
âSplashing through a shallow creek in suburban New Jersey, the paleontologists stepped back 65 million years to the time of the last mass extinction, the one notable for the demise of the dinosaurs.â |
Question: How do the paleontologists KNOW ( not just conclude ) that the last mass extinction occurred 65 million years ago?
Originally posted by milo655321:
âDr. Keller, who had no part in the New Jersey discovery, has investigated the K-T boundary in Brazil, Mexico and Texas, finding evidence that she says indicates multiple asteroid impacts occurring at the end of the Cretaceous. She reported that the one that gouged out the Chicxulub crater at the tip of Mexicoâs Yucatán Peninsula, which had been the prime suspect in the extinction, struck at least 300,000 years before the dinosaurs died out.â |
Question: How does Dr. Keller KNOW ( not just conclude ) that an asteroid struck the Yucatan Peninsula 300,000 years before dinosaurs died out?
Originally posted by milo655321:
Like we continue to say, theories are revised to incorporate new data. If the data stands up, the theory is modified to conform to the data. The age of the earth is a conclusion reached using the scientific method and not an assumption.
|
Question: Is the conclusion about the age of the earth REALLY based on the scientific method? If so, would you be so kind as to provide an outline of the scientific method, and show me how each part is satisfied in order to support the conclusion about the age of the earth?
I, for one, am inclined to believe that there were several assumptions used in drawing the conclusion about the age of the earth. Assumptions like: the decay rate ( half life ) of some/any radioactive isotope has been absolutely constant since the very beginning. There is no proof that that is so.
Note: I am NOT arguing the age of the earth. For all I know, it is 4.5 billion years old. I'm only arguing that there is no scientific proof that it is billions of years old. Whatever method is used to infer the age of the earth has some degree of assumption inherent within it. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:19:20 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Question: Is the conclusion about the age of the earth REALLY based on the scientific method? If so, would you be so kind as to provide an outline of the scientific method, and show me how each part is satisfied in order to support the conclusion about the age of the earth?
|
Regardless, conclusions scientists come to are much better supported than the answer creationists give: "God made everything, I know because my priest told me so." |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:21:33 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by JBHale:
Originally posted by RonB:
Question: Is the conclusion about the age of the earth REALLY based on the scientific method? If so, would you be so kind as to provide an outline of the scientific method, and show me how each part is satisfied in order to support the conclusion about the age of the earth?
|
Regardless, conclusions scientists come to are much better supported than the answer creationists give: "God made everything, I know because my priest told me so." |
That's true about the scientists themselves. For everyone else its just blind acceptance of what someone else is telling you - priest, scientist, al gore, whoever. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:25:02 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by JBHale:
Originally posted by RonB:
Question: Is the conclusion about the age of the earth REALLY based on the scientific method? If so, would you be so kind as to provide an outline of the scientific method, and show me how each part is satisfied in order to support the conclusion about the age of the earth?
|
Regardless, conclusions scientists come to are much better supported than the answer creationists give: "God made everything, I know because my priest told me so." |
That's true about the scientists themselves. For everyone else its just blind acceptance of what someone else is telling you - priest, scientist, al gore, whoever. |
No it is exactly not same as with scientist. They are not telling you something just because they believe so.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 12:29:51 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by JBHale:
Originally posted by RonB:
Question: Is the conclusion about the age of the earth REALLY based on the scientific method? If so, would you be so kind as to provide an outline of the scientific method, and show me how each part is satisfied in order to support the conclusion about the age of the earth?
|
Regardless, conclusions scientists come to are much better supported than the answer creationists give: "God made everything, I know because my priest told me so." |
That's true about the scientists themselves. For everyone else its just blind acceptance of what someone else is telling you - priest, scientist, al gore, whoever. |
No it is exactly not same as with scientist. They are not telling you something just because they believe so. |
Their motivations are irrelevant to your blind acceptance of what they tell you.
Message edited by author 2007-11-12 00:30:16. |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 03:27:30 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
I don't know how so-called psychics ended up being discussed in this thread as they are neither Scientists nor Theologians. Most of them are just money-makers. Over the past fifteen years I've visited mediums, fortune tellers, and psychics and I've tried (yes, really) to keep an open mind to see if there was anything at all worth investigating or looking at from a more scientific viewpoint.
What I'll say is that they know how to play statistics, and they are brilliant at marketing and presenting themselves. They are mostly capitalising on grief and misfortune, but in some cases play a dangerous game of giving false hope.
The only area worth investigating scientifically is whether psychics/mediums actually believe they have a gift or if they really do hear voices in their head (i.e. if they are mentally ill), or if they are fully aware they are conning people. |
Well, that's kind of like trying to identify or define the parameters of luck.
It has been my experience that prescient or psychic phenomenae are semi-random/unpredictable.
I have had instances over the years where I have known what was wrong with a car without ever having opened the hood, and in cases where examination and proper diagnosis was the only way to ascertain the problem......yet sometimes I just knew.
It didn't happen very often, is was completely unpredictable, and a combination of weird and surprising when it happened.
But it was very real, and happened enough times to make me positive.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 03:34:08 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Question: Is the conclusion about the age of the earth REALLY based on the scientific method? If so, would you be so kind as to provide an outline of the scientific method, and show me how each part is satisfied in order to support the conclusion about the age of the earth?
|
Originally posted by JBHale:
Regardless, conclusions scientists come to are much better supported than the answer creationists give: "God made everything, I know because my priest told me so." |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
That's true about the scientists themselves. For everyone else its just blind acceptance of what someone else is telling you - priest, scientist, al gore, whoever. |
Originally posted by zxaar:
No it is exactly not same as with scientist. They are not telling you something just because they believe so. |
Well, yeah.....they are, but they have some substantive data to back it up.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 03:54:06 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, if during one of those bangs there was no one there to hear it, was it noisy? |
An irony of your statement is that it was the discovery of the echo of the big bang still reverberating that really established the theory to largely proven status.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 08:56:19 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, if during one of those bangs there was no one there to hear it, was it noisy? |
An irony of your statement is that it was the discovery of the echo of the big bang still reverberating that really established the theory to largely proven status. |
I love the "largely proven" part.
Reminds me of the phrase "mostly pregnant".
( Just picking on you Matthew ). :-)
I'm still evaluating the various evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, myself, and admit that it is fairly convincing. ( Note: for me, the Big Bang theory does not rule out the possibility of God being the creator behind it. )
|
|
|
|
11/12/2007 09:50:09 AM · #99 |
| If God created the Universe, who created God? |
|
|
|
11/12/2007 10:01:22 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
If God created the Universe, who created God? |
Humans. ;-) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/15/2025 12:22:18 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/15/2025 12:22:18 AM EDT.
|
