Creation and evolution go hand in hand

NO. Bad. Bad, Arauca. Very bad.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How close? Because science places them as far apart as possible, about 3 and a half billion years.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ Wellwisher I have read that sort of interpretation in the Nag Hammadi texts (2000 yo), where the Light was related to consciousness. To others it is the EM waves and to others it is the Sun.
From where do you get your ideas or do you think you are original?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And that is in the future???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm assuming by civilization he meant those that appeared around 10,000 years ago.

 

@arauca --

You are aware that the boiling point of water depends on the amount of pressure it's under. Take water up into the mountain where there's less air pressure and it will boil at a lower temperature. Send some water to the bottom of the ocean and you'll get it well above 100 C before it will boil.

@kwhilborn --

Nope. It's just that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle(which is what I'm sure you're referring to) doesn't say what you seem to think it says. The Uncertainty Principle doesn't have anything to do with consciousness, it says that the methods we use to observe the very small will directly affect it so we can't accurately know both location and velocity at the same time. We can measure the velocity of a particle by bouncing low frequency photons off of it but that can't determine it's location with any degree of accuracy(there are just too few photons hitting the particle to determine that). But if we use high frequency photons to determine it's location we alter the velocity of the particle. It's not that a consciousness is observing it and therefore it exists, it's that the particles are too small to be measured accurately.

You're making this too easy. You want scientific explanations for things like telepathy(which is technically "feeling at a distance")? Simple, it's a fraud.

 

I have, and I think you too have experienced things that are hard to explain in current scientific theory, so what I would like us to do is to look at what KW is proposing and to help him refine his experiments, rather than to just reject his work as fraud, for that is not his intention.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@Rob --

The difference between my experiences and those of people claiming telepathy or some other psychic BS is that my experiences are verified across a large cross-section of the human species and we have a verified mechanism by which it functions. You won't find anything like that when it comes to any psychic claims. None of the so-called researchers even really trie to come up with working mechanisms, they simply abuse quantum mechanics until it no longer resembles any science, or they flat out assert that it's our spirits/souls/essence/whatever which is communicating and completely skipping over the fact that their mechanism has either been proven to not exist or not been shown to exist with even one shred of evidence.

As for how to refine the experiments, how about some that are actually repeatable where the variables are all taken into account. I'm reminded of an experiment where a parapsychologist had amazing success getting his subjects to guess a number on a card that he had hidden in the room somewhere and he thought that he finally had some strong evidence for legitimate out of body experiences. However he overlooked one flaw which destroyed all of his results, each of the subjects saw the card and the number from a reflection off of a clock he foolishly left in the room.

The entire "field" of parapsychology is riddled with such amateur mistakes that it's almost impossible to take any claims seriously until they've been repeatedly verified by independent scientists, and so far none have. I suspect that these researchers want to believe in this so badly that they gloss over such things subconsciously.

 

Well that is all fair enough, but as I was saying KW is trying to do a genuine experiment, in his way, and if we can see flaws in it we should tell him. We were discussing the pattern that he was covering his shapes that you could intuitively guess. Someone thought there was a clue in the covering pattern. Things like that, which is a bit like the mirror in the example you gave.

 

LET'S START ALL OVER..

I wanted to discuss about mammals , I don't give a dam about Big Bang ,
If you want to bitch about red neck there are other forums , if about bio genesis , let us finish with this on or star your own , I will join you .

 

If you want the discussion to go in a certain direction you have to take in that direction. You definitely can't order it to go like you please.
Say something about abiogenesis, we are listening.
Trouble with biogenesis is that there isn't that mush to say for it hasn't been done.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mod Hat — Closure and Redirect

Mod Hat — Okay, whatever

Alright. Since this thread is now admittedly the farce most folks already knew it was, there really is no reason for it to carry on. Those who wish to continue arguing the scientific equality of myth and science can take it to the thread we have set aside for such recreation.