Jump to content
Science Forums

What Creationists Should Learn Here


Pyrotex

Recommended Posts

Hey turtle! Don't i get a treat for being a good doggy?

 

:lol: i think i dropped you a snausage® for post #77. :dog: you too have my deepest respect & admiration :heart: for your doggedness in calling a trough a trough and a fig a fig lo these many years here at hypography. :thumbs_up

 

as long as i'm at it, snausages® and phat phluffy love hugs :heart: for modest & coldcreation & pyrotex & thunderbird -may he rest in peace- & mr. jones & any and all who understand our rules & why we have them and say so in no uncertain terms when the need arises.

 

i earlier held off reposting something germane that michaeangelica put elsewhere as i thought this matter would stop, but there's still a poor pooch getting screwed i see by ducky's most recent posts. good grief. :turtle:

 

click the arrow preceding michael's name to read the entire post and find more links: (big phat phluffy hug for you too mick! :boy_hug: :boy: )

 

Rapture Ready: The Science of Self Delusion

 

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1

"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger (PDF)

. . .

And it's not just that people twist or selectively read scientific evidence to support their preexisting views. According to research by Yale Law School professor Dan Kahan and his colleagues, people's deep-seated views about morality, and about the way society should be ordered, strongly predict whom they consider to be a legitimate scientific expert in the first place—and thus where they consider "scientific consensus" to lie on contested issues.

. . .

In other words, people rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views—and thus the relative risks inherent in each scenario. A hierarchal individualist finds it difficult to believe that the things he prizes (commerce, industry, a man's freedom to possess a gun to defend his family) (PDF) could lead to outcomes deleterious to society. Whereas egalitarian communitarians tend to think that the free market causes harm, that patriarchal families mess up kids, and that people can't handle their guns. The study subjects weren't "anti-science"—not in their own minds, anyway. It's just that "science" was whatever they wanted it to be. "We've come to a misadventure, a bad situation where diverse citizens, who rely on diverse systems of cultural certification, are in conflict," says Kahan.[/size]

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Biblical interpretation of supernatural most definitely means immortal.

 

Supernatural (ADJ): above/more than/beyond/etc (super-) natural.

 

Immortal = eternal/supernatural/forever/indestructible/ etc. According to Bible and some Apocryphal writings, human beings are both mortal and immortal.

 

Yep. According to a several-thousand year-old book that doesn't cite its sources, gives no proof, and has unverified (and likely unverifiable) origins. You cannot use, for example, The Cat in the Hat as a book on how cats behave. Likewise, you cannot use unverified information to support claims. Doing so reduces them to conjecture.

 

It's not genetic in a physical sense, but genetic in an immortal way.

 

Genetic (ADJ): of or pertaining to genes.

 

What does "genetic in an immortal way" mean?

 

The immortal part of us is passed on through mother to child. In that sense it can almost be considered physical, except that this part of us is ethereal and eternal.

 

Or in other words, "In that sense it can almost be considered physical, except that this part of us is not physical." See below.

 

The phantom limb effect is the result of the physical part being gone while the immortal part remains.

 

Where is the proof of an 'immortal part'? If there is one, then it has the potential to change the course of science forever by correcting long-held misconceptions (this would be very good). However, you must first have proof.

 

I hope I haven't come off as too hostile here - that is not my intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supernatural (ADJ): above/more than/beyond/etc (super-) natural.

 

 

 

Yep. According to a several-thousand year-old book that doesn't cite its sources, gives no proof, and has unverified (and likely unverifiable) origins. You cannot use, for example, The Cat in the Hat as a book on how cats behave. Likewise, you cannot use unverified information to support claims. Doing so reduces them to conjecture.

 

 

 

Genetic (ADJ): of or pertaining to genes.

 

What does "genetic in an immortal way" mean?

 

You're right. The immortal seems to have a form of some kind but it would not be genetic material.

 

 

 

Or in other words, "In that sense it can almost be considered physical, except that this part of us is not physical." See below.

 

 

 

Where is the proof of an 'immortal part'? If there is one, then it has the potential to change the course of science forever by correcting long-held misconceptions (this would be very good). However, you must first have proof.

 

What about Kirlean Auras that CraigD mentioned above, or did I read it wrong?

 

 

I hope I haven't come off as too hostile here.

 

You didn't, you were just asking for proof and I understand the need for that. :) And the only proof I can offer at this time is the puzzle-paradigm I've detailed in another thread (which is inadmissible evidence here).

 

Creationists (also I.D.) have no interpreting strategy of Bible writings and most reject the Apocrypha, consequently they are 'making up their own doctrines, which creates inconsistencies' and just plain madness. Though they claim that a superior entity dictated the words, their doctrinal inconsistencies only reveal chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. The immortal seems to have a form of some kind but it would not be genetic material.

 

Could you clarify/restate this? I can't get much sense out of it at all as it is, unfortunately.

 

What about Kirlean Auras that CraigD mentioned above, or did I read it wrong?

 

As far as I know they do exist, but why would they be an 'immortal part'? Couldn't they be instead some kind of magnetic field (as someone said earlier) or other natural phenomenon? Essentially, what is the logic/thought process behind the conclusion that Kirlean Auras are 'supernatural parts'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you clarify/restate this? I can't get much sense out of it at all as it is, unfortunately.

 

I promised to stay on topic so perhaps I should clarify this elsewhere? :)

 

As far as I know they do exist, but why would they be an 'immortal part'? Couldn't they be instead some kind of magnetic field (as someone said earlier) or other natural phenomenon? Essentially, what is the logic/thought process behind the conclusion that Kirlean Auras are 'supernatural parts'?

 

Science doesn't presently know what Kirlean Auras are as yet but I personally believe they are natural phenomenon. It was I that earlier said I believed Kirlean Auras are not the supernatural (immortal) aura because plants have the same aura, as apparently do all living things. For that reason I believe its magnetic, a result of the earth's magnetic field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I promised to stay on topic so perhaps I should clarify this elsewhere? :)

 

 

 

Science doesn't presently know what Kirlean Auras are as yet but I personally believe they are natural phenomenon. It was I that earlier said I believed Kirlean Auras are not the supernatural (immortal) aura because plants have the same aura, as apparently do all living things. For that reason I believe its magnetic, a result of the earth's magnetic field.

 

 

DDuckwessel, do you even know what Kirlian auras are? They are produced by running a voltage through an object, they are not produced naturally and non living objects will do that same thing... they have nothing to do with the earth's magnetic field or life. Ghost images are thought to have been produced by contaminated photographic plates. I see no connection between this and creationism, I suggest you go back to the op or start a new thread in speculations about your ah... speculations.... and for your statement that science doesn't know what Kirlian auras are, really? REALLY? REALLY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DDuckwessel, do you even know what Kirlian auras are? They are produced by running a voltage through an object, they are not produced naturally and non living objects will do that same thing... they have nothing to do with the earth's magnetic field or life. Ghost images are thought to have been produced by contaminated photographic plates

 

Ghost images are 'thought' by one person to have been produced by contaminated plates. And what, all the plates were contaminated!!

 

I see no connection between this and creationism, I suggest you go back to the op or start a new thread in speculations about your

 

I did say "I promised to stay on topic so perhaps I should clarify this elsewhere".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you clarify/restate this? I can't get much sense out of it at all as it is, unfortunately...

 

As far as I know they do exist, but why would they be an 'immortal part'? Couldn't they be instead some kind of magnetic field (as someone said earlier) or other natural phenomenon? Essentially, what is the logic/thought process behind the conclusion that Kirlean Auras are 'supernatural parts'?

 

In light of information posted here I've had to rethink everything so perhaps I will be allowed to answer this here!

 

Wikipedia: An experiment in evidence of energy fields generated by living entities involves taking Kirlian contact photographs of a picked leaf at set periods, its gradual withering corresponding with a decline in the strength of the aura. In some experiments, if a section of a leaf was torn away after the first photograph, a faint image of the missing section would remain when a second photograph was taken

 

I initially thought that Kirlean photography might be evidence for the immortal element, however, the gradual decline in strength of the aura got me to thinking that anything immortal would not dissipate over time.

 

I also used to think that the 'phantom limb syndrome' was further evidence of an immortal aura but the following seems to be in favor of a physical correlation (see page xii):

http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2vQYWDhaXcoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA403&dq=phantom+limb+pain&ots=XN_QQ4wQeY&sig=8sIj6VjtQbDgeOwkpORqDXaUFfE#v=onepage&q=phantom%20limb%20pain&f=false

 

In light of both of those I have to go back to the drawing board on the immortal issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghost images are 'thought' by one person to have been produced by contaminated plates. And what, all the plates were contaminated!!

 

 

Yes, the plates were used in a way that insured the ones that showed ghost images were indeed contaminated, they used the same plate for the ghost image as they did the original, no leaf or other thing cut in half showed the effect of a ghost image unless it was the same plate that was used. The entire idea behind this stuff is at best pseudoscience and at worst a parlor trick....

 

I did say "I promised to stay on topic so perhaps I should clarify this elsewhere".

 

 

Good idea....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...