- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
STU
Yes new knowledge always a GOOD thing, ?I just wrote “a GOD thing” first. HAHAH! I didn't think Evolution was that difficult but there is another point I need to explore another indicated I was lacking in so I will Look into it.
But Let's Start from Fact, I “KNOW” God created the Earth and ALL on it, inculding you again,(OLD material <-I was speaking of your Body). If such were possible? Then the person with such knowledge could conjecture about things Others less informed might not see? But if Possible do you aggree? Here we are in IF-land again I know. The Truth is I do know and at a very HIGH Level of certainity. I stand in
“The just right of centre Moral minority of Christian moderates with strong-hold membership of 1 plus infinity. I “KNOW” with certainity that this is SO, not dreamed up or aggree to as to follow the majority of Christian viewpoint like sheep. “My source he comfort me.” Slightly stolen verse but still true. So I have no great need to convert you or hope to in any way to do so. I see no point in proving my certainity to those not capable of understanding the Source. … KAB-62Hi Kimba08
Quote But Let's Start from Fact, I “KNOW” God created the Earth and ALL on it, inculding you again,(OLD material <-I was speaking of your Body). If such were possible? Then the person with such knowledge could conjecture about things Others less informed might not see? But if Possible do you aggree? Here we are in IF-land again I know. The Truth is I do know and at a very HIGH Level of certainity. I stand in
“The just right of centre Moral minority of Christian moderates with strong-hold membership of 1 plus infinity. I “KNOW” with certainity that this is SO, not dreamed up or aggree to as to follow the majority of Christian viewpoint like sheep. “My source he comfort me.” Slightly stolen verse but still true. So I have no great need to convert you or hope to in any way to do so. I see no point in proving my certainity to those not capable of understanding the Source. …
Your most difficult task with me would be converting me to the idea of accepting certainty. I am not certain that there is no god, but I think that uncertainty is the strength of my view. It is this style of thinking, done by far more intelligent people than me, that has led to the discovery and improvement of every scientific or technological advance, from antibiotics to zinc sunblock. I can make the obvious conclusion that based on all the availlable evidence there are no gods of the various kinds postulated by christians, but the conclusion is provisional: once you reach certainty you have accepted intellectual death. As for The Source, it is just another of the countless examples of humans writing books in which they tell other humans how to behave, claiming some special authority for it.Stuart
If you knew nothing of electricity and had never been shocked I agree you could never have certainty that it hurts to get shocked despite many people telling you. You could live your whole life doubting it after all without having the right type of equipment to read electricity a 110v shock doesn't leave burns or other “evidence” so you die believing that everyone was just trying to trick you into believeing that it hurts.
However once you touch those live wires all doubt is removed and you join the group of believers who know that 110v hurts. My point is you don't have equipment to “measure” spirit and until you experience it you will always doubt it but once you experience it you are a believer.
Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 25 2008,19:34) If you knew nothing of electricity and had never been shocked I agree you could never have certainty that it hurts to get shocked despite many people telling you. You could live your whole life doubting it after all without having the right type of equipment to read electricity a 110v shock doesn't leave burns or other “evidence” so you die believing that everyone was just trying to trick you into believeing that it hurts. However once you touch those live wires all doubt is removed and you join the group of believers who know that 110v hurts. My point is you don't have equipment to “measure” spirit and until you experience it you will always doubt it but once you experience it you are a believer.
Wm
But we do have neuroscientific equipment to measure spirit. It is sitting there waiting for you to tell it what spirit is. Then it can get measuring.In New Zealand we have 230VAC household mains supply. We are twice the believers in 'electricity hurts' that you Americans are! I know from my experience pushing my 10 year-old fingers into the christmas tree lights socket. Maybe your god was trying to tell me something back then!?
Stuart
neuroscientific equipment studies the nervous system which is not spiritual but physical.
Interestingly though the NY times did do an article where “the University of Pennsylvania took brain images of five women while they spoke in tongues and found that their frontal lobes — the thinking, willful part of the brain through which people control what they do — were relatively quiet, as were the language centers. The regions involved in maintaining self-consciousness were active. The women were not in blind trances, and it was unclear which region was driving the behavior.”
So possibly there are some indicators from the equipment but they would seem to support, rather then disprove, spirituality.
Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 26 2008,06:22) neuroscientific equipment studies the nervous system which is not spiritual but physical. Interestingly though the NY times did do an article where “the University of Pennsylvania took brain images of five women while they spoke in tongues and found that their frontal lobes — the thinking, willful part of the brain through which people control what they do — were relatively quiet, as were the language centers. The regions involved in maintaining self-consciousness were active. The women were not in blind trances, and it was unclear which region was driving the behavior.”
So possibly there are some indicators from the equipment but they would seem to support, rather then disprove, spirituality.
Wm
To my reading the research seems to have exactly the same problem as I mentioned above. It has not defined spirituality and has not actually found anything. That is not too surprising really.Quote neuroscientific equipment studies the nervous system which is not spiritual but physical.
Says who?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2008,21:31) Hey Stu. Have you evolved into a Christian yet?
Third off-topic post in two days. Your hypocrisy is becoming a sick joke.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 26 2008,15:37) Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 26 2008,06:22) neuroscientific equipment studies the nervous system which is not spiritual but physical. Interestingly though the NY times did do an article where “the University of Pennsylvania took brain images of five women while they spoke in tongues and found that their frontal lobes — the thinking, willful part of the brain through which people control what they do — were relatively quiet, as were the language centers. The regions involved in maintaining self-consciousness were active. The women were not in blind trances, and it was unclear which region was driving the behavior.”
So possibly there are some indicators from the equipment but they would seem to support, rather then disprove, spirituality.
Wm
To my reading the research seems to have exactly the same problem as I mentioned above. It has not defined spirituality and has not actually found anything. That is not too surprising really.Quote neuroscientific equipment studies the nervous system which is not spiritual but physical.
Says who?Stuart
I see… even when your offered “scientific” evidence you just blindly assert that it is wrong and twist it.The conclusion from the article was that “scientifically” the parts of the brain required for speech failed to show sufficient activity for the subject to be speaking, hence something unknown (and obviously undetectable) was driving the speech.
Quote It has not defined spirituality My point exactly, I maintain that there is no equipment for detecting spiritual activity. For you to state that neuroscientific equipment has not detected it, is like using a scale to weigh the electricity in a wire and offering the lack thereof as proof of the non-existance of electricity (going back to my earlier anology).
I see no reason to continue discussions with you, for you have no interest in truth and are here only to trip others up.
Wm
Hi seekingtruth
Quote I see… even when your offered “scientific” evidence you just blindly assert that it is wrong and twist it.
You want this article to be infallible and their interpretation of their non-findings set in concrete. You are looking at science from a religionist point of view.
[/quote]The conclusion from the article was that “scientifically” the parts of the brain required for speech failed to show sufficient activity for the subject to be speaking, hence something unknown (and obviously undetectable) was driving the speech. [/quote]
No! It is just that they did not detect it. That does not suggest it is undetectable. This is the same as the fallacious argument that goes ‘Life is just too complicated for me to understand, therefore it was created by the god of the holy book I read’. They got some people to do some activities and measured their brains and found little change. They did not define spirituality.Stu: It has not defined spirituality
Quote My point exactly, I maintain that there is no equipment for detecting spiritual activity. For you to state that neuroscientific equipment has not detected it, is like using a scale to weigh the electricity in a wire and offering the lack thereof as proof of the non-existance of electricity (going back to my earlier anology).
Exactly MY point! WHAT were they trying to detect? They didn’t say. Where does it say that spiritualty = speaking in tongues? The research does not actually connect ‘spirituality’ with brain research. Think you might find if you read the original paper you will discover that it is a journalist who has added the ‘s’ word. Your persistence with the idea that there is no equipment for measuring spirituality is no more than a blind faith position. You are saying ‘Go and measure it’ (Measure what?) ‘Just measure it… Oh I see you can’t, so therefore there is no equipment that can measure it.’Quote I see no reason to continue discussions with you, for you have no interest in truth and are here only to trip others up.
You have no interest in truth either if you are willing to say ridiculous things like “Neuroscientific equipment studies the nervous system which is not spiritual but physical. ..So possibly there are some indicators from the equipment but they would seem to support, rather then disprove, spirituality.” Do you understand what work would need to have been done to base those comments in science?Stuart
There's a general introuction in the Holy Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology
There is topic relevance through the evolutionary advantages that may be accrued through religious activity but if there is an appetite for looking more specifically at religious experience from the neuroscientific point of view we could launch a new thread.
Stuart
I do want to make some comments (in bold): – Wm
Wm's post –
Quote I see… even when your offered “scientific” evidence you just blindly assert that it is wrong and twist it.
Stu's Response –
You want this article to be infallible and their interpretation of their non-findings set in concrete. (putting words in my mouth are we? my comment was that it was “interesting” and that “indications were possible” but supported something more than what's currently understood, long way from “concrete”. As to non-findings many things are proven by not finding what's expected] You are looking at science from a religionist point of view.(Yes I do look to see how facts (not theories presented as facts) fit in with scripture).Wm's post –
Quote The conclusion from the article was that “scientifically” the parts of the brain required for speech failed to show sufficient activity for the subject to be speaking, hence something unknown (and obviously undetectable) was driving the speech.
Stu's Response –
No! It is just that they did not detect it. (hence it was undetectable) That does not suggest it is undetectable.(it was with the equipment they had) This is the same as the fallacious argument that goes ‘Life is just too complicated for me to understand, therefore it was created by the god of the holy book I read’. (supporting my claim that you twist (or in this case fabricate) as needed to try and “win” your argument) They got some people to do some activities and measured their brains and found little change. (??what?? are you referring to the article?) They did not define spirituality. (never said they did)Wm's post –
Quote My point exactly, I maintain that there is no equipment for detecting spiritual activity. For you to state that neuroscientific equipment has not detected it, is like using a scale to weigh the electricity in a wire and offering the lack thereof as proof of the non-existence of electricity (going back to my earlier analogy).
Stu's Response –
Exactly MY point! WHAT were they trying to detect? They didn’t say. Where does it say that spiritualty = speaking in tongues? The research does not actually connect ‘spirituality’ with brain research. Think you might find if you read the original paper you will discover that it is a journalist who has added the ‘s’ word. Your persistence with the idea that there is no equipment for measuring spirituality is no more than a blind faith position. (Stu, Stu, Stu… I responded to your assertion that “we do have neuroscientific equipment to measure spirit” which is a lot more like “blind faith” then anything I said) You are saying ‘Go and measure it’ (Measure what?) ‘Just measure it… Oh I see you can’t, so therefore there is no equipment that can measure it.’ (and you are saying that was the reasoning I used? If you can't win an argument just put words in someones mouth eh)Wm's post –
Quote I see no reason to continue discussions with you, for you have no interest in truth and are here only to trip others up.
Stu's Response –
You have no interest in truth either if you are willing to say ridiculous things like “Neuroscientific equipment studies the nervous system which is not spiritual but physical. (what department was it that certified this as a “spiritual” detector anyway?)..So possibly there are some indicators from the equipment but they would seem to support, rather then disprove, spirituality.” Do you understand what work would need to have been done to base those comments in science? (not much to support my claim of a “possible indication”)I chose to respond not to “prove my point” but to show the invalidity of your argument a clear example of the phrase “If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, buffalo them with BullS…”
Seekingtruth I am glad to see you retract your original assertions about the article you linked to. If a piece of equipment used to monitor the brain is not able to measure things 'spiritual' then the findings, whatever they were, are indeed irrelevant to spirituality. Ironically I disagree with you. However, if the article did not say they defined spirituality then of course their findings do not say anything about it, let alone 'tend to support' anything about it.
By the way you can't present a theory as a fact. The facts are the evidence which is explained by the theory. If you look to see how facts fit with scripture, what do you do when facts don't fit with scripture?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 26 2008,22:11) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2008,21:31) Hey Stu. Have you evolved into a Christian yet?
Third off-topic post in two days. Your hypocrisy is becoming a sick joke.Stuart
This thread is about Evolution and the theory suggests that living organisms adapt to their environment. So given the time you exist here, I was wondering if Evolution was starting to do its thing with you. So as you can see, it is entirely within the scope of Evolution.I also noted just now that you can dish it out, but you can't take it. It is one thing to dish it out Stu, but you have to be prepared to take it too.
I know that some of your accusations and opinions are offensive to some, but I am at least willing to entertain your opinion and take it in good steed and have a laugh too while I am there. But I noticed that you can't handle what you give to others, when it comes back to you.
I think I have proved my point. I hope you learned something today.
Stu,
I believe what I said was clear enough I will let it stand as is. You attempt to put your opponents on the defensive by distorting or twisting what they say. Can't you win your arguments with an opposing line of reasoning? Of course considering what your trying to defend…Wm
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 25 2004,20:30) Quote (itsme @ Aug. 23 2004,14:01) I don't believe the theory of evolution is true at all. A theory is different than a fact. Evolution itself is change over a period of time, thats also different than the THEORY of evolution… Hi itsme,
I agree it is just a theory, and one that is relatively easily refuted. Here are some arguments that I find compelling – collectively, they have convinced me that Darwinian evolution (the general theory of evolution) is completely fallacious:1. Lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
If the living things we see around us today had really evolved from primordial single-celled organisms – there would be many intermediate or transitional forms (i.e those with halfway structures). However, there is not one specimen which someone could make a water tight argument for. A few highly-debatable fossils have been held up but their validity has been subsequently demolished by the majority of the palentological intelligensia (e.g archaeopteryx).2. The absurdity of transitional forms.
It is a widely held evolutionary belief that birds evolved from land animals. Although many pondered how feathers could have developed (they are lightweight, strong aerodynamically-shaped with an intricate structure of barbs and hooks – a near perfect adaption for flight) given that the macro-evolution is essentially directionless and random (what would be the mechanism for the change?). Even if it could have happaned the transitional form would be this creature with partially-developed feathers on its limbs. This would have inhibited its competitiveness (it would be less fit to survive) – being not developed enough to allow flight (or insulation) but developed enough to reduce mobility. This halfway organism, totally vulnerable to any predator, would be selected AGAINST, quickly becoming extinct. You could make the same case for any of the transition phases btwn main forms.3. DNA is too complex to have evolved.
DNA is the most compact and efficient information storage and retrieval system known to mankind. There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopedia Britannica (30 volumes) three or four times over. Further, the amount of DNA that you could on a pinhead is equivalent in information content to a pile of books that when stacked would reach 300 times the distance the earth is from the moon. Yet it has specified complexity – that is the specific way it is ordered produces a meaningful instruction. This cannot evolve from nothing – not in any concievable timeframe.4. Cosmology
How did the universe come about?
creationist's answer: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1)
Evolutionist's answer (at present): In the beginning there was nothing…….then it exploded.
The anthropic principle is also good evidence for a God-created earth. It states that everything is in perfect balance. The size of the earth is just big enough to support an atmosphere. The distance from the sun is just right to support life (1% closer or further away and we would be incinerated or snap frozen). It all points to design.5. Mutations dont add information.
Mutations are essential to explain the addition of information needed to facilitate a change of one organism to another. However, mutations can only eliminate information and cannot produce new features. Ditto for natural selection – it can account for the modification of existing structures (e.g. Darwins finchs and their diverse beak morphologies) but not the development of new ones.The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Ps 19:1
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes,
His eternal power and devine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse. Rom 1:20God Bless
Stuart,I wonder if you have seen this post and if you have any thoughts concerning it.
Thanks,
MandyQuote (t8 @ Aug. 28 2008,22:45) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 26 2008,22:11) Quote (t8 @ Aug. 26 2008,21:31) Hey Stu. Have you evolved into a Christian yet?
Third off-topic post in two days. Your hypocrisy is becoming a sick joke.Stuart
This thread is about Evolution and the theory suggests that living organisms adapt to their environment. So given the time you exist here, I was wondering if Evolution was starting to do its thing with you. So as you can see, it is entirely within the scope of Evolution.I also noted just now that you can dish it out, but you can't take it. It is one thing to dish it out Stu, but you have to be prepared to take it too.
I know that some of your accusations and opinions are offensive to some, but I am at least willing to entertain your opinion and take it in good steed and have a laugh too while I am there. But I noticed that you can't handle what you give to others, when it comes back to you.
I think I have proved my point. I hope you learned something today.
What point do you think you have proved?Stuart
Quote (seekingtruth @ Aug. 29 2008,03:57) Stu,
I believe what I said was clear enough I will let it stand as is. You attempt to put your opponents on the defensive by distorting or twisting what they say. Can't you win your arguments with an opposing line of reasoning? Of course considering what your trying to defend…Wm
I think I have simply pointed out that there is no actual reasoning that links this neuroscience research to spirituality, and that it is ridiculous to accept seekingtruth's assertion that it will be impossible to make measurements of spirituality. If you call that twisting then I suppose any old thing will do in god's fantasy world. Real science requires just a little bit more robustness than the low standard of probity you both seem content with.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
