REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Dinosaurs in the bible?

POSTED BY: MIDORI
UPDATED: Sunday, August 21, 2005 07:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9205
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:00 PM

MIDORI

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:25 PM

SERGEANTX


This one's kinda fun too:

http://www.bibleufo.com

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:39 PM

EMMA


There are all sort of fun things in the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). Vast amounts of Genesis is a retelling of the Gilgamesh Epic and/or is trying to counteract other gods and religions, not by saying there is only one god but by saying god is the most powerful of them all.

I love this reference from the flood story, often understood throughout history as referring to giants as well as angels:

Genesis 6:2,4
2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days— and also afterwards— when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Whoever says the Bible is boring hasn't read it properly!

extremely dimensionally transcendental

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 4:31 AM

CHRISISALL


My favourite has always been " Better to put your seed in the belly of a whore, than to spill it on the Earth"

The Bible approves of Inara!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 4:46 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
This one's kinda fun too:

http://www.bibleufo.com

I mock you with my monkey Elohiym!

Thanks, I'll stick with my SSAMUD belief system.

Backwards Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 4:46 AM

SPINLAND


That just opened up the image of a whole raft of Book/Jayne/Inara interaction that I've decided not to pursue.

----
I hope she does the soup thing. It's always a hoot, and we don't all die from it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:45 AM

CHRISISALL


So midori, are you pushing that Intellegent Design theory here?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 6:50 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Spinland:
That just opened up the image of a whole raft of Book/Jayne/Inara interaction that I've decided not to pursue.

Well, now you've done it.
My inspiration kicked in the other night, and delivered hald\f of a genius idea, the setup for a whole genre of jokes:

"A mercenary, a Companion, and a Shepard walk into a bar--".

Unfortunately, that's where inspiration quit. I've got some ironic but not funny punch lines, and no middle story.

Anybody out theregot a follow-up?

NewOld
" This is why we lost, you know...superior numbers."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 6:50 AM

EMMA


now spinland, what on earth is wrong with Book/Jayne/Inara? I think that would provide a worthwhile and exciting *ahem* relationship. Dodgy fan-fiction is required, anybody?

extremely dimensionally transcendental

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:27 PM

SPIKEANDJEZEBEL


A very interesting site - I like the conclusions about dinosaurs, although I'm not sure I buy the rational for dinosaurs breathing fire.

I do find it amusing that in the "How Do You Know The Bible Is True?" section, it claims:

Quote:

However, Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can prove itself, and a main source of that proof is the Bible.


So, essentially it's saying that if one needs proof that the Bible is true, one should just read the Bible, because the Bible proves itself to be true. Circular logic is always fun to argue with!

"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational in order to prove that you care. Or indeed, why it should be necessary to prove it at all." -Kerr Avon

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:12 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


It is only thanks to the woeful lack of education and a host of inaccuracies recycled through pop culture that such nonsensical notions of humans living along side dinosaurs is able to persist.



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:13 PM

MIDORI


I believe in intelligent design- and I don't think evolution and ID are mutually exclusive- change in our physical nature is rampant in the bible- but I sincerely doubt a novel website is going to convince anyone, amuse maybe. If I had wanted to advertise my faith- I would have randomly quoted from the bible like this:

'But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.'
I Corinthians (ch. I, v. 27-29)

and then would have suggested skeptics to actually read the bible from Genesis to Revelations, and maybe "the faith of a Physicist" (the book that actually made me interested in reading the Bible which led to my subsequent conversion)

And then would have asked the mean people not to hate or scoff at me because of some pre-conceived or prejudiced notions about Christianity- not that I don't expect it anyway.

Love and Peace! Love and Peace! Love and Peace!













Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 8:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I don't hate and scoff because of pre-conceived notions about Christianity. I'm pretty catholic- I scoff at ALL religions! (I scoff at the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny too.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

..and then would have suggested skeptics to actually read the bible from Genesis to Revelations,...


Don't have to. The Bible is less than 2 thousand yrs old. Dinosaurs became extinct 65+ Million yrs ago.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:58 PM

HJERMSTED


Quote:

Originally posted by midori:
Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."





Of course any alleged wanna-be god is going to claim such a thing... who would follow a god that proclaimed, "I am a small part of the middle somewhere".

Here's a quote that is more in line with how I feel about all this religious clap trap:

"The most preposterous notion that Homo Sapiens have ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history."

Robert A. Heinlein
author of Stranger in a Strange Land

mattro

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:24 PM

PERFESSERGEE


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

..and then would have suggested skeptics to actually read the bible from Genesis to Revelations,...


Don't have to. The Bible is less than 2 thousand yrs old. Dinosaurs became extinct 65+ Million yrs ago.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "



Wait a minute, only the New Testament is less than 2,000 years old (but then it actually doesn't say much about cosmology anyway). Parts of the Hebrew bible are much older, and that's where the cosmology comes in. The first few pages of Genesis pretty much take care of it. But then if you read it carefully, you'll quickly notice that there are actually 2 separate accounts of creation in Genesis, and they don't map onto each other very well. So my question has always been, if the "answer's in Genesis", which one is it?

It takes a truly great piece of literature for the reader to find pretty much anything he/she wants in it.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:24 PM

HILOHILO


oops- see below

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:24 PM

HILOHILO


I'm the same poster as Midori- I had to re-register for some mysterious reason- geez- I kinda feel like Firefly after it got cancelled.
Anyway,
Here is an interesting article to counter popular belief. I just ask that you read this keeping in openmind that it is always good to question what one believes.

Evaluating Evolution in Plain English
by Jason Jackson

Many people believe that the dogma of organic evolution is as firmly established as the sphericity of the earth. But is it? Jason Jackson pulls the reputed “pillars” of this theory out from under it, and the doctrine crumbles under the weight of its own ill-conceived assertions.
Little children are taught about evolution from an early age, and the media continues to propagate it unabashedly. The following quotation is typical.


“The virtually infinite variations of life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals are descended from shrewlike creatures that lived more than 150,000,000 years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600,000,000 years ago; all plants and animals are derived from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3,000,000,000 years ago. Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification. Lineages of organisms change through generations; diversity arises because the lineages that descend from common ancestors diverge through time” (“Evolution,” Britannica 2003 Deluxe Edition CD-ROM).
“Educated people” believe in evolution, we’re reminded, and nearly all “serious scientists” accept it as well. Generalizations of these kinds may intimidate many, but many others are not swayed by such propaganda.

In scrutinizing evolution, we will briefly survey five pillars that allegedly support the theory of natural origins. The five pillars are: spontaneous generation, mutations, natural selection, fossils, and time.


Spontaneous Generation
Spontaneous generation is the belief that life came from the nonliving. It just happened. Where did the nonliving matter come from? We’re not told. Just accept the fact that matter was there, and then life happened. That is where the evolutionist wants to begin – life just magically appeared, and then it evolved.

Wait just a minute! Is this really scientific? What evidence is there that life just happened? Robert Jastrow, renowned astronomer and evolutionist, wrote:


“Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited: either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief” (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Norton, 1977, p. 62-63).
Without “concrete evidence,” yet they believe it anyway, and represent it as a “fact of science.” They have “refused to have God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28), so they accept what to them is more palatable – something came from nothing; there is nothing to support that idea.


Mutations
Mutations supposedly provide “the raw material for evolution,” according to one prominent spokesman for evolution, Sir Julian Huxley (Evolution in Action as quoted by Marshall and Sandra Hall in The Truth: God or Evolution?, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974, p. 23). A mutation is a scrambled genetic code, accounting for a variation in a living organism.

After decades of research, there is one conclusion about mutations that is indisputable – you don’t want one! Mutations are most often harmful. They have a negative effect and typically cause the death of the mutant, or sterility of the organism that results.

Mutations rarely occur. Geneticists learned that by X-raying drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly, they could increase the rate of mutations. Since the fruit fly produces a new generation every twelve days, scientists could alter the fly’s genetic code to study scores of generations. No new species were ever created by the mutations.


“What happened? Two things. One, the mutant flies either died over a period of generations, or, they came back to their original, normal conditions. They could not be changed! Drosophila melanogaster, frozen, steamed, blinded by light and darkness, and fried with X-rays, remained drosophila melanogaster” (Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? p. 142).

Natural Selection
Natural selection allegedly is “nature’s way” of passing on traits for species to survive. It is claimed that the fittest survive, passing on their survival skills genetically, and this somehow accounts for the development of new species.

Hugo DeVries, the late evolutionary botanist, quipped: “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but not the arrival of the fittest.”

For this reason, even a number of evolutionists have abandoned “natural selection” as the “only effective agency of evolution.”


Fossils
Do fossils prove evolution? Absolutely not. In fact, far from proving organic evolution, the existence of millions of fossils, nearly all in sedimentary rock (i.e., water-laid rock), cannot be explained by the evolutionary doctrine of uniformitarianism (i.e., slow, constant processes over long periods of time that supposedly explain the earth's geological features and fossil creatures).

Let's say you are driving to work one day, and you observe a dead oppossum, killed on the roadside. Months go by. Will you see that hideous sight fossilize over time. No way! If the buzzards have their way, it won't last a week. The point? Fossils must be buried quickly to escape decay. Since nearly all fossils are found in sedimentary rock, the presence of most fossils must be considered the result of some grand water catastrophe that affected the entire globe; sound familiar?

The great fossils graveyards that are found all over the world manifest great numbers and varieties of organisms that were buried together. Fossils, like trees, are found in many layers of strata, which layers would be dated millions of years apart according to evolutionary chronology. Footprints of hoofed animals and dinosaurs are found together in Uzbekistan and Virginia, yet mammals and reptiles supposedly are separated by millions of evolutionary years. In coal beds that allegedly pre-date the beginning of life, plants and human tools have been found together ( http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences29.html).

Neither geology nor paleontology prove evolution. The assumed sequence of evolution, from simple life-forms, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to birds, to mammals, to man – the supposed cause of the infinite varieties of plants and animals – is nowhere in fossil record. There is not merely a missing link. There are missing chains.

Although most life-forms that we know today are represented in the fossil record, conspicuously absent are many millions of fossils that should represent the transitional forms of life between the major “kinds.” Rather than being in some kind of ascending order, according to the theory of evolution, many are out-of-place, signifying that we are dealing with a mixed-up theory.


Time
But what about these rocks that supposedly are “millions of years old.” Is this not scientific data that proves evolution? With reference to the rocks and dating techniques, one hears plenty of conclusions but little proof. The dating methods of these so-called scientists are based upon evolutionary presuppositions. Their methods make unfounded assumptions about the nature of rocks and the rate of decay. These methods have found living mollusks to be 2,300 years old (for numerous examples of documented dating blunders, see Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth by Wayne Jackson).

Something suspicious is going on.


Evolutionist says: “This fossil is 70,000,000 years old because it is in this rock that is 70,000,000 years old.”
Student: “And how do you know the age of that rock?”

Evolutionist: “Because it contains a 70,000,000 year old fossil.”

R.H. Rastall wrote some years ago:


“It cannot be denied that from a strict philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle” (“Geology,” Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956, Vol. 10, p. 168).
Evolution is baseless and senseless. So why do people believe in it? Read “Why People Believe in Evolution,” found elsewhere on this web site. The theory doesn’t have a pillar to stand on. In addition to the materials we have referenced in this article, consider these concise, nontechnical treaments of the subject: The Twilight of Evolution by Henry M. Morris, and The Mythology of Modern Geology by Wayne Jackson, and note the many related artilces listed below.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:26 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It is only thanks to the woeful lack of education and a host of inaccuracies recycled through pop culture that such nonsensical notions of humans living along side dinosaurs is able to persist.



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "




Hello,

I have always been a fan of crypto-zoology. It's essentially the study and pursuit of 'legendary', 'mythological', 'rumored' or 'extinct' creatures that have not been proven to exist in our world by science.

The premise of crypto-zoology is two-fold.

One - We don't know everything yet, and can therefore be wrong in our assumptions. (This is a mighty handy premise to any science or scientific endeavor. If the whole of humanity could remember this one premise, they'd be a lot wiser.)

Two - Witness accounts of unknown creatures should not be dismissed out of hand, but rather investigated and judged according to their merits.

Crypto-Zoology brings us such creatures as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and the Abominable Snowman.

People love to scoff at crypto-zoologists because of their outlandish theories that creatures may exist despite lack of proof. Crypto-zoologists can be mocked in much the same way as UFO-ologists or anyone who believes they've been abducted by flying saucers.

However, unlike flying saucers, certain 'rumored' or 'extinct' creatures, once considered myth, have been found to be real!

One commonly overlooked example is the gorilla. New species and varieties of gorilla have been popping up occasionally over the past hundred years. Here is a recent bbc article about one of them: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3730574.stm

The Giant Squid is another example of a 'rumored' or 'mythological' creature found to be real: http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/squid.htm

There was recently (in the 1930's) discovered a species of fish in a body of water. These fish were believed to have been extinct for millions of years, but there they were, a living fossil: http://www.extinctanimal.com/the_coelacanth.htm

So, to scoff at people who believe that humans and dinosaurs may have lived at the same time, is to forget that occasionally, we are surprised by our ignorance. Certainly, there is no evidence that vast dinosaur populations roamed the earth at the same time as humans… but it is not outlandish to suggest that a few groups of 'extinct' creatures may have survived to perplex and frighten early man.

The Bible, incidentally, never speaks of a crypto-zoological creature more clearly, and with more detail, than is done in Job. Here is God, rattling off a list of real world creatures and creations… and he throws in some kind of sea-dwelling dragon. At the very least, Job himself was supposed to be familiar with this creature. It suggests that, at the time that the story was first told, humans believed that such creatures existed. That's not proof of their existence. It's just another clue that bears keeping in mind.

We just might not know everything yet.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:59 PM

PERFESSERGEE


Emma, spinland, and NOB: after reading the last couple of long posts, I must really beg you to finish the joke. This thread (and all its rational readers) desperately need some comic relief! Perhaps Chrisisall could stick another 10 cents worth or so (never only 2!) of his wit into the fray. Inquiring minds have been numbed and require help, before they tear their hair out in anguish.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 1:24 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

So, to scoff at people who believe that humans and dinosaurs may have lived at the same time, is to forget that occasionally, we are surprised by our ignorance. Certainly, there is no evidence that vast dinosaur populations roamed the earth at the same time as humans… but it is not outlandish to suggest that a few groups of 'extinct' creatures may have survived to perplex and frighten early man.

The Bible, incidentally, never speaks of a crypto-zoological creature more clearly, and with more detail, than is done in Job. Here is God, rattling off a list of real world creatures and creations… and he throws in some kind of sea-dwelling dragon. At the very least, Job himself was supposed to be familiar with this creature. It suggests that, at the time that the story was first told, humans believed that such creatures existed. That's not proof of their existence. It's just another clue that bears keeping in mind.

We just might not know everything yet.

--Anthony



I've been a paleontology nut since I was a kid. And as a young kid, it wasn't hard to group T.Rex, the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot into one basic group of really cool critters that no one sees alive. But as I grew older, studied more paleontology, became immersed in the evidence, the line of division between things that did exist and those that didn't became clearer.

We don't know EVERYTHING. But that's not the point. We never WILL. But we DO know a great deal more than we use to. And we can use what we DO know to put much into context as we try to uncover more information about our little planet and its history.

As for Crypto-Zoology, I have this to say. The oceans are vastly under explored, so revelations of unknown species should not surprise us much. Deep water critters are far more likely to reamin hidden to science. Squids are well known, so one which is really big shouldn't rock the scientific world all that much. Nor should the discovery of a Coelacanth. But a large aquatic animal in a confined area, say a Loch, is quite different.

Loch Ness was utterly covered by glaciers which retreated during the last ice age, 10-12,000 yrs ago. That's long after the Plesiosaurs ( which most believe Nessie of being ) became extinct. And as for Plesiosaurs, all the fossils we've found suggest they were fond of warm,salt water, not the deep, cold fresh waters of a Loch. Now, there might be a yet unknown animal which lives in or frequents Loch Ness which has no family ties to any Cretaceous species. That would be very interesting on its own right, but as yet, no such animal has been verified.

When it comes to land animals, the problem of concelement becomes much more difficult. Especially larger animals. All animals need to eat, mate and reproduce. For larger land animals, this requires lots of space. Much more space if the animal happens to be a carnivore.

And it must be pointed out that there wasn't a sudden shift in the flora and fauna from the Cretaceous to our modern day world. There is a history of 65+ MILLION years of strange and wonderful species arise and become extinct(?). For what ever reason, far fewer folks know much about what lived in this time period than of the 170+ million yrs which came before. But maybe it has something to do w/ what Paleontologist Dr. Robert Bakker said - " Dinosaurs are natures special effects ".

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 2:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hilo- Your books misrepresent current scientific knowledge so thoroughly I don't even know where to start. I realize that you're resistant to real science and prolly aren't going to learn much from this post, but I'm going to take a stab at just a few of the more profound errors in your citations and hope that you grasp that the sources you cite are grossly misinformed.

The first thing I noticed was the dates on your "scientific" books: 1977, 1974, 1956. Unlike religion- which seeks to remain static- science marches on. These books are outdated and don't contain recent, compelling information from genetics studies and geology.

Dating rocks, fossils, and ice cores
Rocks, fossils and ice cores can be assigned absolute dates (as opposed to relative dates) based on radioactive decay and relative isoptope abundance respectively. The dates are accurate to within a few thousand years. Compared to geologic time (hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of years) the range is insignificant. So- dates do not always depend on fossils, since absolute dates can be assigned at various points in the geologic record. Here is a little tutorial: www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tut.php?id=6

Mutations
All you have to do is look at the common cold virus or common bacteria to realize (1) mutations are common and (2) they do not cause organism's self-cancellation. If that were the case, we would never have to worry about getting sick again or developing ever-newer antibiotics to outsmart the little critters that manage to evolve about as fast as we manage to pursue them.
www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/fluctuatio
n.html


Fossils
That old saw about human footprints found with dinosaur tracks has been disproven. BTW- I looked at photos from the various creation websites, and those tracks did not look consistently human. Most were way too large and some showed features- even to my untrained eye- that didn't look human. According to this person- who went back to the original sites- some of the "human" tracks (w/in one trail) showed three-toed digits which indicates their true origins. Pretty much ditto the same as hoofprints and dinosaur tracks. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html

Spontaneous generation
I'm not a biologist, but I understand that this is an area of active discussion, not an area of "belief".


Science and religion
Religious like say that since science has not resolved of ALL questions science must "therefore" be flawed. But science is a process of discovering the natural world. It assumes that our understanding a flawed and incomplete but that we can approach better understanding by testing our ideas against the evidence of the real world.

In contrast, religion appears to be very much a closed system- particularly YOUR brand of religion which is a body of lore that seeks to remain static. There is no method of self-correction or even a way for new information to be validated and added.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 2:35 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


HILOHILO....have you seen this shocking news!!



http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html



" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 3:01 AM

REGRESSION


Come off it guys, don't be so harsh.
I say this because yes, I am one of them intelligent design people...
Ah, scoff not, friends!
Intelligent design puts forward the viewpoint that there is a great being above creation who made the universe. Through this, everything in nature can be explained. It makes up for the shortfalls of science. And yes, there are shortfalls, according to a recent textbook, and many biologist friends, evolution is not such solid fact.
So, it basically comes down to whether we believe that science has explained everything sufficiently, or not.

And like all arguments, there are three sides to it, yours, mine, and the right one...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 5:20 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:


We don't know EVERYTHING. But that's not the point. We never WILL. But we DO know a great deal more than we use to. And we can use what we DO know to put much into context as we try to uncover more information about our little planet and its history.

As for Crypto-Zoology, I have this to say. The oceans are vastly under explored, so relevations of unknown species should not surprise us much. Deep water critters are far more likely to reamin hidden to science. Squids are well known, so one which is really big shouldn't rock the scientific world all that much. Nor should the discovery of a Coelacanth. But a large aquatic animal in a confined area, say a Loch, is quite different.



Well, a couple of observations. One, Deep Water creatures ARE more likely to remain unknown to Science. I expect countless new discoveries in the years ahead, simply because we know so little about our Oceans.

That having been said, saying that a Giant Squid ought not to surprise us, is like saying that Giant Lizards or Giant Birds ought not to surprise us. They ought not to, but they do. Both Giant Lizards and Giant Birds have been objects of cryptozoological inquiry, and both have been scoffed at. So yes, giant versions of known animals surprise the bejeezus out of us. Anything previously unknown seems to.


Quote:


Loch Ness was utterly covered by glaciers which retreated during the last ice age, 10-12,000 yrs ago. That's long after the Plesiosaurs ( which most believe Nessie of being ) became extinct. And as for Plesiosaurs, all the fossils we've found suggest they were fond of warm,salt water, not the deep, cold fresh waters of a Loch. Now, there might be a yet unknown animal which lives in or frequents Loch Ness which has no family ties to any Cretaceous species. That would be very interesting on its own right, but as yet, no such animal has been verified.



And while something unexpected may yet turn up in the Loch, I don't expect it to. I threw in the Loch Ness monster as the sort of oft scoffed crypto-zoological creature that is usually accompanied with confirmed hoaxters. Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman has been tainted the same way.

Quote:

When it comes to land animals, the problem of concelement becomes much more difficult. Especially larger animals. All animals need to eat, mate and reproduce. For larger land animals, this requires lots of space. Much more space if the animal happens to be a carnivore.


And yet, large land animals continue to be discovered by science long after humans have seen them. One of the premises of crypto-zoology is that people have seen the buggers, they just haven't been able to produce scientifically verifiable evidence of them. New Gorilla species are often reported by natives and locals before a scientist ever gets around to 'discovering' them. It's also notable that while much of our land has been explored... some of it hasn't, or has been so lightly explored as to remain much of a mystery. Crypto-zoologists rarely suggest marauding colonies of animals, but rather small groups of hold-overs and survivors, usually in secluded or lightly populated areas. And most obviously, crypto-zoologists deal with animals that have been seen, just not scientifically verified.

I will throw this timber on the fire as well, for those who tout Science's flexibility over Religion. Any scientist who has ever proposed a truly revolutionary idea will find, despite hard evidence to support his theory, that there is a great deal of Faith in the Evidence based world of Science and Scientists. New ideas tend to be resisted until they are irresistable, most especially by proponents of the Old ideas. Admittedly, this likely has more to do with human nature than the Scientific method.



--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 5:33 AM

DIEGO


Sygnym makes a good start of refuting Hilo's long series of incorrect statements. I don't have the time to add much, but I would like to say one thing about spontaneous generation abiogenesis (the origin of life).

Most evolutionary biologists aren't particularly concerned with abiogenesis. The evidence points to a simple common ancestor for all life, but once things get down to more and more simple replicating macromolecules we leave the work to biochemists. That doesn't mean that there is any difficulty with the field of study. It's simply outside the purview of organismal evolution.

As for spontaneous generation, I have to say that this question is entirely moot. Spontaenous generation is the origin in a single leap of complex life. It would be like a bunch of organic molecules suddenly organizing into a mouse. If that ever happened evolutionary biologists would be seriously worried. Life getting started in simple stages fits perfectly within evolution, but the spontaneous generation model runs entirely contra to everything we know.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 5:48 AM

EMMA


what happened to the funky Bible debate?

I obviously totally misunderstood the whole point of this thread as a bit of fun with a rather old collection of books.

The Bible has bugger all to say about the creation of humanity (really, nearly everyone genuinely familiar with the Bible as literature, history and anthropology and not as religious propaganda will accept that). BUT that isn't to say that some kind of super/supraneutral being didn't have something to do with it.

Bring back the funky Bible stories, like Jonah being swallowed by a big fish, oh dear. That isn't going to help matters none is it?

extremely dimensionally transcendental

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 6:07 AM

DIEGO


Emma, you're right that the discussion has strayed perilously close to the ID thread. I came here for silly, funny bible stories too. and dinosaurs. Never forget dinosaurs (mine is an evil laugh). But I had to respond to some of the long diatribes I encountered (containing as much veracity as Jonah's story).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 7:16 AM

INDIGO


Quote:

HILOHILO....have you seen this shocking news!!
http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html

Thanks for that one Auraptor -- hysterical! Shlocking news... er, shocking... indeed. Fun game -- there are so many things wrong here I wouldn't know where to begin, save to say that my first big tip off as a past field supervisor, excavator, research assistant, preparator, and exhibit co-developer for uhm, let's say "highly placed members in the paleontogical community", was well, everything, without even bothering with the cheesy "hominid" (my, what gracile arms you have, too bad about the top of your skull and the lack of scapula, and your vertebrae, why, you must've been quite a tall feller for your time!) Wait, I guess that I had to bother.
Neatly replaced rocks at the edge of the field; precious little to no weathering of the fossils, considering that they seems to have been surface finds; while the black colour of them is certainly found, dependent upon the minerals present in fossilization they are obviously nifty-clean, shiny, resin bones -- without all those silly extra ones that clutter up your photo.
Sometimes, yes, there are guards at sensitive sites -- but they don't vet film. I like "Here is Billy [the guard] on lookout before final casting," and after driving on top of any other possible specimins. "After the cast was made around the whole specimens, and lifted into the truck, it was driven off," once you've excavated down far enough to encompass the rest of an allosaurus, a cast that large is exceptional... sometimes, when the helicopter (talking a Huey) can't take off with it, you have to cut in two. It's just not something you chuck in the back of a truck.
This was so cute. Textbook study for hoaxes/spoofs.

Beware of Geeks bearing gifs.
Blessed are the Geeks for they shall internet the world.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 7:59 AM

FIVVER


As a Christian, I have no problem with the idea of evolution. What we are dealing with are two questions of origin. Where did the universe come from and how did life begin? The answer we have from science is that 'stuff happens' and from religion is that everything was Created. Folks, pick your answer but understand that both are faith based. All of the discussion we as a nation have had on this topic have changed exactly 0 minds.

All I know for sure is that chicken tastes like dionsaur!

Fivver

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 8:18 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by fivver:
Folks, pick your answer but understand that both are faith based.

That doesn't seem to jibe with my understanding of the term 'faith', but for the discussion, if that's the case, what would you say is the difference between science and religion?
Quote:

All of the discussion we as a nation have had on this topic have changed exactly 0 minds.

Lots of minds get changed on this issue every day. Considering exactly 0 people were convinced of the validity of evolution to begin with and now millions do, it's pretty clear minds can change.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 8:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Regression
Quote:

It makes up for the shortfalls of science. And yes, there are shortfalls, according to a recent textbook, and many biologist friends, evolution is not such solid fact... So, it basically comes down to whether we believe that science has explained everything sufficiently, or not
Anyone who claims that "shortfalls" in scientific knowledge invalidate the scientific method clearly doesn't know anything about science! Scientists do not claim to know everything, nor do they make the claim that all hypotheses are correct. In fact, I would be very wary of any scientist or any branch of science that claims to have the "final answer" or that DOESN'T have any shortfalls. I leave that particular hubris to religion.

Here is a gloss of the scientific method.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION0212
1000000000000000



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 9:00 AM

FIVVER


Quote:


SergeantX:
That doesn't seem to jibe with my understanding of the term 'faith', but for the discussion, if that's the case, what would you say is the difference between science and religion?



By faith I meant believing in something you can't prove. Take the origin of life. Science says that at some unknown time in the past in some unknown enviromnent and for some unknown reason, a molecule started replicating, then increasing in organization and structure and then the rest is evolution. The only example we have of a self replicating moleucle is DNA which needs a highly specialized cell structure around it to keep if from being destoyed (darn it, why couldn't Captian Morgan Spiced Rum molecules be the counter example!).

Even the sub-cellular life forms we know of, viruses and prions, are parasitic in nature and rely on a cellular hosts DNA to replicate.

As far as minds being changed, I'm talking about the national discourse. Once someone comes to the table with an opinion, I think the odds of it being changed are slightly less than that of finding Nessie.

Fivver

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 9:32 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by fivver:
Quote:


SergeantX:
That doesn't seem to jibe with my understanding of the term 'faith', but for the discussion, if that's the case, what would you say is the difference between science and religion?



By faith I meant believing in something you can't prove.



Ok. I understand how you're saying they're the same, but I'm particularly interested in how you think science and religion differ, if at all. I mean, if they're the same thing, then why not teach religion alongside science?

It seems to me they are different, but I'm not a Christian. I was curious what you, or any other Christians willing to weigh in on the issue, see as the differences between science and religion.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 9:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

By faith I meant believing in something you can't prove
This isn't much of an explanation. First of all, you're using one synonym to explain the other: belief= faith. Second, you're ASSUMING that scientists "believe" (whatever that is) their hypotheses in the same way that religious "believe" their doctrines. For example, you assume that scientists "believe" the abiotic origins of life the same way the religious "believe" in creation. That particular statement is a hypothesis, not a fact, and there is a great deal of speculation going on about chemical reactions around hydrothermal vents, subsurface chemistry and even "seeding" by comets or meteors. I'm not a biologist and I'm not up on the latest thinking, but my understanding is that scientists think that life came from simpler chemicals (which places the origins of life in the non-supernatural realm) nobody has had an AHA! moment that encompasses all facts. Perhaps a real biologist can weigh in the the state of the science.

But even for well-established hypotheses (like the theory of gravity) any good scientist will tell you: it is impossible to entirely "prove" a hypothesis. The only thing you can do to a hypothesis is to keep testing it until it breaks. So, as far as scientists are concerned, a hypothesis is only as good as its latest test.

The difference between science and religion is what happens when "shortfalls" are noted. One of the interesting points about the religious is that they never put their own precepts to the same rigorous test that they expect of science. Most Biblical stories are immediately disproveable, at least if read literally. Even the quasi-religious ("god done it") expect more out of scientific explanation than they do out of their own belief system.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 9:53 AM

SERGEANTX


Maybe the difference is the types of things each addresses. Science tends to focus on things that can conceivably be proven true or false - like specifically predicting results or explaining observable processes. Whereas religion tends to focus on things that can't - like metaphysical questions on the nature of existence, the soul, the beginning of time etc.

But as scientific inquiry has broadened, the range of things it attempts address has begun to overlap with questions that were traditionally considered the realm of religion. Then we get things like the ID/evolution flap.

I see know reason why they can't coexist, as fivver was suggesting. And the more flexible religious pov's seem to be adopting and adapting to a changing scientific understandings, but others are less interested in changing and see science as an assault on their convictions...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 10:00 AM

FIVVER


I believe the universe and the life in it were deliberately created by God. As to what that purpose was, maybe some day He'll tell me. I think the Cliff Notes answer to your question is design vs happenstance.

Do I want science classes to teach the religious viewpoint? Absolutely not. However I also don't want them teaching random vacuum flucuations and self-replicating molecules as established fact. Maybe there is room in the curriculum for a comparative religion course.

Whenever I read Genesis 1, I am amazed at how way too well it seems to track with the big bang and evolutionary theories. Take our modern theories, explain them to someone who has no clue about science and then tell him to put it into poetry...

Fivver

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 10:10 AM

HKCAVALIER


Hey, Signy, I've been thinking about something for a while now, and this delightfully goofy thread affords me an opportunity to clarify some of my thoughts about modern scientific arrogance. Many scientists seem to think that science has adequately described most of the observable world with which we interact on a day to day basis; according to them, the world, for the most part, behaves the way they describe it as behaving. Many scientists acknowledge that there are things which science has yet to fathom, but there seems to me to be an underlying value judgment in their thinking: that what science does not yet know is somehow esoteric/fringy or nigh on unknowable to anyone at the present time.

Take the notion of life after death; science credits such a thing not at all, and our whole culture believes that there is no way of knowing what happens after you die (you know, 'cause you're dead, heh-heh). But all kinds of people have information about what happens after you die. I died when I was a little shy of 3 years old; a neighbor girl dropped me on my head and I was in a coma for three days, during which time my heart stopped for several minutes and then I came back. My memory of the experience reads like a new age cliché: I found myself standing in an indistinct space, more or less before a bunch of folks who were backlit by an astonishing brightness who told me to "GO BACK." Apparently I did. When I woke up, I had the first conscious thoughts that I remember ever putting into words. A nurse was showing me a pair of puppets, one in each hand. They were both in the style of Little Red Riding Hood, but for the fact that one of them was all in black & white plaid instead of red. She shook them and chanted, "Which one do you like, which one do you like...?" I remember thinking the words, "Of course I like the red one, the other one is wrong." Anyway, that all happened before I was 3, before I read a single book by Whitley Strieber or saw a single episode of In Search Of, and yet my experience coincides with the reports of millions from all over the world.

Most scientist whom I've had the pleasure of knowing do not imagine that their fundamental beliefs about everyday reality might be erroneous, or so flawed as to cripple any attempt to truly understand what's going on. My daily existence is full of phenomena which, I dare say, mainstream science would not credit. So, with constant proof of mainstream science's limitations, I conclude that mainstream scientists are, in some respects, a foolishly arrogant lot.

Here's something that might be worth discussing. You will prolly be able to clarify this to me. Thinking about UFO phenomena and your gloss on the scientific method:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
People claim that they were abducted by aliens
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
Aliens abduct people.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
People will continue to be abducted by aliens
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
Okay, no experiments yet, but lots of further observation, interviews with millions of people world wide with some varying results but several key elements of the abduction phenomenon consistently repeated
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Roger that!

I've never understood why scientists so often insist upon throwing out testimony from millions of witnesses simply because their testimony does not square with their beliefs. It seems unreasonable to assume that every last one of these folks is either flat wrong, deluded or lying.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 10:18 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I guess scientists would like to examine something other than "self-report" because it is essentially subjective?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 10:22 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess scientists would like to examine something other than "self-report" because it is essentially subjective?



But that doesn't make it "wrong." On the contrary, to my mind, it makes it "likely."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 10:35 AM

HKCAVALIER


Oh, and calling something "essentially subjective" is circular reasoning; something essentially unvarifiable through scientific means. The fact that people make these reports isn't subjective. The question of why so many people describe such strikingly similar experiences has yet to be adequately explained.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 10:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, if I were to do a scientific study, one of the things I would be looking for is whether this phenomenon always occurs when people die and are revived. If it only occurs sometimes or rarely, then I would wonder whether it is really a reliable indicator of what we call the "supernatural" or truly unknown phenomenon or whether it's related to some special circumstance- I would look specifically at how ppl died who experienced this phenomenon v how people died who didn't. Although it would be difficult, if I had an idea of what circumstances were involved I might try to reproduce them (minus the dying part), or perhaps see if electrical brain stimulation could reproduce the same effect. (For example, "out of body" experiences can be triggered by stimulation w/ electrodes.) http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/obe.html


BTW- calling something "subjective" isn't circular reasoning. Feeling hot is subjective, but temperature can be verified. I'd try to verify what people were subjectively reporting.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 10:42 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess scientists would like to examine something other than "self-report" because it is essentially subjective?



But that doesn't make it "wrong." On the contrary, to my mind, it makes it "likely."

But, HK, it does make it much more likely to be an experience that originates in the mind. I think that explanation, rather than discounting the phenomenon altogether, is the more common assumption of scientists. Of course, they're leaving out a whole rash of other explanations that you've mentioned.

I agree with you that 'something' is going on. It's far too universal and well-reported to be a hoax, or tall tales.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 11:15 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
But that doesn't make it "wrong." On the contrary, to my mind, it makes it "likely."

But, HK, it does make it much more likely to be an experience that originates in the mind.



See, now here's a totally unprovable assumption of materialistic thought: something called "the mind" is located in a thing called "the body." And yet there is no varifiable organ or location. The mechanism for feeling heat is located in heat-sensing nerves in the body which send information to the brain which relays the information to an extremity to pull it out of the fire, for instance, but where is the mind?

What if "mind" is a universal field of which we only "pick up" certain frequencies? Unable to sense the field as a whole, many people imagine that the field is a few billion localized entities. Others have some inkling of it, but it comes and goes very unreliably, so they call it "God." Still others of us perceive the larger field on a daily basis and call it the conscious world.

EDITED TO ADD: the concept of God as a partial perception of universal mind accounts nicely for the phenomenon of holy wars. People perceive that God exists within a local or national population and that those outside of that locality or nation have no God, meaning that they have no mind, meaning there is no stigma in killing them.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 11:52 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
See, now here's a totally unprovable assumption of materialistic thought: something called "the mind" is located in a thing called "the body." And yet there is no varifiable organ or location. The mechanism for feeling heat is located in heat-sensing nerves in the body which send information to the brain which relays the information to an extremity to pull it out of the fire, for instance, but where is the mind?

What if "mind" is a universal field of which we only "pick up" certain frequencies? Unable to sense the field as a whole, many people imagine that the field is a few billion localized entities. Others have some inkling of it, but it comes and goes very unreliably, so they call it "God." Still others of us perceive the larger field on a daily basis and call it the conscious world.

EDITED TO ADD: the concept of God as a partial perception of universal mind accounts nicely for the phenomenon of holy wars. People perceive that God exists within a local or national population and that those outside of that locality or nation have no God, meaning that they have no mind, meaning there is no stigma in killing them.



This is such fascinating stuff to me. I really wish I could find someone who's read GEB, that book I mentioned in the other thread. One of the themes of the book is presenting a *possible* materialistic explanation of the mind despite the difficulties you mentioned. A really interesting byproduct of the ideas is that they imply the possibility of he kind of universal mind you mention as well.

My son is majoring in neurophilosophy so you can imagine we have some really cool conversations on the topic.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 6:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I've read many books on the nature of 'consciousness' and I'm no closer to understanding the answer than before. But I do come down on the side that it is due to the physical functioning of the brain.

(I haven't made a specific study of the following, so if I'm wrong I hope someone will point out how.) As I understand it, when the EEG was first developed, it was recognized that a flat one indicated no higher brain function, and was associated with brain death and coma. Then there came a realization some drugs (like barbiturates) could suppress brain function and also produce a flat EEG. http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic207.htm However, assuming the person was simply in a drug-induced coma, the flat EEG was reversible as the drugs wore off and the person regained - consciousness.

So as a start, there has to be higher level brain activity for consciousness. (There is other support for this idea, but it's been too long since I read the arguments and I couldn't reproduce it here.)

Medical technology is getting better and better at looking at the brain's function at ever finer levels. What started out at as crude gauge of consciousness - ie the flatness of an EEG - has evolved into a more sophisticated understanding of the brain's workings.

For example, they know that there are several levels of perception: the one which bypasses your thoughts and connects directly with the limbic system (DOG ! SNARL ! FEAR !), the one of which you are aware (My that's a nasty looking dog), and the one which you register without conscious awareness (subliminal) but which nevertheless primes your consequent perceptions and actions.

So 'conscious' awareness is not the be-all and end-all of human thought.

I'd like to continue, but I have to be somewhere. I look forward to catching up with this fascinating topic being intelligently discussed by this wonderful crowd later.



Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2005 9:38 PM

REGRESSION


Quote:

Anyone who claims that "shortfalls" in scientific knowledge invalidate the scientific method clearly doesn't know anything about science! Scientists do not claim to know everything, nor do they make the claim that all hypotheses are correct.


SignyM, I think you misunderstand what I was getting at. I am not saying that the scientific method is incorrect, rather I am presenting two viewpoints.

One, where science attempts to explain the universe, and the creation of mankind. As you yourself have put it, science does not claim to have the final answer, and there are holes in scientific theories today, (else scientists would all be out of work)

The second is a religious viewpoint, with an all-powerful being as the creator of the universe. And with this, there are no flaws.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2005 12:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


"God done it" is flawless because it is empty. Unlike hypotheses- which lead to testable predictions- "God/ the devil/ insert- invisible being here done it" doesn't predict planetary orbits, antibiotic mechanisms or the behavior of electrons. Being an empty statement means it is not testable, but also not useful. I think that everyone who wants to promulgate "intelligent design" should swear off using all the fruits of science- an endeavor which is obviously flawed. Stop using electricity and stop posting on the inet. Don't use antibiotics or plastics. Don't eat unless the food was produced the good old-fashioned way (organically). Dig your own well and haul up the water by hand. I wish you could stop using gravity, but you can at least stop using the weather forecasts which depend on satellites. Otherwise you're being a hypocrite. (Oh wait- when did that ever bother the right wing?)

-------------------------------


For people who think that "intelligent design" is a discussion limited to evolution, did you know that the religious are attacking the theory of gravity? YUP! Because there is no "unified field theory", the theory of gravity is obviously flawed and should therefore be replaced by "intelligent falling". When I heard about this today, I thought it was a parody. But the folks attacking evolution are willing to take their proposal to its logical extension- since science doesn't explain everything we should replace it with a system that explains nothing.







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:07 AM

SERGEANTX


Signym,

That bit about intelligent falling WAS a parody.

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2&id=4309

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2005 2:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Wow- that's what I get for asking someone to look it up for me!!! I asked a friend to google it. She said- yup- it's real- nelgecting to tell me it was in The Onion. Sheesh! Next time I'll be sure to do my own research.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, February 25, 2024 03:22 - 5939 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, February 24, 2024 22:32 - 3178 posts
2024 Primaries
Sat, February 24, 2024 21:48 - 33 posts
Americans Owe Ukraine Nothing
Sat, February 24, 2024 20:48 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, February 24, 2024 20:43 - 1699 posts
Violent, diarrhea-inducing stomach bug spreads in Northeast: ‘Incredibly contagious’
Sat, February 24, 2024 13:05 - 3 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Sat, February 24, 2024 09:10 - 693 posts
Anti-Whiteism
Sat, February 24, 2024 09:00 - 2 posts
Durham Report Another Bust. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Sat, February 24, 2024 08:55 - 98 posts
Sentencing Thread
Sat, February 24, 2024 08:54 - 330 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Fri, February 23, 2024 21:59 - 975 posts
Microsoft and Amazon (and now Google) shedding jobs like a Covid Jabbed Victim sheds Covid
Fri, February 23, 2024 17:31 - 52 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL